🚀 go-pugleaf

Actually, it is supported:

 <http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/dxo_optics_pro/product_editions/cameras_lenses>

DXO will not run the optics and camera separately. There are lenses supported for the D80 that will not work with the D90 yet. I can attest to the fact that DXO will not run on files which include lenses still unsupported together. Which is the reason I didn't buy it. They are waaay behind the curve, unthinkable for professional uses, imo anyway.

The auto correction works well, the manual corrections sucks big time, due mostly to a gross GUI. Very user unfriendly.

Too bad, as their technology is basically first rate.

The D3 has auto correction for CA and distortion, so those two elements, if also supported, leaves very little more for DXO if you can use ACR properly in Photoshop. I don't know if the D700 also supports these corrections.

Which leaves me suspecting the value of newer Nikon lenses. If auto correction is available for $x thousands, what incentive does Nikon have to make the corrections in the optics? I think that the third party lenses are doing a better job, as the less expensive camera bodies depend on the lenses getting it right.

Larry, you are probably right about the combo not running if not supported. i forgot i had sent my d700 back for cleaning,so i had used my d200 for a month. still the clarity it gives to fine details is not possible using acr,no matter how much sharpening or any other adjustment i make. dxo simply optimizes the data for the file like nothing i have ever seen.

The knock I've heard on DXO is that they are very slow at releasing updates to cover new lenses (to the point of not doing it at all).

Photoshop carefully used matches or exceeds anything DXO can do except for corrections in A and distortion, and those are really best handled by an algorithm rather than by eye.

Ho, exactly my point. DXO for my D90/lens combo is non-existent. And I have 4 lenses for it, all supported on my D80! OTOH, both the 50mm Nikon 1.8 and the Tamron 28 to 75 are so clean I don't worry about it.

Basically, DXO has excellent optical software components, and SLRGear, DXO Optics and DXO Mark use them to their best advantage.

Maybe its just my lenses,but my 17-35 looks like a totally different result through dxo. i have trees at the eedges of frames that are okay,but with dxo,they are razor sharp. i cannot get anywhere close using usm or any other adjustment.

The D3 correction for lenses only applies if you process the raw files with Nikon Capture NX/NX2.

It's a pity that DXO choose to label some cameras exclusively "pro" at their own whim and these cameras are only available in the elite version of the program at nearly twice the price of the already expensive basic program. This seems to be the only difference between the two levels of programs, the features appear the same.

The D3 and D700 are considered "pro" and are unsupported in the standard version. The D300 isn't considered "pro", obviously, because it is supported in the standard version along with all "lower-class" D-series Nikons.

To me this is just predatory pricing with no justification other than how much money you've spent on a camera.

Even at the elite price,i think i am going to purchase it. i tested my 105 micro this afternoon, and there again it is a huge improvement in the clarity between the acr file and the dxo, so right now i give them high marks for the results with my lenses. It literally looks like a new sensor to me.

Crops! We want 100% crops!!

I see no huge differences.

Must be the D80 is so lousy, nothing will fix it!:D

Otoh, the D90 at 100% with hardly any sharpening reminds me of Tech Pan under a foccusing magnifier. I cannot conceive of any greater performance. Well, maybe there is....

Perhaps we need a working definition of "huge" My SO sees differences as huge and I see them as minor. She has no word for what I call huge.

Sometimes it's "Yuk!":D

      I see no huge differences.





      Must be the D80 is so lousy, nothing will fix it!:D




�or so good, nothing can improve it. ;)

Don't I wish! I could have saved the money.

The D90 is a substantial improvement itself. No additional tweaks necessary.

Donald:

I have just been trying out the DXOO Elite version and frankly the results are a lot WORSE than the results that I get (with much greater ease and speed) from ACR 5.3!

A much better use of the money that the highly over-priced DXOO Elite costs would be to buy the Photoshop CS4 Upgrade.

ACR 5.3 also does a far better job of both sharpening and noise reduction than DXOO.

Nik Dfine NR is also better than DXO.

Looks like I'm in for another round of spending, this time on computers and software. I have no patience for shabby HW/SW performance, and to date, the current crop of Intel hardware blows away the competition. No matter whether it's Mac or PC, the Intel i7's can't be touched, and the accompanying mobo is probably the best there is in that department as well. However, for graphics, you have to give up a bit of ultimate speed for greater flexibility, especially in RAM size and from that POV, Asus has a fine product.

Spendy. By the time one buys just the board, cpu and sufficient ram for even just 6G, you are pushing $700 to $800. For the slowest(!) cpu.

When I tested the combination with CS4, I found no degradations with the modest 7 series nVidia graphics card. I could install any of three versions and see no problems. The 3D was enabled on all of them.

Here is a crop from a file in acr, and the next post will have the same file through dxo. to me there is no comparison. maybe my older lenses benefit more from it. i just ran someones d300 and 17-55 and i saw very minimal difference. this was from my 105 micro.

 <http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1uIE3ArwWsOO1M34jna5ULIuLyUNT1>

The dxo version

 <http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1MAoSbK2X0bMJKxsK8LHBgf2G3gg>

Here is a tree crop near the edge of a frame. acr here.

 <http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1TIDPG5LzPYB0SsJfTG8zbU3j0Rt1>

And Dxo here. all of these have no sharpening.

 <http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1cqR2VjdVHud3sRtLZyACMYaLrVyG>

But WHICH version of ACR are you using?

And which Camera Profile?
And what settings are you using to Sharpen in the Details panel?

The whole point is that I think that you can do just as well in CS4/ACR 5.3 without spending the earth on DXOO.

I notice some haloing around contrast edges (typical of oversharpening) in the Dxo version, not visible in the ACR version. So something else must be going on "behind the scenes".

Neil

I cant comment on the latest acr, but i have a hard time believing they are attacking lens deficiencies like dxo claims to do. I have tried a ton of usm settings to replicate the edge definition i am seeing,but it is just not the same.I certainly do not feel like wasting money needlessly, but i am in no hurry to learn a new version of photoshop either right now. Like i said,my older lenses seem to gain more than the newest versions so i will keep testing it.

Donald:

Do download the trial version of CS4 and try ACR 5.3 for yourself because it is VERY different from the old ACR 4.

And the Sharpening and Noise-reduction tools in the Details panel are far advanced beyond USM!

I see the same thing with the DxO sharpener, in fact with the Nik one as well. So I sharpen with either ACR or Smart. sometimes a combo if both. And I only go as far as what I would see with a 10x magnifier under an enlarger projecting a 4x enlargement or so. No artifacts there, and if it still isn't sharp enough, too bad.

I don't "let" a program decide.

Anyway, my pov.

Whatever works.