Previous news story    Next news story

DxO Optics Pro 7.5.1 adds four cameras, plus D800E support for Elite users

By dpreview staff on Jun 20, 2012 at 13:00 GMT

DxO Labs has released DxO Optics Pro v7.5.1, adding support for four extra cameras to both the Elite and Standard editions of the software. The Elite edition also gains support for the Nikon D800E, with fine-tuning to optimize the performance of the Remove color moiré tool. Both versions can now also process files from the Nikon D3200, Sony SLT A35 and A57, and the Panasonic DMC-GX1. As usual, a 30-day free trial is available, along with roughly 40% discounts available if purchased before June 30th. The update is free for recent Optics Pro purchasers.


Press Release:

DxO Optics Pro v7.5.1 supports five more new cameras and achieves the milestone of 7,000 available DxO Optics Modules

June 20, 2012 - DxO Labs announces the immediate availability of DxO Optics Pro v7.5.1 for Mac and Windows, its image processing software of reference for all exacting photographers. This update means that DxO Optics Pro 7 now supports the latest cameras from Nikon, the D800E (Elite Edition only) and the D3200, Sony's SLT A35 and SLT A57 translucent-mirror SLRs, as well as Panasonic's hybrid micro 4/3 camera, the Lumix DMC GX1.

Ever more DxO Optics Modules

DxO Optics Pro 7 now counts more than 7,000 lens-camera combinations in its Optics Module library.

Since the last version, DxO Optics Pro v7.5.1 integrates more than 400 new DxO Optics Modules, of which 61 are modules for Nikon D800E and 71 are for the Nikon D3200. These latest modules enable support for additional Canon, Minolta, Nikkor, Panasonic, Samyang, Sigma, Sony, Tamron, and Tokina lenses for numerous Canon, Fuji, Nikon, Pentax, Samsung, and Sony cameras.

More effective moiré removal for the D800E

Since the Nikon D800E does not have an antialiasing (AA) filter, it can be more susceptible to moiré. DxO Optics Pro v7.5.1's RAW conversion algorithms have been fine-tuned such that the "Remove color moiré" tool works more effectively for this camera to restore the finest details.

Availability and special discount

The Standard and Elite editions of DxO Optics Pro for Mac and Windows are available in the DxO Labs online store (www.dxo.com) and at photo resellers, at a special discount price good through June 30, 2012:

USD:

  • DxO Optics Pro 7 Standard Edition: $99 instead of $169
  • DxO Optics Pro 7 Elite Edition: $199 instead of $299

EUR:

  • DxO Optics Pro 7 Standard Edition: 99€ instead of 199€
  • DxO Optics Pro 7 Elite Edition:199€ instead of 299€
    (Suggested retail prices, including VAT)

BGP:

  • DxO Optics Pro 7 Standard Edition: £89 instead of £135
  • DxO Optics Pro 7 Elite Edition: £179 instead of £269
    (Suggested retail prices, including VAT)

This upgrade is free for all owners of DxO Optics Pro 7, as well as for photographers who purchased a license for DxO Optics Pro 6 after September 1, 2011. A fully-functional trial version of DxO Optics Pro 7, good for one month, is available on the DxO Labs website (http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/free_trial_version)

Comments

Total comments: 50
FTW
By FTW (Jun 24, 2012)

I use Photoshop and it updates my Camera Raw and the program all along the way until a new release comes out. Software like DXO, Capture One are money sucking ones only. And, DXO on 32 bit windows needs awful time to start, much more than PS. I gave it a trial and in fast rework Capture One is best, DXO did not improve my shots and beside that renamed all my files with DXO in front of the name, so it just causes more work to delete all that. I think that all developers should first ask what people want before imposing to us their view of the things. Then it should at least be updated for free during 5 years in the camera and lens database.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jun 25, 2012)

You are right about the 32-bit starting speed and that Pro 7 tends to impose DxO's viewpoint on what a picture should look like. I can't, however, agree with you when you dismiss it as "money sucking", but that's just because DxO's viewpoints happen to coincide with my own. No editing software fulfills all photographer's needs, so it's nice to see there is competition. And I think Pro 7 is flexible enough for us to work on the image and make it what we want it to look like.

