It would appear that what most users thought would be continuing support for cameras currently supported is not the case. See Fuji S5 raw.
This is very concerning; uncertainty of continued support undermines the very bases of my work flow using OP and now PL. I and many others do not produce and KEEP final image’s but just the RAW image’s and dop’s to enable outputting the corrected images as and when needed (or changing it) If DxO chose to drop support when producing (without warning customers) new versions or products this undermines my and others work flow.
Could someone from DxO explain why this has happened and if it is something that could happen again?
I suggest you be wary of this approach (regardless of the issue you’re reporting here; related to particular cameras) - as different versions of OP/PL can interpret sidecar/.dop files quite differently.
For example; when some aspects of the Smart Lighting algorithm were changed, older sidecar files containing details for Smart Lighting mode = OpticsPro9 were interpreted with completely different results.
Regards, John M
I agree this could be a problem, but at lest you would have a basis for correcting the images rather than having to redo every thing in different software due to not having the camera/lens information. I have ensured my older cameras are still supported (which they are) and the opened results appear to be OK but I am not comparing them to output done in the original version of OP. It must be difficult for those with a large back professional library if DxO change things like you say. My son has years of event images which are still selling even though no longer is professional. I can understand why he doesn’t use DxO but does use the storage flow I do (I copied him).
I must admit, it surprised me.
I’m guessing most of the hard work is in the measurements of the camera / lens - with the resulting corrections placed in a LUT or database. So if the figures are there for older cameras, why not use them?
My workhorse camera is a Nikon D300 (12 MP, 2007 technology), so the issue of cameras/lenses being removed from new versions of DxO products caught my attention. I enjoy satisfactory results with my D300 and I want to continue processing its NEF files in future releases of PhotoLab.
We can lament the absence of process versioning in PhotoLab (as available in Lightroom), but it seems DxO has turned a deaf ear to that feature request.
“We can lament the absence of process versioning in PhotoLab (as available in Lightroom), but it seems DxO has turned a deaf ear to that feature.”
Over time it would look to be a more valuable addition than DAM functionality but probably less brownie points from the marketing side. It makes me wonder what the point of introducing DAM is if the original processing is likely to be unrepeatable due to changes in the program. Or is it just a marketing ploy aimed for short term sales ignoring the long term inability of really being of use. If removing cameras, changing processes leads to an inability to use/recreate whats catalogued?
Ditto here Joseph. The D300’s sensor was way ahead of its time when it came out - and thanks to OP~PL it still rocks - not to mention the catalog of Raw images over the years.
So a question would be how many people would not upgrade to newer versions of PL if legacy cameras start being dropped.
Hopefully the S5 situation is an anomaly.
Hopefully it is, DxO will let us know whats happen and whats planned I am sure. At lest after the last new version and the Black Friday offer few of us will leap in to a new version and have plenty of time to check if our gear is still supported.
Please, wait a bit. It’s not a system that DxO removes the support of the old cameras. Let me ask @Benoit to give you an overview on that.
There’s no concern to have about this topic, as no further camera support will be removed from DxO products in the future. This only happened with Fuji Super CCD cameras, and be sure it won’t happen with another camera model.
In more details, Fuji S3/S5 RAW pictures are using non Bayer sensors (Super CCD), which was requiring a fully dedicated RAW engine in our products. Keeping alive this specific RAW engine was regularly slowing down our developments. This combined to the fact that very few people were still using such cameras, we decided to remove it, but this decision was only made because of these specific conditions.
Thanks for the information.
OK, the removal of Fuji S3/S5 cameras is indeed an anomaly and I am relieved that Benoit’s post (thank you @Benoit) clarifies DxO’s position on not removing camera support from their products.
BTW I agree with your opinion on the D300’s. I bought mine new in 2008 and it has held up very well. It surely helps that we can take advantages of the latest advances in raw processors such as PL2.
I have added a request for process versioning which clearly is something needed here.