fly in my x-h2 500mm pf ointment.

I got my Fringer adapter yesterday and starting taking some test shots with the 40mp sensor behind the Nikon 500mm pf lens. When I first looked at the ooc jpegs, I was excited...I was seeing detail on my dollar bill test chart that I hadn't noticed in years of shooting that same chart with dozens of camera/lens combos.

Then, I processed raw files in DXO (using presets with no customization on my part, which is my usual workflow) to compare to other shots and was disappointed. After a more careful examination of my process, I noticed that DXO is not applying an optical module to the new files because, presumably, of the mismatch in manufacturers. This means no lens sharpness (tailored to the lens based on DXO's extensive testing) is being applied (only global sharpness/usm). Maybe I can get back to where I was by increasing global sharpening to make up for the lack of an applied optical module.

When I started using DXO a year ago, I felt it was a large step forward in image quality--less noise with more sharpness rather than the usual trade-off between the two. It looks like whatever magical recipe DXO was using to help me take this leap forward will not be possible with the mis-matched manufacturers.

I know some people are using other Fuji cameras with this lens, has anyone struggled with this issue?

I guess I may end up having to use DXO for noise reduction and LR for sharpening. This is an unwelcome extra step, and I don't like LR's sharpening of Fuji files nearly as much as that from DXO.

I'm afraid that I'm giving back the advantage that I would otherwise have gained by putting this beast of a sensor behind this beast of a lens.

More testing is on the agenda for today.

I think you are using DxO Photo Lab, a product that I tried and rejected for many reasons.  I frequently use DxO Pure RAW with Prime Noise Reduction before opening the files in Adobe Camera RAW and then Processing in Photoshop.  DxO Pure RAW dose mess with camera profile when it generates the DNG file that is later opened in ACR.  In ACR the lens profile is applied yet I must set the Film Sim as this seems to be missing.  I'd expect you will run into the same with Lightroom as it also uses ACR.

It sounds like you are looking for a simple workflow.  You can report this to DxO support yet even if they decide to correct the issue it will probably take 6 months till you see the fix.  If you are already using Lightroom, that might be your best place to go to reduce learning curve.  You might want to preprocess your files with DxO Pure RAW as you will get the slightly better detail it produces and also Prime Noise Reduction which is usually rather incredible.  To avoid extra steps on each file I batch process in DxO Pure RAW.  After doing this I have my native Photoshop experience.

Many Fuji uses use the free Fuji version of Capture One or Capture One Pro.  The learning curve was more than I wanted so I have staid with Photoshop.

Morris

Montanawildlives wrote:

I got my Fringer adapter yesterday and starting taking some test shots with the 40mp sensor behind the Nikon 500mm pf lens. When I first looked at the ooc jpegs, I was excited...I was seeing detail on my dollar bill test chart that I hadn't noticed in years of shooting that same chart with dozens of camera/lens combos.

Then, I processed raw files in DXO (using presets with no customization on my part, which is my usual workflow) to compare to other shots and was disappointed. After a more careful examination of my process, I noticed that DXO is not applying an optical module to the new files because, presumably, of the mismatch in manufacturers. This means no lens sharpness (tailored to the lens based on DXO's extensive testing) is being applied (only global sharpness/usm). Maybe I can get back to where I was by increasing global sharpening to make up for the lack of an applied optical module.

When I started using DXO a year ago, I felt it was a large step forward in image quality--less noise with more sharpness rather than the usual trade-off between the two. It looks like whatever magical recipe DXO was using to help me take this leap forward will not be possible with the mis-matched manufacturers.

I know some people are using other Fuji cameras with this lens, has anyone struggled with this issue?

I guess I may end up having to use DXO for noise reduction and LR for sharpening. This is an unwelcome extra step, and I don't like LR's sharpening of Fuji files nearly as much as that from DXO.

I'm afraid that I'm giving back the advantage that I would otherwise have gained by putting this beast of a sensor behind this beast of a lens.

More testing is on the agenda for today.

I have no experience with the H2, but have been using the H2S pretty well since it was introduced. I'm getting what I would regard as some very good results with NR on fairly high ISO images using Topaz deNoise... something I've had kicking around for years now but really didn't use all that much until I started shooting in more challenging light and at higher ISOs. I use it in concert with LR, though I would imagine that it might work well with other processing software as well. Worth a try perhaps? I've been very impressed with its ability to remove noise but retain fine detail. Most recently, I've been using it with my 150-600 lens in some pretty low light situations.