0 upvotes
wy2lam
By wy2lam (Jun 23, 2012)

Very nice...however i'm still a cheapo and use Raw Therapee. :)

1 upvote
Scorpius1
By Scorpius1 (Jun 23, 2012)

I don't know why people are complaining about this app,on a macro it runs beautifully and the U.I is customisable ,the panning/zoom module is as good as the one in capture one pro(Which I also use,along with Phocusd and LR4),it's also fast and the full screen option for mac is great,also someone mentioned the image browser at the bottom of the screen,this can be toggled with command-U,although it needs the ability to toggle the left and right docks too...in the end it produces good files..

2 upvotes
Dan Ortego
By Dan Ortego (Jun 21, 2012)

Initially, I had mixed feelings about DxO Elite 7.x but those guys keep plugging away at a pretty good clip with updates. The 64-bit update was really nice and I noticed a slight speed increase again with this one. Hopefully, they'll support more file types so I don’t have to use Lightroom quite so often. I would also like to see more ZA lenses supported but I won’t hold my breath.

1 upvote
szlevi
By szlevi (Jun 25, 2012)

Yeah except it takes them 4-5 months to introduce support for the Olympus OM-D vs Adobe's of releasing LR4.1 (first beta then final) with full support only *few weeks* after OM-D started shipping.

0 upvotes
montxsuz
By montxsuz (Jun 21, 2012)

I am happy DxO user and will upgrade. I do not find the i/f clunky, but usable. Lightoom i/f frustrated me because it has hidden functionality that was difficult to find and switch off - which ruined by colours. DxO saves me many hours every month with automated processing and fantastic results, and is an essential part of my shooting workflow. It has less - but different - functionality to Lightroom (which I also own) - with better performance. (DxO is single component, Lightroom is overall workflow). I use DxO for all DSLR (Nikon) corrections and Lightroom for compact cameras (because DxO doesn't support Panasonic Raw well). Been using DxO since an early version. I also own Capture One, but never use that.

I export images to DNG, which I archive. For image management, I use MS Expression (Not Phase One MediaPro which replaced it), because Lightroom is too slow, but I then use Lightroom to create my photo website. Thumbs up for DxO.

3 upvotes
szlevi
By szlevi (Jun 25, 2012)

DXO's interface is a joke compared to Lightroom, seriously. Clunky, extra clicks abound everywhere, not really intuitive, forget UI auto-hides etc. And, of course, all this with a lot slower update cycle for TWICE the price if you have a more expensive cam... ridiculous.

0 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (Jun 21, 2012)

DXO is second only to CaptureNX2 for interface clunkiness. Image browser strip has to be clicked away in order to get a still cramped view of the photo. Give us a full height pic for the love of Mike. Where are the autohide left and right panels? Clueless. Zoom and grab the pic and move it around? You have to click on the hand first.
DXO, you've got a lot of work to do, and I don't mean more modules. Get a copy of Lightroom 4 and see how simple and fast beats slow and laborious with tiny buttons every time. Lightroom's lens correction is close enough, too, so DXO's utility get smaller every time out. The only use I have for DXO at this point is to correct superwide pics and sharpen up the corners with Lens Softness, but it's rare these days. Did I mention Lightroom is $100 on sale vs DXO $200 to use my D800?

2 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jun 21, 2012)

You can hide left and right panels by clicking two litte arrows on the panels' vertical borders. They're small, but they're there. So small, in fact, that I often click them by accident...

0 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (Jun 22, 2012)

I know, Maunel, but Lightroom hides them automatically without having to strain your eyes on little tiny triangles. You'd have thought everyone would be doing it by now...reveillez vous DXO!

3 upvotes
sense601
By sense601 (Jun 22, 2012)

There's a shortcut to hide all palettes. Really easy to find, that is, if you want to. Moving around the image? It's done in the same way as in every editing software I know - by holding the space bar.

0 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (Jun 22, 2012)

Yes, I know the shortcut, but I don't want a shortcut, I want it to happen automatically on moving the mouse off the panel. One mouse click to zoom AND move, what a no brainer that is. Many operations in DXO take two or three inputs to LR's one, and that adds up to wasted time and effort and a lot less fun.

