7DM2 Lens Aberration Correction does it affect RAW image or just jpegs?

[GL2U]

New 7DM2. If Lens Aberration Correction is enabled in menu does it affect the RAW image as well as any jpegs or just any jpegs that are created? My new camera first stoopid question!! Did not find answer in manual!!

[jrhoffman75 · Accepted solution]

There are no stupid questions here

Lens corrections will be applied to JPEG and recognized in RAW if you use Canon DPP. If you use Lightroom or any other non-Canon software they are not recognized.  Lightroom does have its own set of Canon lens correction profiles.

[ebiggs1]

"... keep in mind that Canon's Digital Lens Optimizer in Canon Digital Photo Professional does more than the lens corrections done in Lightroom, ACR, or Photoshop."

Where did you get that notion?  Which, BTW, is not true at all.  In the first place DPP4 does not even have all of Canon's own lens line up.  Let alone any of the other manufacturers lenses. One place DPP4 is better is in its sharpening routine.

[TTMartin]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"... keep in mind that Canon's Digital Lens Optimizer in Canon Digital Photo Professional does more than the lens corrections done in Lightroom, ACR, or Photoshop."

Where did you get that notion?  Which, BTW, is not true at all.  In the first place DPP4 does not even have all of Canon's own lens line up.  Let alone any of the other manufacturers lenses. One place DPP4 is better is in its sharpening routine.

---

You might try following the link and reading ALL of the information about how Canon's Digital Lens Optimizer works on the Canon website.

[ebiggs1]

"You might try following the link and reading ALL of the information about how Canon's Digital Lens Optimizer works on the Canon website."

I use both.  Either one has some advantages over the other.  But in the end when the rubber meets the road ACR9 is better.  As I have said before 95%+ of the photographic industry uses Adobe.  There is a reason.

[ebiggs1]

Sample of the same photo after going through ACR9 and DPP4.  Choose the one you prefer.

This is a tough photo for any editor.  Plus it was not shot with a Canon lens.  One of DPP4s shortcomings.  It is a Canon EOS 1D Mk IV.

[TTMartin]

---

ebiggs1 wrote: 

This is a tough photo for any editor.  Plus it was not shot with a Canon lens.  One of DPP4s shortcomings.  It is a Canon EOS 1D Mk IV.

---

My statement wasn't which RAW converter produced better looking photos.

My statement was that Canon's Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO) does more than the lens corrections in Adobe products, which it does. DLO does its corrections using the RAW data and the corrections are more extensive.

As for which is better to use, that would depend on what lenses you own. If you have all Canon lenses, DPP and DLO is likely your better choice. I typically use Lightroom as my long fast lenses are third party lenses. But, since Canon's release of DLO, I wish I had spent the extra money on Canon lenses. While there is little difference between lenses like the EF 70-200 f/2.8 (original) and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM without DLO, when DLO is applied there is a noticeable improvement for the EF lenses. That degree of improvement just isn't there when using Adobe products. 

If I were starting over knowing what I know now, I would have stuck with Canon lenses, and forgone the third party lenses. 

I always considered the EF 24-105 f/4L IS a mediocre lens, but, run through DLO, all I can say is wow.

[ebiggs1]

"That degree of improvement just isn't there when using Adobe products."

Well at least you do admit there is an improvement.  The amount, "degree", of improvement is subjective, I guess.  Not to me and the rest of the industry but we will just have to disagree on that part.

"... there is little difference between lenses like the EF 70-200 f/2.8 (original) and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM without DLO, ..."

We will have to disagree on this point too.  But I actually can't believe you or anybody would say this.  Without any lens correction just lab measurements alone the Canon can resolve 18M-Pix while the Siggy a mere 14M-Pix.  In the world of photography you have to know that is a monumental difference.  I have and use all three of the 70-200mm f2.8 lenses (Canon, SIgma and Tamron) and there is a huge difference.

Unfortunately the RAW converter of either DPP4 or ACR9 is a fact of life and can not be eliminated from the equation.  And if you are not shooting RAW, you are not likely too interested in the highest quality photos in the first place.  So Raw is what it is and has to be involved. It doesn't look like either of us is going to be dissuaded.

