Good luck. I hope you can upgrade to Elite without a significant extra cost compared to buying it outright during the sale…
Mark
I sure hope that this works out for you migo. You will not be sorry that you got the Elite version. It really is like getting a Lexus instead of a Toyota. 
Yes I got the PL5+FP6 bundle with promo code for about $56 each. which I thought was a great deal. Not quite BF prices but still a good deal.
Thanks Greg. That’s what I wanted to know.
That’s great. I’m glad you are happy with the purchase. It seems the total amount you spent for Essential and the upgrade to Elite is similar to what it would have been if you had purchased Elite in the first place. I’m really pleased you were able to take advantage of the 50% off sale. You would have been kicking yourself tomorrow if you hadn’t done it. Let us know if you need any assistance using it. The features are in a few different places which can be confusing.
Mark
1 Like
Did a test with a raw-file from a Fuji X100F …
→ FP6 vs PL5 - #13 by Wolfgang
… Started with the Fuji-file but realized (after different trials), that while PL’s optical corrections worked, there was none in FP6, which also led to some differences in brightness.
note:
The result from PL5 looked alright to me.
Can you check with your cam, if you have similar results?
Or does Fuji ‘bake’ some corrections right into the raw-file?
Hi @Wolfgang
I am new the X100V, so will check the subtle differences later when I have more files to work with. At the moment I don’t think the RAF files are ‘baked’ within the camera. Actually, there is probably nothing for DXO to fix in terms of optics. I like Fuji’s optics and prefer the ‘none-corrections’ attempts by DXO.
Cheers
Mike
What sensor/generation does the X100V use?
The following is all based on my usage with an X-T4 (X-Trans IV)
I have been jumping between DXO PL5 & C1 Express (Fuji version) & LR CC.
Personally I find DXO PL5 is the worst result to begin with with its RAW processing. The majority of my pictures that are not family based contain trees and other foliage.
DXO gives the dreaded ‘worm’ effect very badly with its default settings. I haven’t found the time to play around with settings yet to see if I can rectify this. And yes granted this support is Beta at present.
LR CC is better but still present at times (Enhanced Details goes someway to ‘fixing’).
C1 Express wins hands down and ‘processes’ things such as foliage and fur much better even when we get into the silly realms of 400% pixel peeping. (LR CC breaks down at 200% I am personally unhappy with PL5 results at 100% but at screen size it looks fine).
I also feel C1 does a better job with colour from the off and its Fuji film simulations are closer to what I see in camera.
(LR CC’s Fuji film simulations are good too. Can’t comment of FP6 versions as I don’t have it.)
in terms of optics/corrections I find them all much a muchness.
Now for normal pictures (portrait/architecture/vehicles etc) all 3 programs produce good results and beyond colour reproduction which can be reproduced I don’t think it matters what you use but DXO for me at at present is failing with foliage. I suspect too much sharpening/clarity/detail/whatever. I need to find the time to dig deeper as I do like DXO PL just easier to get a result I’m happier with using C1 currently.
Of the 3 though DXO wins for value.
C1 Express fails when you want more control and the purchase is high and the subscription makes Adobe seem cheap!
For now I’m using C1 and over to LR if I need/want to add any masks etc but hoping DXO improves its Fuji support or I can find a suitable set of adjustments to bring the RAW process in line with C1. Just need to find the time!
Have seen no worm effect here. Always thought that was a Lr issue anyway. I find PL5 very close indeed to C1 in quality. Colour rendering is different but that can be corrected to taste.
Maybe I got unlucky with those shots but out of several pictures from a woodland shoot all had very obvious ‘worming’ in PL5 vs C1 in the moss on the tree bark and the fur on the squirrels.
Everything else was spot on though.
I suspect I just need to tweak the default process
1 Like
Keep in mind that Fuji x-tran support is still in beta. There will probably be continual tweaking of it by DxO based on feedback from Fuji shooters.
Mark
Oh I know. I said as much in my original response.
My response was more to highlight that the issue may be there for people in specific cases and to look for it and adjust if needed.
For every shot I decide to edit I will try PL5 first and see what’s what before deciding on using C1 or LR.
Sharing your experience will be very useful.
Mark
The big elephant in the room is Fuji and their nonsense X-trans! they need to get rid of it ASAP. It doesn’t add anything to the final output.
So for some comparison here a couple of screen grabs.
All with the respective default profile/correction added and no other adjustments by me. Looking at them side by side again PL5 is definitely applying too much sharpening by default I feel so i’ll play around with that and see if I can find a happy point.
DXO PL5:
C1 EXPRESS:
LR CC (Non Enhanced version. C1 still does a better job anyway):
Personally I find C1’s process a nice cleaner starting point, but crucially I wont pay for the full version as for my use case I think its too expensive and i’ll probably for the time being start my edit in C1 in the case’s that warrant it then move over to PL5 or LR as I feel is needed.
I hope the fuji support in DxO PL continues to improve though as that will then resume being my default choice.
What do others think?
Edit to add its definitely a fine detail issue as some other shots form the same day are better in DxO than LR and probably 50/50 against C1 and id just use PL5 if honest.
Anyway. Some tweaking to do as time permits.
I tried a bit ony my old Fuji RAWs. It’s amazing that so many body/lens combinations are already profiled. But of course not the Zeiss Touit 12/2.8. Why do I always step in gaps? 
But since Fuji became a rarely used backup-sytem (at the big advantage to use a Laowa 2:1 Macro 
which needs a macro rail to do focusstacks 
) I’m not that much interested in how the files get out in DxO. But I guess I’ll give them a try. I was happy with what C1 could do.
Hello,
@JoJu , Zeiss touit lenses will be supported this month 
@Lost_Manc , could you share with us the RAW file and dop sidecar ? In case you can’t attach them directly here, use upload.dxo.com
Regards,
Marie
Of course I can.
Will be a couple of days now though as now away from computer plus work demands.
If I recall the RAW is too big for the forum so I’ll use the link.
Will tag you again when done so you are aware.
I have just uploaded the file directly as too big to add here.
I have included the .dop which covers the original and two virtual copies (or should) vc1 is with the DXO Standard Preset and vc2 is DXO Optical Corrections Only.
Both virtual copies are in my opinion worse the the original un-corrected and I feel support my belief that too much sharpening is being applied as part of the optical corrections.
Whilst I accept this can be then edited back out I feel in certain circumstances and especially for someone with limited understanding or time to play around the result is an image that can look ‘bad’ and disappointing especially when it has been ‘corrected’ so in theory should look better than the RAW.
Capture 1 Express and LR CC seem to get this initial aspect ‘better’ more consistently at present from my initial testing.
Again. I am only talking about this point of the process. DxO PL5 still offers more in other areas but with this area lacking (if that’s the right phrase) it can discourage further work as the initial image can look ‘bad’.
As I said earlier though this is not happening on all images and it may be something specific to the squirrels fur and the moss on the tree branch that is causing the issue as a couple more from the day don’t exhibit this ‘worming’ effect.
I think this screenshot highlights perfectly what I am experiencing…
1:1 (100%)
200%
If you need anything else please ask and ill do my best.