2 upvotes
Ken Aisin
By Ken Aisin (Jun 23, 2012)

@Reilly: I'm on the exact same boat. Kudos to DXO because their lens correction modules do work very well. But the user interface is just too painfully clunky. I find LR's lens correction to be close enough in most cases. Also, I find LR doing a much better job with noise reduction and highlight recovery. These days, I only open Optics Pro to correct pics that are shot with my Tokina 12-24 to fix those nasty chromatic aberrations. I haven't used Capture NX2, but of all the raw converters that I've tried, Fujfifilm's Hyper-Utility has to be the clunkiest ever, followed closely by DXO Optics Pro.

0 upvotes
Igas
By Igas (Jun 21, 2012)

Does dxo support DNG?

0 upvotes
montxsuz
By montxsuz (Jun 21, 2012)

It supports DNG as export, I always export to DNG for archiving. Importing DNG did not work well in earlier versions, but I haven't used it recently.

0 upvotes
Dan Ortego
By Dan Ortego (Jun 21, 2012)

It couldn't import my Adobe RAW files from my last shoot so go figure. I thought I did something wrong as they simply show up in the film strip with the note 'This image cannot be processed because this RAW format is currently not supported by DxO Optics Pro'.

Comment edited 6 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
carpediem007
By carpediem007 (Jun 21, 2012)

This is exacltly my point... :-(
Whenever DxO upgrades Optics Pro, I again request at least DNG support but, to no avail... I'm a Ricoh GXR user and have been using DxO since (I think) version 3. It was great with my Canon gear (20D & 5D Mk2) but it won't even display my GXR images...
So disappointed...I don't know why I keep upgrading (currently using version 7 Elite and Filmpack 3 Expert edition). Perhaps it's time to move on and use LR4 exclusively... Pitty...

3 upvotes
montxsuz
By montxsuz (Jun 22, 2012)

I have to admit that DNG support is a frustrating issue - but is is not isolated to DxO. This is one of the reasons I stopped using Phase One Media Pro and reverted to Microsoft Expression. I wonder if it is an issue with the format?

I export to DNG for archiving, because its sold as an open format. NEF, DW2 etc are proprietary. My DxO-created DNG can be read by Photoshop, Miscrosoft Expression, Image Converter, etc; but not by Phase One CapturePro. I create 2 DNGs per image, one with DxO, One with Adobe's batch tool. One format is opened by some programs, the other is opened by other programs. There seems to be an inconsistency in support for DNGs by vendors. Maybe too many format variations? I don't know. As for Panasonic's RW2 format, same problem. Neither DxO nor Capture One will read them properly. Not MS Expression either. But Adobe reads them fine.

3 upvotes
boels069
By boels069 (Jun 20, 2012)

Just processed a couple of D800/D800E NEFs with DxO 7.5.1 Elite.
The results are stunning (I am a Canonian) at 100%, the first razor sharp JPGs I have seen from the D800/D800e.

1 upvote
000
By 000 (Jun 20, 2012)

$99=99€ incredible mat :-))))

2 upvotes
Ergo607
By Ergo607 (Jun 20, 2012)

Who Cares?

2 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jun 20, 2012)

Perhaps the people who bought the software...? Please - don't troll!

5 upvotes
Ken Aisin
By Ken Aisin (Jun 20, 2012)

I wouldn't call that trolling. I did buy it, and it's a total waste of money. Other than Fujifilm's Hyper-Utility, I've never used a piece of software that is as clunky as the DXO Optics Pro. To the DXO team, please go get a copy of LightRoom, and compare it to yours.

2 upvotes
Ken Aisin
By Ken Aisin (Jun 20, 2012)

By the way, I bought it because LightRoom didn't have lens correction before. Now that LigthRoom has lens correction. I don't see why anyone should care anymore.

2 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jun 20, 2012)

What exactly are you doing here, then?

2 upvotes
Ergo607
By Ergo607 (Jun 20, 2012)

Manuel, I am not trolling. To each their own, but DxO has been proven to be o-b-s-o-l-e-t-e....

2 upvotes
Ken Aisin
By Ken Aisin (Jun 20, 2012)

@Manuel: just sharing my honest opinion as an ex-DXO user.
@Ergo: yes, obsolete is the word.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jun 20, 2012)

Ergo607: coming here and writing down «who cares?» is hardly expressing an opinion.
Ken: it's perfectly legitmate to share your honest opinion. However, you must accept that some people may think otherwise.
Both: are you really sure you mastered Pro 7? I allow myself to ask this because I only took advantage of Pro 7 after thoroughly reading the manual. «Clunky»? «Obsolete»? Have you even tried the latest versions? I tried Lr4.1 and Pro 7.5 demos side by side and, while Lr is more flexible (in that it offers a bit more control), The Pro 7 betters it in terms of optical corrections, chromatic aberrations and noise reduction. So much that I ended up buying it. It was a tough call, though.
One thing is sure - I'd never comment on a Lr article writing «who cares?» That might be misread as trolling.

