DxO Software - New Cameras & Lenses support (5 March 2024 update)

Marie,

I’m glad to see you’ll be resuming work on Pentax (and Sigma) lenses in the autumn. Can you give me a rough guess about when the Pentax modules will appear?

Roger

2 Likes

Bonjour’
Des nouvelles concernant le support du Nikkor Z 100-400 f4.5 - 5.6 VR (avec et sans multiplicateur Z x1.4 et 2).
Merci

@Marie: Hello, I just today realized - there is no optical module for my Z9 together with Nikkor Z 100-400 (also with the Z TC 1.4, Z TC 2.0) in DxO.
That’s a pity and I really like Photolab 5 but have to use other software for the development now.

When might you plan to deliver the aforementioned module(s)? It’s not only me - many Z9 - users I know also have the Z 100-400, it’s a very common combination here and many of them are eager to finally use DxO (PureRaw mostly, that’s a runner!) but won’t without the module…

A low priority vs others needs on here, but the Voigtlander 110mm APO for Sony FE mount would be a great addition. If it just makes it to the wish list I’ll be happy :slight_smile:

An APO-chromatic corrected tele-lens, in need of software-correction? Seriously? :flushed: Dustin Abbott didn’t find much to complain about…

1 Like

Probably true. Voigtländer APO lenses tend to have only small amounts of lens distortion, chromatic aberration and vignetting. The Voigtländer 50mm f/2 APO with a Nikon Z mount is an example of that.

Unfortunately my new and much more affordable APS-C Voigtländers designed for the Nikon Z mount are not APO lenses. They include the 35 mm f/1.2 and the 23mm f/1.2. I use them on my Nikon Z fc.

They both have very little barrel and pin cushion distortion but they do have a lot of vignetting wide open and some moderate chromatic aberration. I would love to see optics modules for these two llense and especially would like to see DxO’s default take on Lens sharpness for them. I am not holding my breath waiting for support which may never come.

Mark

1 Like

Yeah seriously, CA and distortion may be low, but there’s more to lens profiles than that right? How about vignetting which is 2 stops wide open (uncorrected), and then there’s DxO’s magical lens sharpness tool which may be needed to counter diffraction when heavily stopped down for macro work, this would probably be the biggest win.

What’s your problem?

My problem? You tell me… :joy:

It’s not my lens, and I know how to avoid diffraction caused by stopping down too much. I also know where to place a lens module request at DxO, and I even found the slider for vignetting in DxO. Also, lost details because of diffraction remain lost details no matter how magic you or DxO considers the added synthetic sharpening.

And I’m really happy not being the responsible person to decide which lenses have priority and which not so much. Some of us are waiting for years now and your lens came out only 4 years ago. Maybe it won’t happen next week… :rofl:

Etiquette would be a good start, you know that’s a trait that can be learned as an adult if you weren’t raised with it? :joy:.

So if lost details are lost details why does DxO waste so much time on stuff like DeepPRIME? Noise is lost details I thought? I’d be interested to hear from others on how effective or not the Lens Sharpening tool is at improving photo’s when your outside the f stop sweet zone of your particular lens? Is this a waste of time?

Vignetting - you might be happy manually correcting for this, I’d prefer not to have to do that.

Thanks for letting me know that you know where to place lens requests, a more constructive message would be advising me where to place such requests as I see a whole string of people making requests here in this thread, so it seems it’s not clear to many of us morons what the correct protocol is?

Attached is the link to the DxO camera and lens support website. It can be a bit confusing to use so get back to us if you’re having a problem requesting your specific lenses

Mark

1 Like

Thanks Mark, very straightforward actually!

1 Like

I’ve already added my two Voigtlander lenses, but I will not hold my breath on this. I’m thinking that manual focus lenses used by a very small percentage of their users might be difficult for DxO to acquire for testing and are most probably a low priority for them…But, you never know.

