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!!

[GL2U]

Gentleman Holy Information Overload !

J. Hoffman you are correct I'm not interested in the monthly fee rental approach but not sure its philosophical but financial!

ebiggs1 hopefully I'm normal but you are correct that I'm definitely a non-pro amateur at best picture taker. When you speak of Adobe's Raw converter (ACR9) did you mean their DNG converter? I did d/L that produces a dng raw file I believe? I'll have to go back and try it again as I did not remember any lens correction feature?

Have just used PSE 8,12, and now 14 lightly to do minor enhancements. Probably need to dedicate more time to learning to use more of it's features. And for that reason I've never tried the full PS.

Trying to understand the Lens Abberation Correction feature in my new 7DM2 and how to use it and benefit from it. I do have some good "L" lens 16-35 2.8L, 24-105 F4/L and 70-200 2.8L however with this new crop sensor camera was considering and looking at the EF10-22 F3.5/4.5 lens to get a little more width (travel landscape shots). Took some shots with it on my new camera while interesting there appeared to be a little lack of sharpness at 10mm at the periphery. I however had not added this lens to my lens data in the camera at the time I had the lens on the camera. Anyway a new camera and consideration of potential new lens purchase was the genesis of my question of use, how-to and benefit of Lens Abberration Correction.

I Am gratefull 2 all for your thoughts and suggestions!!

[ebiggs1]

OK being an amateur you will get the most from PSE14.  But you will have to spend some quality time with it to get the most out of it.  You must learn it, to use it.

The DNG converter is not the same as the more powerful ACR 9 converter.  PSE14 should support ACR9 but I can't say positive as I don't have PSE14.

ACR, which stands for Adobe Camera Raw, has lens correction plus many more featuers.  Again you need to learn it.

This is as good as it gets without goint to full on Photoshop.

The EF-S 10-22mm is a really nice lens.  It will work perfectly on your 7D Mk II.  I had one on my 7D before I sold them.

I know have the 8-15mm f4L and is one of my most fun lenses to play with.  It is a fisheye at the lowest mm.  The 10-22mm is not.

[ebiggs1]

BTW, ACR should have come embedded in your PSE14.  You may need to update it, however.

[TTMartin]

Also 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.

What Digital Lens Optimizer Does

After passing the lens and various filters, the light has diverted from the ideal condition as it reaches the image sensor where the image will be formed. This is due to the influence of factors such as aberrations, diffraction, and the low-pass filter. If these influences can be compensated for using highly precise and specific data, the result ideally would be the original and optimal image. This is the unique principle behind the Digital Lens Optimizer. Factors contributing to optical image deterioration as the light passes through the lenses and filters in the camera were identified and converted into mathematical functions (optical transfer functions (OTF)). By applying the inverse functions to the captured image, the state of the light (image quality) can be returned to approach the state that the incident light had before entering the camera.
The factors such as aberrations, diffraction, and low-pass filter influence differ for different lenses and cameras, and they also are dependent on shooting parameters. The Digital Lens Optimizer therefore uses inverse functions that are carefully optimized and based on precise data. This makes it possible to compensate even for complex and asymmetric aberrations such as coma.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.