3 upvotes
Matt Random
By Matt Random (Jun 20, 2012)

I do. I've been considering getting this to use as a point tool since the $100 price tag isn't bad.

The optical corrections seem better than Lightroom. Especially given that a lot more lenses are supported. The manual distortion corrections are much better than Lightroom. I have some distorted pictures of framed art that LR was unable to do anything with. DxO does a good job removing the distortion.

I wasn't at all impressed with any of the white balance, exposure or color corrections.

1 upvote
Ken Aisin
By Ken Aisin (Jun 20, 2012)

@Manuel: I bought v6, and I found that image rendering is slow. Each time you make a single slight adjustment, the image needs to be totally re-rendered. Making it extremely and painfully clunky to use. I lived with it because it actually does a very good job correcting the optical flaws of my Tokina 12-24mm. When they announced v7 claiming that the preview is faster, I had high hopes. Downloaded the trial, and I was very disappointed. I didn't feel it previewing faster one bit. When they meant faster, I suppose with a sports stop watch you can tell it's a tiny fraction of a second faster. But it's still as clunky to use as v6. Still requiring full re-rendering each time you make a slight readjustment.

0 upvotes
Ken Aisin
By Ken Aisin (Jun 20, 2012)

@ Manuel (con't): I run LightRoom 3 and now LightRoom 4 on the exact same machine (Core i7 2600K overclocked to 4.8GHz with 16Gb ram.) Each time I make an adjustment, I see the changes right away. I can play with the adjustment sliders without being slowed down one bit by any image rendering. I thought LightRoom 3 was fast, LightRoom 4's rendering speed is even faster. Images are rendered almost instantly. There is absolutely no way that I would go back to DXO until they can match LightRoom in this aspect. I suppose DXO is good if one only has a few images to work on. But when one has to make adjustments to hundreds of images each time, I guess LightRoom is a much better choice.

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jun 20, 2012)

I'm not sure what you actually mean by "rendering". The only speed problems I get with Pro 7 are that it takes too long to open the files (especially when the folders contain a lot of photos) and the time it takes for the image to become "workable" when I magnify it. Adjustments made to the image show very quickly - though not so much as in Lr - and it takes considerably less time processing and creating the new image file into the folder than Lr. Still I care much more about results than about minor speed issues, and in this respect I found Pro 7 to be superior. There is no Lr vs. Pro 7 war, though: Pro 7 even has a button to send images to Lr! If I had chosen Lr, I'd be very satisfied as well, but in the end I found Pro 7 had the edge. In fact I often found myself, when I was processing raws, comparing the results I was getting with Lr to those obtained with Pro 7 - and trying to replicate them in Lr. It was when I realized this fact that I decided to buy the Pro 7.

0 upvotes
OldZorki
By OldZorki (Jun 20, 2012)

I've been using DXO for a while, and while I really like the results, workflow is absolutely abysmal -and in fact, from 6 to 7 it got much worse. There are so many head-scratching workflow and interface decisions that I do not know were to begin. And yet I still like results more then in LR (I have not tried 4 however). I wonder if DXO will release their correction module as LR plugin - may be a cure.

0 upvotes
Ken Aisin
By Ken Aisin (Jun 20, 2012)

@Manuel: The rendering time I referred to is the time it takes optics pro to render a preview image from the raw file onto the display before it becomes workable. It takes way too long. With LR4 on my computer, the image is workable almost instantly right after I click on it. And each time I make an adjustment on a slider, Optics Pro would re-render a new preview. This makes the software painfully clunky. With LR4, there's no stuttering at all when you make changes on the slider. To me, this is absolutely not a minor speed issue as I often have hundreds of pictures to work on after an event. The only edge I see Optics Pro has over LR is the specific lens + camera correction modules. Other than this, LR trumps Optics Pro is every other aspects. Image quality wise I find that I get much better noise reduction and highlight recovery with LR than with Optics Pro. After trying out Optics Pro v7, I decided to stick with LR instead of wasting money to upgrade my copy of Optics Pro v6.

