Nikon pre-processing - why can't Canon do this?

My brother now owns a D300 and sent me these pre-processing photos that the D300 will perform to eliminate CA reduction. As you can see, the improvement in CA and sharpness is phenomenal. It's done in-camera to JPEG files, or can be done in post with the RAW file.

I'm not aware that Canon offers this kind of image improvement...will it be the next leap ahead?

DPP 3.6 has a CA tool.

Oops, here are the photos...

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

THAT good? These are done in-camera and are keyed to the particular lens on the camera at the time.

cdifoto wrote in post #7910348
DPP 3.6 has a CA tool.

What is a pre-processing photo? What does that mean?

DPP has had that tool for some time and so does LR.

The effect is applied to the JPEG in-camera, not in post (unless you do it with the RAW file). I've never seen an example this good. And in case you're curious, that's Nikon's 16-35mm zoom, and the image sample is from the extreme edge of the image...that's a SHARP lens, folks.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

BestVisuals wrote in post #7910355
THAT good? These are done in-camera and are keyed to the particular lens on the camera at the time.

I just tried it on a file from my 1D II and it seemed to do a good job, but I don't use DPP on a regular basis. It doesn't fix color cast though - you gotta do that separately.

With good lenses how much do images suffer from CA? I've not noticed that my images are plagued with it but maybe I'm not pixel peeping.

With bundled Digital Photo Professional software, you can also correct light falloff, distortions, chromatic aberration, and color blur of RAW images.

Some models also have peripheral illumination correction 'in-camera' as well among a host of other 'pre-processing' abilities. However, it can all be done with DPP which is FREE, whereas Nikon wants you to pay for an upgrade to get their full RAW editor.

gooble wrote in post #7910382
With good lenses how much do images suffer from CA? I've not noticed that my images are plagued with it but maybe I'm not pixel peeping.

Even the "Holy Trinity" of primes will show some CA when widely contrasting parts of an image are shot wide open...

No, from what I've heard is that Nikon's in-camera CA correction is keyed to the exact lens on the camera, not some generic CA removal tool. And many, if not the overwhelming majority, of lenses have CA. I'm a Canon owner for years so I'm not slamming my brand, I'm just saying the competition has made a leap of lightyears ahead (for the moment). One more reason to shoot JPEG!

BestVisuals wrote in post #7910367
The effect is applied to the JPEG in-camera, not in post (unless you do it with the RAW file). I've never seen an example this good. And in case you're curious, that's Nikon's 16-35mm zoom, and the image sample is from the extreme edge of the image...that's a SHARP lens, folks.

With a ton of moire and compression artifacts all over the place.

Not the best testimonial I've ever seen.

If anything, it's a GREAT testimonial. I had to reduce the sample sent to me to fit on this website, so the original 100% crop is much better. I introduced some of the artifacts processing the JPEG again for this post. Regardless, that's a very very sharp and contrasty edge image, and the image quality is greatly improved.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #7910410
With a ton of moire and compression artifacts all over the place.

Not the best testimonial I've ever seen.

BestVisuals wrote in post #7910403
No, from what I've heard is that Nikon's in-camera CA correction is keyed to the exact lens on the camera, not some generic CA removal tool. And many, if not the overwhelming majority, of lenses have CA. I'm a Canon owner for years so I'm not slamming my brand, I'm just saying the competition has made a leap of lightyears ahead (for the moment). One more reason to shoot JPEG!

Automatic CA correction isn't a reason to abandon RAW, IMHO. Especially when it's not a common occurrence on good lenses. Yeah, I get CA but it's usually limited to high contrast scenes where I didn't balance my light very well. A lass' brown hair against a blown sky for example.

Looks good, but maybe you should ask why Nikon wants an extra $130 for the equivalent of DPP. It HAS to do in camera processing because it doesn't ship with a software one. Pros and cons to each, I guess.