Patrick Moll compares A900 RAW Converters

I got this over at the dyxum forums and was amazed at how much better DxO and bibble were compared to lightroom!

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/a850-a900-high-iso-good-bad-quality_topic51433_page2.html

This one compares the raw converters

http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpha-numerique.fr%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D264%253Aalpha-900-comparatif-de-9-logiciels-de-developpement-de-fichiers-raw%26catid%3D70%253Adeveloppement-des-raws%26Itemid%3D321%26limitstart%3D2&sl=es&tl=en&history_state0=

This one compares the a900 to 5dmkII and the d3x using Dx0 and Lightroom

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpha-numerique.fr%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D259%3Ahautes-sensibilites-comparatif-a900-d3x-5dmkii-avec-dxo-et-lightroom%26catid%3D67%3Adxo-optics-pro%26Itemid%3D317

To my eye, the d3x is just slightly better (maybe 1/2, or 1/4 stop?) with the Dx0 converter, but much worse with Lightroom. That's amazing!

I would switch to DxO except I really love the Lightroom Workflow... If only I could just switch the raw converter in Lightroom but keep all the other features...

I suppose I could also just use DxO for large high iso prints.