0 upvotes
Ken Aisin
By Ken Aisin (Jun 20, 2012)

@oldZorki: Yes, this is why I think the DXO team should get a copy of LR, and compare it to theirs. LR is a good example of speedy processing and workflow done right.

0 upvotes
Eric Hensel
By Eric Hensel (Jun 21, 2012)

Most folks don't understand that the term trolling comes from fishing, not the nasty guy under the bridge. If you think of it as throwing out a baited hook and waiting to see who bites, you'll see that the Original post was a troll, and not all trolls are designed to be inflammatory, but they generally are stated in a way that -requires- a response (taking the bait) just to determine what the original poster had in mind.

0 upvotes
OldZorki
By OldZorki (Jun 21, 2012)

@Ken - well, I am an amateur and do not process thousands of images per week, so things like uber-speed are not important to me whatsoever. And camera-lens combo support provides greater correction, including sharpness, CA, distortion, etc. I just wonder if DXO will be better off just selling their technology and lens database to Adobe - and call it a day. Well, I am not sure DXO will be better off -but customers certainly will.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
raincoat
By raincoat (Jun 21, 2012)

I have mixed feelings. As a DXO6 user, DXO gives much better adjustments than LR3 (at the time). LR3 has more options, stupid options like making shadows brighter than highlights. DXO is painfully slow.

I haven't looked at DXO7 or LR4, but from what I hear I don't feel like getting either. And at those prices... esp considering DXO make you pay extra
to support full frame cameras...

0 upvotes
montxsuz
By montxsuz (Jun 22, 2012)

Well, I don't believe DxO is either clunky or obsolete, quite the contrary. As for slowness: I have a Quad-core PC running W7-64. I process hundreds to thousands of images per month as an amateur, usually in one sitting. I do not find DxO slow for my purposes. However, my brother uses a MAC and he is complaining about it being slow. Slow complainers above don't specify their hardware, is it perhaps a PC/Mac thing?

0 upvotes
Ken Aisin
By Ken Aisin (Jun 22, 2012)

@montxsuz: I don't have the highest end components. But I know my PC is absolutely not a sloth. See below for the specs of my PC running Windows 7 Professional 64-bit.

Intel Core i7 2600K cooled with Corsair H100, and overclocked stably to 4.8GHz.

G.SKILL Ares Series DDR3 1866MHz 4x4Gb RAM.

Asus Sabertooth Z77 motherboard.

C drive (for programs and games) is a pair of Crucial M4 256Gb Solid State Drive in Raid 0.

D drive (for RAW files and other storages) is 4 x 1.5Tb Western Digital Caviar Black in Raid 10.

Video card is a XFX Radeon HD6970, mainly for Battlefield 3 after work ;P

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Ken Aisin
By Ken Aisin (Jun 22, 2012)

@montxsuz: You may not find Optics Pro slow. But compared to LR4, I have to say it is extremely slow and clunky.

0 upvotes
Ken Aisin
By Ken Aisin (Jun 22, 2012)

@OldZorki: I love your suggestion. DXO selling the lens correction modules to Adobe would be a dream come true.

0 upvotes
abolit
By abolit (Jun 20, 2012)

not true. the leica lens profiles are not included. the red dot in the browser strip shows in every leica raw image which means "not supported"

0 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (Jun 20, 2012)

> not true

Who are you responding to?

0 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (Jun 20, 2012)

This table lets you establish if DxO supports your camera hardware, and whether you should choose Standard Edition or Elite:

http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro/for_your_equipment

0 upvotes
abolit
By abolit (Jun 20, 2012)

I downloaded a trial version of DxO Pro 7 and found out that it did not support leica lenses.

0 upvotes
raincoat
By raincoat (Jun 21, 2012)

Since Leica are 'perfect' you should never need anything more than SOOC jpg.

3 upvotes
Dan Ortego
By Dan Ortego (Jun 21, 2012)

As a former M8 shooter with Leica primes I would sorta agree. Still, when DxO calibrates the combined correction from a specific camera body and lens, the results look great! The M8 design is such that if DxO were to build a correction profile, it would very likely make a noticeable improvement. IMHO of course.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
FTW
By FTW (Jun 24, 2012)

I thought that a 10000$ Leica gear was able to shoot jpeg in a quality that makes all software rework obsolete, or do i miss something.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 50