Morris0 wrote:

I think you are using DxO Photo Lab, a product that I tried and rejected for many reasons. I frequently use DxO Pure RAW with Prime Noise Reduction before opening the files in Adobe Camera RAW and then Processing in Photoshop. DxO Pure RAW dose mess with camera profile when it generates the DNG file that is later opened in ACR. In ACR the lens profile is applied yet I must set the Film Sim as this seems to be missing. I'd expect you will run into the same with Lightroom as it also uses ACR.

It sounds like you are looking for a simple workflow. You can report this to DxO support yet even if they decide to correct the issue it will probably take 6 months till you see the fix. If you are already using Lightroom, that might be your best place to go to reduce learning curve. You might want to preprocess your files with DxO Pure RAW as you will get the slightly better detail it produces and also Prime Noise Reduction which is usually rather incredible. To avoid extra steps on each file I batch process in DxO Pure RAW. After doing this I have my native Photoshop experience.

Many Fuji uses use the free Fuji version of Capture One or Capture One Pro. The learning curve was more than I wanted so I have staid with Photoshop.

Morris

Using Pure Raw does not address the OP's problem. He is specifically interested the optics module which relies on specific profiling that DXO does for each body and lens combination. There is no profile for a Fuji X-H2/Nikon 500PF combo. You can request that DXO make one and given the potential popularity of this combo DXO might actually do it but that won't happen soon if ever.

My other gripe with Pure Raw is that neither the noise reduction or optic corrections are adjustable, sometimes resulting in less than optimal results compared to using Photo Lab.

To the OP:

I have the XH2/H2s and Fuji 150-600 and have been seriously considering the Nikon 500PF option. I know that direct comparisons are not possible but what is your sense of the optical qualities of the 500PF vs say the Fuji 70-300 which you do have.

DxO says that if they don't have your camera/lens combination, you can manually apply  optical corrections for any lens the as long as PhotoLab supports the camera you are using it on, and they advise saving those corrections to a custom preset for re-use.

What I haven't seen from DxO is anything about HOW to figure out the right optical corrections for a lens.  I'd guess trial and error, although you might try trawling through their support forum to see if anyone has addressed that.

xtabber wrote:

DxO says that if they don't have your camera/lens combination, you can manually apply optical corrections for any lens the as long as PhotoLab supports the camera you are using it on, and they advise saving those corrections to a custom preset for re-use.

What I haven't seen from DxO is anything about HOW to figure out the right optical corrections for a lens. I'd guess trial and error, although you might try trawling through their support forum to see if anyone has addressed that.

That's interesting. I had hoped there was a way to do this because I was thinking that the optical module should be/could be based only on the lens.

I'll search the support forum, thanks!

Morris0 wrote:

I think you are using DxO Photo Lab, a product that I tried and rejected for many reasons. I frequently use DxO Pure RAW with Prime Noise Reduction before opening the files in Adobe Camera RAW and then Processing in Photoshop. DxO Pure RAW dose mess with camera profile when it generates the DNG file that is later opened in ACR. In ACR the lens profile is applied yet I must set the Film Sim as this seems to be missing. I'd expect you will run into the same with Lightroom as it also uses ACR.

It sounds like you are looking for a simple workflow. You can report this to DxO support yet even if they decide to correct the issue it will probably take 6 months till you see the fix. If you are already using Lightroom, that might be your best place to go to reduce learning curve. You might want to preprocess your files with DxO Pure RAW as you will get the slightly better detail it produces and also Prime Noise Reduction which is usually rather incredible. To avoid extra steps on each file I batch process in DxO Pure RAW. After doing this I have my native Photoshop experience.

Many Fuji uses use the free Fuji version of Capture One or Capture One Pro. The learning curve was more than I wanted so I have staid with Photoshop.

Morris

Yes, definitely looking for a simple workflow.

I do love deep prime, so maybe I will try just using DXO for demosaicing, deep prime, and get my dng to edit elsewhere.

It's funny, the jpegs from the x-h2 and 500mm combo are significantly ahead of the other combos I'm testing (d500 with 500mm, x-h2 with 70-300, x-t3 with 500mm, and x-t-3 with 70-300), but I can't get close to the d500/500mm if I start from raw files. There must be a way to get there, but...I haven't figured it out yet.

Comparison thread to follow soon.

