We’re just heading into Autumn - and winter is 3 months away
John M
PS. I’ve just received my OM-1 … now going thru a painstaking configuration process. Lots of nice new features … but a few I’m surprised to see didn’t make it across from the E-M1 iii … eg.
no longer possible to activate an AF-Mode along with default “Set Home” AF targets
E-M1 iii’s simple info screen no longer available
Lever on the AEL button (which I use as On/Off) is now a tiny/dinky little thing !
I have had the OM-1 for almost a month now and it is now my main camera. It has been selling very well in the Australian market (don’t know about elsewhere) where OM/Olympus ran through its first stock allocation within a few days of release.
DXO’s decision to calibrate but withhold the updated files (a small addition to the database) for for another 8-10 weeks (?) is a very poor way to treat customers who want to rely on DXO-PL but now will not be able to use the program for processing current/new images.
It’s also marketing madness: it’s like saying to us: “please go back to using Lightroom or Capture 1”.
Peter, couldn’t agree more with you. OM-1 is perhaps the best selling camera body for a long time and there definately is a huge number of DxO fans without support at the moment. Not good at all. I find this kind of arrogance quite frustrating and annoying.
I’m not sure that the word arrogance is warranted as I assume that there are reasons for the schedule but I definitely agree that it is highly disappointing.
The OM-1 has proven to be extremely popular and is selling out all over the world (I’m in Europe but read daily testimonies on the demand in North America too).
I’d like to ask @Marie if she could please investigate the possibility of either speeding up the next camera pack or releasing an extra one? If nothing else, such a gesture would turn quite a few of DxO’s customers even more loyal, allowing us to continue using our current workflows.
As Photolab and PureRAW, with its Deep PRIME denoising is such a great match for Olympus/OM system and m4/3 users, allowing us to shoot as if we had much larger sensors in our cameras but without the downsides in size and weight, you’d make a lot of customers very happy (and happy customers tend to attract new customers, especially in this age of social media )!
Fellas (@PeterGallagher, @jukpek, @innerVision) … I reckon best to let Marie (and her colleagues) work on this new calibration without stress/pressure.
We all agree that PL’s configuration of camera/lens corrections is best-in-class … and that doesn’t occur just by luck. Personally, I’m happy to wait until Marie is confident that the new settings are completely ready for release … and I don’t expect there to be any unnecessary delay.
I think a lot of the anger is the profiles are being released as a pack not when ready. DXO has got to come to terms with the Amazon Prime expectations of many users which they are clearly not addressing. There have been many requests to deal with the delays in producing profiles, including enabling the use of suitable alternatives profiles for cameras and lenses which have been ignored. The two related issues of slow profiles and not officially (there have been many posts on how to circumvent PL not using profiles thought suitable by users)using other profiles where one doesn’t exist are not going to go away just by DXO ignoring them and as a user I fear will weaken the customer base.
Perhaps not arrrogance but a fundamental flaw in the software architecture. If the whole software package has to be uppgraded in order to add support for certain cameras or lensee something has been done wrong at the beginning of the developement of the software.
There is delay because the correction are not released when ready but released when the applicaton is updated. That’s somewhat stupid considering the profiles are loaded on demand anyway…
Like most, if not all raw processors, when adding a new camera PhotoLab requires installation of an updated version of their software. The real issue is whether an updated version could be implemented sooner.
However, it is unlikely that any PhotoLab user posting here can say for certain whether DxO could implement camera support sooner without compromising the quality for which DxO is known.
All of us at one time or another have been frustrated by having to wait for support of a new camera or lens. We live in a world of immediate gratification and as a result many people lack the patience to wait. But good things are worth waiting for.
For the most part those frustrated by the delay of PhotoLab support for their new hardware prefer PhotoLab’s quality over the competition. If they were happy with the alternatives they wouldn’t waste their time complaining here.
No, it doesn’t require it. It’s just handled that way. The lens/body-profiles are just loaded on demand not via a software-update…
The need to update is somewhat artificial so DxO can sell major version updates because of camera support, that’s all.
Sorry, that is not correct. If it was, you’d be able to add support for new cameras to older versions of the software which you cannot. DxO is no different from any of their competition in this respect. Your attitude is very cynical. They don’t purposely hold back hardware support to squeeze more money out of us.
Wellllllll, they are different, being that ON1 and Adobe both support the OM-1 without releasing a major update. Everyone realizes that DxO is still a small company compared to Adobe, but when you have paid the kind of money DxO charges and then continue to pay every year or two for upgrading, well people expect (with every right) for DxO to quickly support a new camera. This is a highly competitive market, and if DxO wants to compete they had better rethink how they support new cameras. I am now forced to use other products, other products that I might find just as good if not better.
That certainly is your choice, and your right to do so.
Having used virtually all of PhotoLab’s competition, and owning licenses to several of them, I haven’t found any other software I prefer to it.
You specifically mentioned ON1 which can be useful software for the casual user with its large feature set, but it is slow, cumbersome, and bloated with mediocre output quality. Certainly not in the same league with PhotoLab. I own a license to the latest version of ON1, but I never use it because it’s too much of a quality compromise.
Of course it is correct: It’s an artificial barrier to have you buy the major upgrades if you want actual lens and body support. The lens/body-profiles are loaded on the fly though and of course that would be no problem for older versions of the application if it was allowed. You obviously have no clue what you are writing about…
This is a friendly site so I am not going to respond to your somewhat insulting comment or waste my time arguing with you since your mind is made up. Believe what you wish, and buy and use whatever software pleases you. If you are not happy with DxO’s policies you always have options.
Most definitely @mwsilvers is correct. What you are “downloading on the fly” are the lens modules. The body must first be supported by the software version at hand. There are a plethora of lenses that are supported provided that the body is first supported by the software. The software cannot even open the file to allow you to download the lens module if the body is not supported by the software version.
I’m not so sure about that, Allen (?)
The following note appeared in review of the OM-1 on the imaging-resource site (See above)
We noticed that OM-1 raw files can already be opened and edited in the current version of Adobe Camera Raw. However, we’ve been informed that this is unintentional, and Adobe has not yet updated ACR to fully recognize and handle the OM-1 raw files.
Meanwhile, I’ve not seen any (official) suggestion that OM-1 support by DxO will need to wait until a “major update” … Just not “on-the-fly”, as the base executable needs to be readied first.
Yes, it’s actually baffling to say to your customers “go back to C1/LR for a few months because we don’t want to bother releasing the profile”.
Whoever is in charge of Marketing and is making these decisions must have shares in Adobe or was asleep at the back of the Marketing 101 lecture, but was taking copious notes in “How to annoy your customers - 101”.
Seriously, this is business madness. I came to DXO because C1 were always very slow to support cameras, they have had a change of management and it shows. I hope DXO take note.
