Even though not all my lenses are supported I use PhotoLab daily. For those unsupported lenses, it’s more work to manually adjust the optical characteristics of the lens to my satisfaction, but I am still happy with the results I’m able to achieve.
Mark
This may hurt some of the purists but I think the concept of perfect lens corrections is overrated.
That said, as mirrorless systems from all major brands now have built in corrections baked into JPG files and embedded in RAW files it’s high time that DXO applies those profiles in the absence of their own profiles.
Some of the latest lenses have quite a bit of distortion “designed in” to produce an otherwise better/sharper image knowing that the camera body can and will undistort the image before saving it.
In fact the Sony’s apply the distortion corrections to the electronic viewfinder so the user doesn’t even see the distortion while framing the image.
As there’s no such a thing like a perfect lens and the lens manufacturers are only too happy to have no longer to care about distortions to lower their prices and compete against better corrected but not perfect lenses, the question pops up “is the software correction hurting anything?”
I used to say “yes, of course it is doing something to the image” together with “and I prefer to have that remain minimal” I actually became a lot easier on that subject. Back in the film days perfect lenses were the major goal. There was no such thing like CA correction, distortion correction or sharpening – even the enlarger’s lens had to be rather good. Today we’re doing “worse” manipulations to our images, so why continuously searching for perfect lenses? If there are well made corrections, what is the difference between software or hardware corrections?
I agree @MikeR DxO should face the fact there are inbuilt corrections in lens firmware which are better than waiting for ages and ages until lenses are “supported by holy DxO”. And honestly, I don’t like the fact so much that DxO also sharpens images with their lens profiles. I prefer to keep that in my hands.
I would happily take better corner sharpness which is harder to correct than geometric distortions which are easy to correct.
I shoot Sony mirrorless now and my lenses are ridiculously sharp and while geometric corrections aren’t huge, they are there, and I’m happy to apply them. (DXO has profiles for my Sony lenses.)
I tend to think it’s not so much about just making the lenses cheaper. These are all design trade offs. From distortion to sharpness to lens size to minimum focus distance to focus breathing to cost.
I guess I should not have restricted my post heading to "Sports lens support’’!
The bottom line is manufacturer’s lens profiles are better than the DXO alternative - no profile. I can’t see the strategy in providing expensive software with no lens profiles, which is the net effect for me. DXO profiles and DEEPPrime are the two major draws. Take away profiles altogether and you’re left with DEEPprime. Well, that really doesn’t cut it as value. That, in turn, makes you wonder if it’s better to just go to products that have already have good editing, lens corrections and database and just keep DEEPprime without paying for upgrades to PL5, FP and VP @ A$439 or 2.5 years even of an Adobe subscription model.
That, in turn, makes you wonder if it’s better to just go to products that have already have good editing, lens corrections and database and just keep DEEPprime without paying for upgrades to PL5
This is what I have decided to do. I switched to LR for the editing, and keep PL4 for some occasional DeepPRIME. Will definitely not pay for upgrades to PL5 or newer versions. I feel like I wasted $150 already.
I used to work with a 3D package that have unique wonderful features but lacked some major ones.
A lot of people liked and used this package, but didn’t upgrade for a long while because those major features where not implemented as fast as they would like.
Now this package is dead and those users who did not upgrade, now deplore its disappearance.
It’s quite disappointing. I wish I understood the strategy. I’m not sure if anyone on DXO picks up on the sentiments behind comments, especially as the fix should be so simple to implement. Oh, well, decisions have to be made, on both sides.
There was a thread with a suggestion to add the support of the embedded profiles.
https://forum.dxo.com/t/lens-profiles-offer-both-the-lens-manufacturer-in-lens-profile-and-the-dxo-lens-profile-where-both-are-available/
No feedback from DxO unfortunately.
Thanks, @Fwed. Just voted on that one. Not sure it’ll make a difference, though, as it’s been there for 2 years.