DxO Optics 9

[JimAscher]

As an update to my still ongoing dialogue with the "friendly" DxO rep, after more than two months she regularly informs me that they're still "working on it."  At her request I've sent them several DNG photos directly from my SD card from my Ricoh GXR M-Mount for them to examine.  Needless to say, at this stage I'm no longer hopeful that they'll be able to resolve "their" DNG problem.

After several more email exchanges over the past few weeks with my still-friendly DxO rep, she has finally informed me that:

"We currently support the Leica:

M (Typ 240)
M9/ M9-P/ M-E

and that does include .DNG support because that is the main image format.

However, the GXR using the A12 Mount will not show up as supported, so unfortunately they will not be able to be corrected. I am not sure why we did not support the GXR and you are correct that since it is being discontinued I doubt the module will be created.

Please let me know if you have any questions."

So, I guess the case (for me anyway) is closed.  But she does, as you note, claim they do support DNG files from the various digital Leica models themselves."

[Vladimirovich]

I thought one of the main benefits of DNG files was to eliminate such issues.

several manufacturers of raw converters take a stance that they will only support raw files the way a camera's firmware wrote them (let us call this OOC raw, like OOC jpg)... so it is not about DNG or non DNG - it is about OOC raw (DNG or not - however where camera produces both DNG and non DNG, like Pentax used to, some decided to support only non DNG raw - now that probably was more political) vs converted DNG (from OOC raw)...

[Bryan Conner]

I can see both sides of the issue concerning DXO's not including the ability to read files that were converted to dng.  DXO probably does not want that variable (conversion to dng) in the workflow that is producing either the customer's satisfaction or dissatisfaction.  In other words, if a customer is having an issue with the processing of a raw image, DXO may not want to have the Adobe variable in the mix.

Personally, I think not including the capability to read/process a file converted to dng is just as shortsighted and closed minded as limiting users to AdobeRGB as the largest color space and not incorporating ProPhotoRGB as a legitimate option.

It is a real shame because DXO Optics could be SO much better.  It COULD be a contender for the best processor against Lightroom/ACR and Phase 1. 

DXO does have a really nice customer service rep.  I can not remember her name, but she is a good one....lol...very patient being in the middle of pixel peepers and engineers.....

[JimAscher]

several manufacturers of raw converters take a stance that they will only support raw files the way a camera's firmware wrote them (let us call this OOC raw, like OOC jpg)... so it is not about DNG or non DNG - it is about OOC raw (DNG or not - however where camera produces both DNG and non DNG, like Pentax used to, some decided to support only non DNG raw - now that probably was more political) vs converted DNG (from OOC raw)...

Unless I don't understand the terminology correctly, my Ricoh GXR M-mount's firmware DOES write the files in DNG, the same as the Leica cameras do.  It does not "convert" them to DNG.  What am I missing?

[jjj]

Unless I don't understand the terminology correctly, my Ricoh GXR M-mount's firmware DOES write the files in DNG, the same as the Leica cameras do.  It does not "convert" them to DNG.  What am I missing?

You can also convert a .nef or .cr2 file to DNG and it appears that converted to DNG files are persona no grata.

DXO could simply have a [dismissible] warning dialogue saying they prefer the original out of camera raw file and the user could carry on if they want to.
Though does it really make that much difference, as I thought the file types were more of a wrapper for the raw information? Which is a common thing with video/music files and converted DNGs were likewise simply rewrapped.

[JimAscher]

You can also convert a .nef or .cr2 file to DNG and it appears that converted to DNG files are persona no grata.

DXO could simply have a [dismissible] warning dialogue saying they prefer the original out of camera raw file and the user could carry on if they want to.
Though does it really make that much difference, as I thought the file types were more of a wrapper for the raw information? Which is a common thing with video/music files and converted DNGs were likewise simply rewrapped.

So, if I convert my DNG files from my camera card to TIFF (using Lightroom or Photoshop for that purpose), then feed the converted TIFF files to DxO (which has been my current work-around), am I losing anything in the DxO processing from not having a RAW file accepted?  I can't compare results, as DxO won't accept my camera card's DNG files.

[jjj]

Well you are not working on the raw data so things like white balance adjustment, highlight recovery will be severely compromised as a Tiff is no different from a high quality jpeg in this context.
Is DXO even worth the effort is what you should be asking. I've played with it in the past and found it clumsy in use, so stayed with LR and now wouldn't even consider it with its DNG limitations.
I do not convert my files to DNG, but I do not want to not be allowed the option of doing so.

[JimAscher]

Well you are not working on the raw data so things like white balance adjustment, highlight recovery will be severely compromised as a Tiff is no different from a high quality jpeg in this context.
Is DXO even worth the effort is what you should be asking. I've played with it in the past and found it clumsy in use, so stayed with LR and now wouldn't even consider it with its DNG limitations.
I do not convert my files to DNG, but I do not want to not be allowed the option of doing so.

