Maybe DXO has the best lens profiles, I cannot judge. So using the ‘best’ profiles should be accompanied by the best processing of them.
But what I see is that processing these profiles in the shadows leads to banding. It is time DXO solved this problem.
Lex
no more than I already am. so what’s the big deal, turn it on, let us choose.
~3 sec with DeepPrime
Imho, there are still some pretty inconvenient bugs in PL; e.g. cropping ratio and image size depending on the geometrical correction (horizon, square etc)
I argued this point extensively during development of PL6 and it fell on deaf ears. Needless to say it got ignored, therefore I did not volunteer my time for PL7 beta testing and I did not upgrade to PL6 (or PL7 yet)
So many false assumptions in this sentences, Mark that I have to interfere. You can keep your religion in believing DxO’s profiles are the best on Earth.
But first, this is no solution for the combination of DxO’s ignorance and heavy workload for a lot of new lenses coming up, some of them at least carrying a manufacturer profile - DxO simply cannot deliver that mass of profiles which are always combinations of body and lens.
Second, if lenses get the wrong profiles repeatedly because DxO can’t cope with all EXIF variations, it’s more an annoyance than a help. I experienced that with a lot of Sigma’s i-Series lenses, desperately in need for a good lens profile. Switching to Capture One, selecting “manufacturer profile” = problem solved. Every time. Reliably.
The lens profiles that DxO creates are correct for that specific lens.
Wrong. They are correct for one copy of a lens series. Ignoring sample variation as often discussed in the lens rentals blog again doesn’t help. I acknowledge, it’s better than no profile, but to believe it suits perfectly, is simply an error.
There is no such thing as good enough. The corrections for a specific lens are either complete or incomplete.
Wrong again. I don’t care for fake improvement of lens sharpness “across the frame” (questionable, as the software can’t recognize the difference between bokeh and diffraction due to closing aperture down) and I don’t care for evenly corrected vignetting. I just don’t want to see distortions in architectural shots or CA in frontlight shots. So, 2 out of 4 criteria are “good enough” for me. At least better than 0: in the many cases no profile is available from DxO or confuses one lens with another.
Now, this discussion about “worth upgrading” could be answered with “are you willing to pay developers on their quest of”
Experimenting costs money and is necessary, sure. Like DxO One…
Don’t get me wrong, everybody who likes DxO PL should support it’s development. I once participated of the fact that DxO supported cameras C1 didn’t at the time. These times now have changed and although I tried for a year, I could not find anything in PL worth the many workarounds needed for this many apps PL+FP+VP+image browser, not to mention DAM (devil’s asset management, as seen by many DxO customers)+JPEG optimizer+printing app. The last tow ones I still need. The rest is better be used in one app.
as noted - for a specific one copy of the lens they got to work with ( and that is not your copy ) … sample variations in camera bodies is not yet investigated 
they just need to give AN OPTION for users to apply manufacturer’s optics correction and clearly mark that option as such ( to make it VERY MUCH visible that it is not their corrections but whatever was canned - just in case somebody might mistake OEM corrections for DxO corrections - if, God forbid, something goes wrong ! ), problem solved ( many problems actually including absence of focusing distance data for Fuji )… meanwhile they can continue to craft their own bespoke camera+lens profiles at whatever pace they can …
You’re right, therefore this year I would probably upgrade if there will be a Black Friday sale. And I consider it more of support than paying for an upgrade.
I skipped PL5 upgrade and tried Luminar AI & Neo, both were a joke considering Image quality.
Now I thought about migrating back to Lightroom and using my PL as a plugin. So many professional photographers using LR, I don’t think I’m smarter than them.
But after watching few YouTube Lightroom tutorials I believe i’ll keep on with PL this year.
Don’t get me wrong, I still believe DXO is on the path for bankruptcy sooner or later.
This might well be true, but we’re all getting closer to our coffins every day. Why not live life as long as it lasts? Why should we not stop spending money on food for thought and body?
Sooner or later so are most of the companies in the world. Nothing lasts forever and nothing stays the same. Software changes may introduce unacceptable issues. hardware compatibility with your equipment may make software unusable, performance may change for the worse. It always makes sense to have a backup plan no matter what products you use.
