Skip to main content

Shuttershock and Olympus 75-300

Since a couple of months I own the Olympus 75-300 III. And since day one, I wasn't happy with the results I got. 
All the pictures shot at +/- 300 mm where soft and looked like there was motion blur. How's that possible? I tried it at a 1/1000th of a second, but still the motion blur in my pictures. I regret that I ever sold my Pentax with the 55-300 for this awfull lens!
But... Most reviews of this lens are positive. Is my copy of this lens bad?
I then figured out by reading forums that it could be a phenomena called 'shuttershock'. It that case, the shock of the shutter causes enough movement so the image is blurred.
For example:

How to fix this?
My camera has several drive modes, including one called 'anti-shock'. And that does magic.
In that mode The pictures are sharp again. No motion blur is visible! 
The downside of this mode is that the fasted drivemode can't be used.

Adobe Lightroom 4 vs. DXO Optics Pro 7

One day ago, Adobe released Lightroom 4.0. Two months ago, DXO released DXO Optics Pro 7. These two updates changed a lot in both software. How do they compare?

I'm using DXO Optics Pro for quite a while. I really like the simplicity and results. For landscape and nature photography the build in HDR tools are great. The possibilities to gain details from highlights is unsurpassed. The lack of speed of version 6 has been fixed in version 7. 

Is DXO still my favorite, or does Lightroom beat it? That question will I answer on the end. First of all I will compare them.


  • workflow
    • Lightroom is still the best workflow tool on the market
    • Workflow is not the best in DXO. You need a tool like Picassa to do the file management
      • winner: Lightroom, DXO doens't have real workflow tools
  • image quality
    • Lightroom gets very much detail from images, the lens correction is okay, but not very good,
    • DXO get's a little less details from my images, but the lens correction tools are the best ever seen.
      • winner: draw.
  • speed
    • Lightroom is very fast. When editing the changes are live, even when viewing the whole image. Processing 6 images took 1:01 minutes
    • DXO is also fast when processing, during the editing, some changes can only be seen at >75% zoom level. Processing 6 images took 1:08 minutes.
      • winner: Lightroom. The speed of DXO has improved much, but Lightroom is still ahead.
  • ease of use
    • Lightroom is very extensive and has many options. But the editing of the images is very easy. When looking around on the internet, many tutorials can be found.
    • DXO is working a bit different. When not used to it, you will think the image quality is not good. When you understand how it works, it's quite easy to use.
      • winner: Lightroom. The many options makes a steep learning curve necessary, but after that, it's easy to use.
  • Price
    • Lightroom:  €130,-
    • DXO: €149,- to €299,-
      • winner: Lightroom. When using an entry level camera, the price is about the same, but when using a pro level camera, DXO is much more expensive.
The things I'm really missing in DXO compared to Lightroom:
  • plugins
  • lens modules for third party lenses
  • selective editing brushes
  • gradient filter
  • importing images
  • geo tagging
The thinks I'm really missing in Lightroom compared to DXO
  • high quality lens modules
  • sharpening more to the edge of the image, than in the center, to reduce that lens flaw
  • correcting volume anamorphosis and easily correcting other geometrical problems
As you can see, DXO has more flaws.

But after all, what images can you get with Lightroom en DXO?

Left: Lightroom Right: DXO

All the images have automatic settings for colors. As you can see, Lightroom gives a little bit more vibrant colors and better contrast. Also the details are a little bit better. The noise reductions of Lightroom is a little bit less. DXO sometimes tends to to 'to much' (see the Polar Bear). Highlight recovery is better in Lightroom. With the new process version 2012, I can get details from my image, I didn't even know they where there because Lightroom 3 or even the newest version of DXO didn't get these details from my image. (more details about this). DXO gives more natural colors which I like.

The noise reductions needs some special attention:

again: left Lightroom, right DXO.

As you can see, DXO leaves the image a little bit darker in the standard settings. So, there should be a little bit less noise in the image. In de default setting, Lightroom only removes chroma noise, the luminance noise is not edited at all. That's why you see so much noise in the Lightroom versions.

These last three images show the result when I set the luminance noise reduction manually in Lightroom. Now the pictures are more on par. DXO has removed to much detail by default, but that can be set. The bigger problem is the loss of saturation in DXO. The colors are less vibrant. I think Lightroom has the edge here, because of the less saturated colors in DXO. 


I think, Lightroom is the better choice if you want the best image quality. The price of Lightroom is better, it has more options, plugins, and better image quality. I used DXO because of it's ability of recovering details from shadows and highlights. But with the new Process Version (PV2012), Lightroom can also do that very well (see the image of the toucan), and even better.

The lens modules of DXO do a great job. The removing of Purple Fringe and chromatic abberations was the strenght of DXO, but Lightroom takes the lead there with version .4.1. The correction for architectural images is better in DXO.

DXO is only a RAW converter with the need of an image organiser like Google Picasa. When you want to use your pictures in more programs, that's my favorite because of the better filesystem integration than Lightroom.

I think Lightroom 4 is the best choice for most people.

Do you think I've overseen something, tell me!

see also the review of 4 RAW converters and this comparison of recovering hightlights

Popular posts from this blog

DXO Optics Pro vs. Corel Aftershot Pro

After using Aftershot Pro for a couple of days, I made this comparison to DXO Optics Pro 7. The difference is really clear. The colors in DXO (on the left) are much more realistic than the colors in Aftershot Pro (on the right).The settings where with the default settings with some tweaking for the contrast, exposure and noise reduction. (WB, saturation etc where left to default settings).
In the first picture, I could get the colors and contrast right with Aftershot Pro, with DXO I had to tweak the contrast, but after all, the picture is really nice and natural.

In this picture, at first view, I really like the version from Aftershot Pro. But this picture isn't real. The saturation of the picture is to much and the contrast unreal. The DXO version is a little bit foggy, but more like reality. With some tweaking of the curves, the DXO version will pop a little bit more.

This one shows the biggest difference. Removing chromatic aberrations. With DXO it was very simple, even if the…

Lightroom vs. DXO. vs. Photodirector

A little comparison of three RAW-converters. This comparison is not about how the program themselves works, but about the result of how one RAW-file is processed.

The version of the software I used:

DXO Optics Pro: 6.5
Adobe Lightroom: 3
Cyberlink Photodirector: 2011
For this test I used a photo of a little owl posted before on this weblog. The picture was a little underexposed and with a cheap lens (Tamron AF 70-300mm Di F/4.0-5.6 Macro 1:2). So there's work to do for the RAWconverter.