I hear you.  Many thanks.  I think I must rethink my processing procedures.  I'm stuck with DNG for my Ricoh GXR M-Mount, and with Sigma Photo Pro (SPP) for my Sigma SD15 Foveon sensor (which also isn't recognized by DxO!)  However, DxO works fine with my Sony Nex 5n raw files.  Oh, well....

[Misirlou]

I think you guys are barking up the wrong tree here. It's not the DNG format that DxO is rejecting. The real problem is that they haven't developed a set of corrections for that camera platform. They take a whole series of measurements to generate specific corrections for every single sensor/lens combination they support. That one probably just hasn't risen to the level of adoption that caused them to become interested.

[jjj]

I think you guys are barking up the wrong tree here. It's not the DNG format that DxO is rejecting. The real problem is that they haven't developed a set of corrections for that camera platform.

An issue appears to be cameras they do support, but not if their files are converted to DNG. A slightly different problem from the usual, camera not supported.

[JimAscher]

I think you guys are barking up the wrong tree here. It's not the DNG format that DxO is rejecting. The real problem is that they haven't developed a set of corrections for that camera platform. They take a whole series of measurements to generate specific corrections for every single sensor/lens combination they support. That one probably just hasn't risen to the level of adoption that caused them to become interested.

It's interesting that DxO didn't begin to support Leica digital cameras (and DNG) until its recent issuance (at the end of 2013) of its current Version 9.  It's not as if Leica is a latecomer to the industry!

[Misirlou]

I don't think it's a matter of "new." It's a matter of potential customer base. Best Buy probably sold more Rebels last week than the entire production run of M8s.

[jjj]

That is very probably true, but seeing as DXO like to be seen as a processor of high quality imagery, then to snub Leica is a daft move. Particularly as many Leica owners are very likely to possess a camera that DXO does support and so they are getting rid of those Canikonpus users too.

[Misirlou]

That is very probably true, but seeing as DXO like to be seen as a processor of high quality imagery, then to snub Leica is a daft move. Particularly as many Leica owners are very likely to possess a camera that DXO does support and so they are getting rid of those Canikonpus users too.

Well, I suppose Leica owners could think of it as a "snub" against them, but if you ever cruise the DxO boards, it would appear that everyone is disgusted that some lens/camera combination of theirs is not supported, Nikon and Canon owners included. It will probably always be that way. I don't know how DxO chooses their testing priorities, but I'm sure glad that's not my job.

[JimAscher]

Well, I suppose Leica owners could think of it as a "snub" against them, but if you ever cruise the DxO boards, it would appear that everyone is disgusted that some lens/camera combination of theirs is not supported, Nikon and Canon owners included. It will probably always be that way. I don't know how DxO chooses their testing priorities, but I'm sure glad that's not my job.

I've been using DxO satisfactorily for years now with my Sony Nex 5n which I employ only with legacy manual-focus (35mm film) lenses, for which DxO has never worked out specific lens/camera combinations.  The fact that the Nex camera in itself is supported enables me, though, to benefit I believe from most, if not perhaps all, that DxO has to offer.  Their not subsequently supporting my DNG files when I acquired my Ricoh GXR was, and still is, a real disappointment.   

[jjj]

So has anyone here compared LR + DXO recently to see how they stack up?

[Misirlou]

So has anyone here compared LR + DXO recently to see how they stack up?

I'm not much of a tester, but about a week ago, I shot a brick wall in the alley behind my house at night with a 6D and a 50 1.4. 6400 ISO I think. Then I ran the shot through LR and DxO. The noise reduction in DxO was clearly superior. Surprisingly, the lens correction appeared to be kind of a wash.

[jjj]

I'm not a fan of noise reduction as yes there may be less noise, but usually the image degrades horribly in the process. Which is what I've seen with DXO examples.
But then I used to shoot high speed film and then pushed it further to get nice grain, so I don't have an issue with noise/grain per se.
Colour noise [very easily removed] and sensor banding however always look cack.

[Bryan Conner]

I'm not much of a tester, but about a week ago, I shot a brick wall in the alley behind my house at night with a 6D and a 50 1.4. 6400 ISO I think. Then I ran the shot through LR and DxO. The noise reduction in DxO was clearly superior. Surprisingly, the lens correction appeared to be kind of a wash.

I agree with Misirlou.  In my opinion, on my own shots, DXO has a definite advantage in noise reduction on noisy images.  This advantage does come at a price though.  Processing time is a good bit longer when you use the Prime noise reduction.  I still use Lightroom for all images except the really noisy ones.  I still believe that Lightroom has the best overall package.  DXO is easy to use and may offer a bit more control when compared to Lightroom.  Image quality is very good from both LR and DXO.  But, as mentioned earlier, there is the lack of ProPhoto support in the DXO workflow.  This is a big minus to me.

You should try both and decide for yourself which is the best for you, your workflow, and your images.