Mark
The danger in this thinking is whether the professional photographers use cameras and lenses like yours.
I’m sure LR can make a super sharp image from a 60 megapixel image shot with a $5000 lens, but can it make the same quality from 15 megapixels with a $500 lens? In my experience, it’s not good enough for my gear.
And the danger in your thinking is, you do not know wether @cohen5538 uses professional gear or not, I’d say 
also, the concept of “just more expensive gear makes your photos look better” is a bit dated, I’d say. Don’t forget: prices of gear are not necessarily in categories “pro” or “hobby” these days. In other words, today’s lenses can deliver better quality than a 10 year old lens which was in the same price range back in the day.
Following your reasoning raises the question, is DxO PL a repair station for images taken with low standards gear? If so, great. Pity, this reasoning does exclude the skills of the gear-owner as well as the effective, real quality difference of gear.
I stumble over the sentence
I seriously doubt that DxO PL is the key to save $4.500 just by some kind of software mumbojumbo. 
In my experience, better gear better reveals the flaws in my photography
I only can agree. Or put it more diplomatic: better gear allows me to expand and refine my skills.
But it still sucks how much is left to learn to do better 
– even if it’s only learn how to be satisfied with “good enough”… 
It’s pretty strongly implied in their comment — it makes no sense if they are a professional.
I didn’t say that at all. I said poor software can make a sharp image out of a very high megapixel count taken with a super sharp lens.
Clearly you haven’t, so I stopped reading there.
Good for you. I don’t want to destroy your faith in “high cost software like DxO PL (and $480 for regular PL Elite + FP + VP is high cost…) can make an image from poor hardware look better than LR”. I doin’t know much about LR except some occasional experiments with that software on an office workstation, but your statement
let me doubt if you ever tried for yourself how much impact hard- and software through different price ranges have. In my experience a software which is worse than another will remain so, no matter the price of the gear delivering the raw-material.
“but can it make the same quality from 15 megapixels?” this part is one of the most silly comparisons I’ve read so far and completely pointless as long as you don’t give a definition of quality. Because it’s obvious that a ¼ of 60 MP will lack of some details, not to mention the DR of the compared sensors. Diminishing LR in favor of PL makes all the hundreds of thousands subscribers for LR either morons with no idea about quality or pros?
I own PhotoLab 6 Elite. If I wanted to upgrade to PL 7 and also buy FilmPack 7, it would cost me €109+€139=€248. If I instead skip the upgrade price and get the same PL+FP bundle as anyone can get right now, I would pay €229… DxO, please let existing customers take advantage of bundles!
If I understand what you’re asking for correctly, there is nothing to stop you from buying that bundle if it’s less expensive than upgrading. You will just have additional licenses.
Mark
Yes, you are absolutely correct, but missing the point. It’s not so much about money, but about principles and maintaining customer relations.
@Per , just wait for Black Friday sale (I believe it would be on the second week of Nov.) Past year Upgrade cost 69$ instead of 109$
Maybe then you would have a better combination.
Yep. This is the way of dxo , some doesn’t like it, some don’t mind
Some Final words about: DXO PL v7 is it worth upgrading?
After testing the trial version, I decided to test LRc.
Now I would have a year to establish my workflow. If and when to use u-point masking in PLv6. It would be probably on images without definitive subject or objects. Right now it would be minimum edits in PL in order to keep the non destructive edits just in one program (LRc).
Yes, the Import activity ans the DNG file makes it cumbersome workflow, but nevertheless I like those extra editing features in LRc toolbox which helps me getting better results.
I skipped PLv5 too. Tried the Luminar Neo. But it didn’t give me decent results. Therefore I upgraded to PLv6 when it came out.
Time will tell how would it be now with LRc.
@mwsilvers Thank you for your encouragement.
@JoJu , as always I agree with you. if anybody is curious, my gear is Sony A7 mk i (first gen. nearly 10 years old), Samyang AF 35mm f/1.4 FE, Samyang AF 85mm F1.4 Sony FE & some other lenses.
But really, I’m not the issue here, nor my gear or my skills. It was the total toolbox we get from PL. Few years ago when I imigrate from LR to PLv2 the images were jaw dropping. right now I can still use the optic module and enjoy the versatility of LRc toolbox