I assume you believe you picked the bird done with ACR9.  Most people would!

"I always considered the EF 24-105 f/4L IS a mediocre lens, ..."    It is a mediocre lens but performs its place in life fairly well.  You will have to show me a "wow" from it.  Please u/l a example here to the site.

[TTMartin]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"That degree of improvement just isn't there when using Adobe products."

Well at least you do admit there is an improvement.  The amount, "degree", of improvement is subjective, I guess.  Not to me and the rest of the industry but we will just have to disagree on that part.

"... there is little difference between lenses like the EF 70-200 f/2.8 (original) and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM without DLO, ..."

We will have to disagree on this point too.  But I actually can't believe you or anybody would say this.  Without any lens correction just lab measurements alone the Canon can resolve 18M-Pix while the Siggy a mere 14M-Pix.  In the world of photography you have to know that is a monumental difference.  I have and use all three of the 70-200mm f2.8 lenses (Canon, SIgma and Tamron) and there is a huge difference.

Unfortunately the RAW converter of either DPP4 or ACR9 is a fact of life and can not be eliminated from the equation.  And if you are not shooting RAW, you are not likely too interested in the highest quality photos in the first place.  So Raw is what it is and has to be involved. It doesn't look like either of us is going to be dissuaded.

I assume you believe you picked the bird done with ACR9.  Most people would!

"I always considered the EF 24-105 f/4L IS a mediocre lens, ..."    It is a mediocre lens but performs its place in life fairly well.  You will have to show me a "wow" from it.  Please u/l a example here to the site.

---

Are you talking about the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II or the EF 70-200 f/2.8L, that I was talking about?

I would suggest you take a photo that you took with the EF 24-105 f/4L and try using DLO and see the difference for yourself.

[ebiggs1]

"I would suggest you take a photo that you took with the EF 24-105 f/4L and try using DLO and see the difference for yourself."

I have.  This is my "hobby" now in retirement.  I enjoy doing this kinda stuff since I have no pressure on me to produce anymore.  That is why I want to see exactly what you mean by "wow" in difference.  If you can't I understand.

[TTMartin]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"... there is little difference between lenses like the EF 70-200 f/2.8 (original) and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM without DLO, ..."

We will have to disagree on this point too.  But I actually can't believe you or anybody would say this.  Without any lens correction just lab measurements alone the Canon can resolve 18M-Pix while the Siggy a mere 14M-Pix.  In the world of photography you have to know that is a monumental difference.  I have and use all three of the 70-200mm f2.8 lenses (Canon, SIgma and Tamron) and there is a huge difference.

---

Since you appear to be quoting perceptual megapixels used by a certain review site. They say on a 7D Mk II the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM II and the EF 70-200 f/2.8L both resolve the same 8 P-Mpix. Distortion and Vignetting are also the same. T-Stop differes by point one with the nod to the Canon. Where the Canon does win out over the Siggy is in CA.

[ebiggs1]

"Since you appear to be quoting perceptual megapixels used by a certain review site."

Yes sir you are correct there.  I have stated many times I do not like or use that site very often but some lab measurements can be telling.  I am comparing the newest versions of each lens.  That is what I have in my hands and what I actually use.  I use them primarily on my 1Ds Mk III.  That is the camera I use to judge my conclusions on.  Since my retirement I have probably bought and sold three dozen lenses.  But in this case, the Siggy and the Canon I have kept.  I will never sell the Canon.  It is that good.  I have about six or seven lenses that have found a permanent home.

If you are a fan of 'that site' did you read their conclusion .....

"Even though the competition still beats the Sigma 70-200mm across the board (as noted above), when we compare the newer version versus the older version of the same Sigma lens, ..."

BTW, if you want the best third party 70-200mm f2.8 it is without a bit of doubt the Tamron version that is labeled A009.  Not there first atempt of a 70-200.  This is not any web sites opinion.  That is mine, with hands on use.

Again if you have examples of what you say, I would love to see them.  This is my thing right now.  I am truly interested in what you may have found.  Show me!  Give me samples where DLO is better than ACR.