I used NX Studio and then switched to PhotoLab 6, now 7.
I loved NX Studio, but found limitations that were decisive in favor PL7.
My likes and dislikes for NX Studio vs. PhotoLab 7:
1. Smooth, useful interface for reviewing images in NX-studio. Easy comparisons, many ease-of-use touches that add up. PL7 a little more awkward to use, switching magnification, comparing images, etc.
2. Nice integration with camera in NX Studio - similarity of menu system etc. PL7, however, also works pretty well, excepting the complete omission of D-Lighting. Offsetting this, PL-7's own Smart Lighting (local tonal adjustments to adjust to high dynamic range, like D Lighting except for the in-camera Active D-Lighting) and PL7's ClearView+ Lighting (haze reduction and more) have proven much more useful to me in practice than NX Studio's functions. I could write lots of text on this but you just have to use PL7 for a while and push its limits to see what I mean.
To me, this is a major advantage of DxO and gives it an edge in extracting the greatest benefit of editing in RAW. Frequently, I find it difficult to manually make a series of individual adjustments that can equal the results of these lighting tools. I use the tools and then tinker with the sub-adjustments to tune the results to taste. Big time saver, and better image editing.
3. I can use either NX Studio or PL7 to edit .NEF raw files and leave them in the .NEF format. (Not so true of other non-Nikon-native image editors.) Further, by using PL7 I don't have to import them into a separate disk-eating image data base like LightRoom's.
The difference also comes in transferring the .NEF image into an editable format for Adobe Photoshop when necessary for serious image editing . With NX Studio I can use Adobe's separate conversion program to make a .DNG or whatever. It's a step easier with PL7, where I just export into a .DNG file in the same manner as creating a .JPG, and then the .DNG is there for Adobe. I have Just .NEF and .JPG files for the vast majority of my images, and a few .DNG's on the side.
Finally, I prefer having my image files in the native Windows file structure, which I can do with either NX Studio or PL7. Besides the disk savings (vs. LR), I like having it in non-proprietary format, and have many ways to back up and share with others. The sorting/searching functions in NX Studio are easy to use and meet my needs. PL7's are well thought out and more comprehensive.
4. NX Studio has very good sharpening tools, and I'm not sure PL7 has any big advantage over Nikon in knowing the optical profile of Nikon's own lenses, despite DxO's big lens data base. NX Studio's on-screen rendering of sharpness adjustments is also better than PL7, especially if you magnify the image; PL7's rendering has pixelated edges at high magnification and the final sharpness doesn't seem to come through until .jpg conversion, just like de-noising.
You can do more than just in-camera noise reduction with NX Studio. In post it does work OK, but PL7 goes much, visibly further. Some express caution with the possible loss of image detail with aggressive de-noising programs like those in PL7. So I carefully compared PL7's four de-noising intensity options with 6 raw images. I used the default 40% luminance setting suggested by DxO as a good compromise between de-noise intensity and loss of image detail from the "smoothing' caused by de-noising. In all cases, the de-noised images both had less noise and also retained all detail, even the most aggressive PL7 de-noising mode. It really does work well, though I won't be surprised if I find out over time that the luminance setting has to be adjusted now and then.
Finally, PL7 has a marvelous "microcontrast" adjustment that is, in effect, another sharpening tool. It can bring out a great amount of fine detail in images that may contain good resolution, but still appear "soft". This tool often seems to do "sharpening" better than the sharpening tools, with no visible artifacts. I use it frequently.
5. I think I like NX Studio's HSL graphic color-adjustment tool a bit better than PL7's color-wheel; I find it easier to get the exact color and shading I want. But the color-wheel approach is also useful in various situations and is intuitive. Hard to say either one is "best" for all specific situations.
Both NX Studio and PL7 have licensed the so-called "U-point" technology for making local as opposed to global adjustments to color,contrast, etc. etc. NX Studio included some HSL color local-adjustment options sooner than PL7, which just added it. I like U-point for local masking and adjustment a lot in both PL7 and NX Studio. It's fast and efficient to apply compared to other approaches in many (if not all) masking and local adjustment situations.
One of the reasons I first looked at PL7 as an alternative to NX Studio was that it also had U-point (a circular or "radial" mask) but had extended U-point into a linear "control line" and graduated intensity versions. This is a big topic to adequately describe, but my conclusion was PL7 has a lot to offer in terms of masking and local adjustment options that NX Studio does not. PL7's are among the best, and I really like the various versions of the U-point model.
I'll cut off this lengthy post with the summary comment that I like both PL7 and NX Studio as excellent programs for being excellent "raw converters" that prioritize getting the most out of RAW files, as opposed to managing huge professional image data bases (like Lightroom) or having the biggest selection of image-editing features (like PhotoShop). NX Studio's interface is refined, efficient and in some ways minimalist. PL7's is more complicated and a little less elegant but contains a lot more power. The PL7 edge is not just added editing features (although they are there, especially if you look at their add-on programs.) It includes lighting, sharpening, and local adjustment tools that go further in optimizing RAW files and also tries to make many of those adjustments efficient to implement, even as relatively complex pre-sets that can be applied to groups of images.