Mark

Well - from my email exchange with DxO support I hope to know now, how the next modules are to be chosen from the development department: mostly market presence, I understood. So I think, it is strongly advisable, to look into the already fabricated optical modules and try to choose your equipment accordingly. I know - this is not always possible, but for some users here it might be a possible way…

1 Like

A raw-converter (with a huge selection of shortcomings for my work) will be the last thing to determine or dictate my lens choice, especially because there are raw-converters available able to use the inbuilt manufacturer lens profiles. But thank you very much for sharing @lme :slightly_smiling_face:

Well, @jOjU, my hint was meant for us mere mortals and not for a master photographer so hovering above us all like you. But it’s nice that you - even if you weren’t meant to - still felt addressed. Thanks for the condescension.

Well @lme you can react as theatrically as you wish and I don’t want to take away your mere mortaility.
And by the way, who made you speaker of “us mere mortals”? Speak for yourself.

This however doesn’t solve DxO’s dilemma.
Since 10 years or longer a discussion is ongoing about wether or not software corrections of lenses are a good thing. One group says a manufacturer should deliver the best glass possible and not rely on software corrections, the other group doesn’t care as long as the result is fine.
Lens manufacturers on the other side see how small, lightweight and at lower costs lenses can be produced which rely fully on software correction. A Nikon 14-30/4 has around 12% barrel distortion at the wide end.
I think you’re confusing who’s responsible for the “lens in need of software correction” decisions: It’s not DxO, but the manufacturer of the lens. Therefore I think, if a lens manufacturer is already saving costs, it’s his responsibility to deliver lens profiles. And some do. And some Raw-converters can read and use them, they don’t look worse than DxO’s self produced ones.
And while more and more lenses of brands nobody knew 5-10 years ago are flooding the market at “competitive prices”, DxO’s backlog increases constantly. have you ever thought how frustrating it can be to find out the flaws of (sometimes high priced) lenses and try to create a software antidote? Working day-in, day-out, week after week on optically weak lenses? Just because manufacturers increase their profits?

You can scroll through this thread, forum members keep on asking for support of sometimes exotic but often rather standard lenses, like the Pentax users asking for support for their 16-50 standard zoom and waiting for long time. DxO’s decision that only self made lens profiles are good enough for DxO users became a severe bottleneck over time, and the flood of new lenses doesn’t give much hope for improvement.

The solution would be to give choices: Either manually correction or using of the manufacturer profile or, if someone likes to wait longer and goes lens shopping with a list of supported lenses at hand, DxO profiles

3 Likes

Hello @JoJu ,

We understand the problem you have.
We can identify lens correctly but not in all case, some lenses and some old cameras don’t provide full information so we have authorized to propose lenses only based on lensInformation, here 35mm F2. There are too many lenses to know which ones can be concerned or not.

The calibration of the Sigma 35mm is planned, it will solve your problem.

Regards,
Marie

Hello @Marie

I’ve seen some manufacturers putting the lens’ type in different meta-tags. But as Photolab 5 recognizes the Sigma 35/2 as such, I don’t understand why the lens module finder insists on pairing various (newer) bodies with a still sold Leica Apo Summicron - this kind of faults I can’t understand, confusing a very expensive, probably close to optical perfection lens with an affordable, very sharp lens, but distortions and vignetting a bit more than “normal”.

And btw. my problem is already solved. Since I decided to go L-mount, most of my lenses were not supported by PL although the RAW of the Lumix bodies were converted very well by DxO, but not by Capture One. Half year later that changed, and now I enjoy Capture One’s decision to offer “homebrew” lens profiles as well as “manufacturer” profiles. Plus manual corrections.

I like and appreciate the work you’re doing, but I’m not jealous for what you have to do for it, wading through an endless stream of new lenses, always behind with the new ones, and all possible body/adapter/lens combinations offer endless work. If I can’t rely (and I see why I cannot, the work load for you guys must be huge) on the DxO profile, I’d prefer to use the manufacturer profile - better than nothing, better than fiddling for myself. Only problem - DxO doesn’t support these kind of profiles. Plus the rather limited DAM part… sorry, I transferred 2 years of Lumix RAW now to the C1 Archive.

Do you know when support for RF 15-30 IS STM is planned. I think a very interesting lens.

Hello @AkkiMoto ,

support of the RF 15-30mm should come in October.

Regards,
Marie

1 Like