Jerry-astro wrote:

Montanawildlives wrote:

I got my Fringer adapter yesterday and starting taking some test shots with the 40mp sensor behind the Nikon 500mm pf lens. When I first looked at the ooc jpegs, I was excited...I was seeing detail on my dollar bill test chart that I hadn't noticed in years of shooting that same chart with dozens of camera/lens combos.

Then, I processed raw files in DXO (using presets with no customization on my part, which is my usual workflow) to compare to other shots and was disappointed. After a more careful examination of my process, I noticed that DXO is not applying an optical module to the new files because, presumably, of the mismatch in manufacturers. This means no lens sharpness (tailored to the lens based on DXO's extensive testing) is being applied (only global sharpness/usm). Maybe I can get back to where I was by increasing global sharpening to make up for the lack of an applied optical module.

When I started using DXO a year ago, I felt it was a large step forward in image quality--less noise with more sharpness rather than the usual trade-off between the two. It looks like whatever magical recipe DXO was using to help me take this leap forward will not be possible with the mis-matched manufacturers.

I know some people are using other Fuji cameras with this lens, has anyone struggled with this issue?

I guess I may end up having to use DXO for noise reduction and LR for sharpening. This is an unwelcome extra step, and I don't like LR's sharpening of Fuji files nearly as much as that from DXO.

I'm afraid that I'm giving back the advantage that I would otherwise have gained by putting this beast of a sensor behind this beast of a lens.

More testing is on the agenda for today.

I have no experience with the H2, but have been using the H2S pretty well since it was introduced. I'm getting what I would regard as some very good results with NR on fairly high ISO images using Topaz deNoise... something I've had kicking around for years now but really didn't use all that much until I started shooting in more challenging light and at higher ISOs. I use it in concert with LR, though I would imagine that it might work well with other processing software as well. Worth a try perhaps? I've been very impressed with its ability to remove noise but retain fine detail. Most recently, I've been using it with my 150-600 lens in some pretty low light situations.

Thanks, yeah, this issue has put other programs back on the table.

I'll look again at Topaz.

Thanks.

Peter Foiles wrote:

Morris0 wrote:

I think you are using DxO Photo Lab, a product that I tried and rejected for many reasons. I frequently use DxO Pure RAW with Prime Noise Reduction before opening the files in Adobe Camera RAW and then Processing in Photoshop. DxO Pure RAW dose mess with camera profile when it generates the DNG file that is later opened in ACR. In ACR the lens profile is applied yet I must set the Film Sim as this seems to be missing. I'd expect you will run into the same with Lightroom as it also uses ACR.

It sounds like you are looking for a simple workflow. You can report this to DxO support yet even if they decide to correct the issue it will probably take 6 months till you see the fix. If you are already using Lightroom, that might be your best place to go to reduce learning curve. You might want to preprocess your files with DxO Pure RAW as you will get the slightly better detail it produces and also Prime Noise Reduction which is usually rather incredible. To avoid extra steps on each file I batch process in DxO Pure RAW. After doing this I have my native Photoshop experience.

Many Fuji uses use the free Fuji version of Capture One or Capture One Pro. The learning curve was more than I wanted so I have staid with Photoshop.

Morris

Using Pure Raw does not address the OP's problem.

He is specifically interested the optics module which relies on specific profiling that DXO does for each body and lens combination. There is no profile for a Fuji X-H2/Nikon 500PF combo. You can request that DXO make one and given the potential popularity of this combo DXO might actually do it but that won't happen soon if ever.

Yeah, I haven't seen ANY crossover profiles for Fujifilm cameras/lenses with other manufacturers. Maybe they are there somewhere, but I haven't seen them. Unlikely that they are going to hit my preferred combination anytime soon.

My other gripe with Pure Raw is that neither the noise reduction or optic corrections are adjustable, sometimes resulting in less than optimal results compared to using Photo Lab.

To the OP:

I have the XH2/H2s and Fuji 150-600 and have been seriously considering the Nikon 500PF option. I know that direct comparisons are not possible but what is your sense of the optical qualities of the 500PF vs say the Fuji 70-300 which you do have.

Well, the ooc jpegs look spectacular! I'll be doing a comparison post soon.

robert1955 wrote:

Montanawildlives wrote:

xtabber wrote:

DxO says that if they don't have your camera/lens combination, you can manually apply optical corrections for any lens the as long as PhotoLab supports the camera you are using it on, and they advise saving those corrections to a custom preset for re-use.

What I haven't seen from DxO is anything about HOW to figure out the right optical corrections for a lens. I'd guess trial and error, although you might try trawling through their support forum to see if anyone has addressed that.

That's interesting. I had hoped there was a way to do this because I was thinking that the optical module should be/could be based only on the lens.

I'll search the support forum, thanks!

Is there a way to access the numbers for the settings on your D500?

Which settings in particular?

Montanawildlives wrote:

Peter Foiles wrote:

Morris0 wrote:

I think you are using DxO Photo Lab, a product that I tried and rejected for many reasons. I frequently use DxO Pure RAW with Prime Noise Reduction before opening the files in Adobe Camera RAW and then Processing in Photoshop. DxO Pure RAW dose mess with camera profile when it generates the DNG file that is later opened in ACR. In ACR the lens profile is applied yet I must set the Film Sim as this seems to be missing. I'd expect you will run into the same with Lightroom as it also uses ACR.

It sounds like you are looking for a simple workflow. You can report this to DxO support yet even if they decide to correct the issue it will probably take 6 months till you see the fix. If you are already using Lightroom, that might be your best place to go to reduce learning curve. You might want to preprocess your files with DxO Pure RAW as you will get the slightly better detail it produces and also Prime Noise Reduction which is usually rather incredible. To avoid extra steps on each file I batch process in DxO Pure RAW. After doing this I have my native Photoshop experience.

Many Fuji uses use the free Fuji version of Capture One or Capture One Pro. The learning curve was more than I wanted so I have staid with Photoshop.

Morris

Using Pure Raw does not address the OP's problem.

He is specifically interested the optics module which relies on specific profiling that DXO does for each body and lens combination. There is no profile for a Fuji X-H2/Nikon 500PF combo. You can request that DXO make one and given the potential popularity of this combo DXO might actually do it but that won't happen soon if ever.

Yeah, I haven't seen ANY crossover profiles for Fujifilm cameras/lenses with other manufacturers. Maybe they are there somewhere, but I haven't seen them. Unlikely that they are going to hit my preferred combination anytime soon.

ACR seems to recognize both my X-H2s and 500 PF.  I think the profiles are independent.

My other gripe with Pure Raw is that neither the noise reduction or optic corrections are adjustable, sometimes resulting in less than optimal results compared to using Photo Lab.

To the OP:

I have the XH2/H2s and Fuji 150-600 and have been seriously considering the Nikon 500PF option. I know that direct comparisons are not possible but what is your sense of the optical qualities of the 500PF vs say the Fuji 70-300 which you do have.

Well, the ooc jpegs look spectacular! I'll be doing a comparison post soon.

Look forward to the post

Morris

Montanawildlives wrote:

Morris0 wrote:

I think you are using DxO Photo Lab, a product that I tried and rejected for many reasons. I frequently use DxO Pure RAW with Prime Noise Reduction before opening the files in Adobe Camera RAW and then Processing in Photoshop. DxO Pure RAW dose mess with camera profile when it generates the DNG file that is later opened in ACR. In ACR the lens profile is applied yet I must set the Film Sim as this seems to be missing. I'd expect you will run into the same with Lightroom as it also uses ACR.

It sounds like you are looking for a simple workflow. You can report this to DxO support yet even if they decide to correct the issue it will probably take 6 months till you see the fix. If you are already using Lightroom, that might be your best place to go to reduce learning curve. You might want to preprocess your files with DxO Pure RAW as you will get the slightly better detail it produces and also Prime Noise Reduction which is usually rather incredible. To avoid extra steps on each file I batch process in DxO Pure RAW. After doing this I have my native Photoshop experience.

Many Fuji uses use the free Fuji version of Capture One or Capture One Pro. The learning curve was more than I wanted so I have staid with Photoshop.

Morris

Yes, definitely looking for a simple workflow.

I do love deep prime, so maybe I will try just using DXO for demosaicing, deep prime, and get my dng to edit elsewhere.

It's funny, the jpegs from the x-h2 and 500mm combo are significantly ahead of the other combos I'm testing (d500 with 500mm, x-h2 with 70-300, x-t3 with 500mm, and x-t-3 with 70-300), but I can't get close to the d500/500mm if I start from raw files. There must be a way to get there, but...I haven't figured it out yet.

Comparison thread to follow soon.

I used to use a D500 with a Sigma 150-600 Sport and that's also a super combination though heavy. I was using Photoshop back then and I was very happy back then and am very happy using the X-H2s with Nikon 500 PF in Photoshop. The rendering is super for both.

This is what I used to get:

No complaint at all

Morris

So basically it's DXO that is the problem, in contrast to what the title of your post insinuates.