I’m now 100% sure that it’s not PL’s fault. The EXIF of both …hard copy files show generally empty lens info.
Except the Lens Info with 24 70 0 0 is given, but nothing else and the serial number is also a long mistake of 0s. When there’s no written info in the RAW file, no converter could read anything.
Coincidentally two things happened: the assumed mechanical or electronically problem became worse and PL 6.5 was published / installed. Now it seems PL 6.5 is the problem, but I think, not this time.
Thanks for your reply.
I also could not find any difference in the information contained in the EXIF pertaining to lens model or manufacturer, but that would not explain why PL6 could correctly identify the lens used in one image, but not the previous image.
Being able to manually choose the correct profile, as in PL5 and before (and in Lightroom etc.) would make this a non issue. But as it stands, I am forced to use either no profile or an incorrect one. That is very short-sighted on the part of DXO.
When the camera is reporting that it is either a Sigma or Tamron as shown below. Then the camera has some idea of the lens make, but just isn’t sure. Maybe due to the same lens identifier being used by both Tamron and Sigma. In this case DXO is deciding to choose the Sigma and not the Tamron…which is the wrong decision. If information isn’t completely clear, the software should ask the user. In my opinion, that is common sense.
Re-checked the two card copy files with ExifTool and different apps and found that apps have a hard time allocating the lens…which is to be expected since both Sigma and Tamron seem to use the same numerical LensID as the Canon Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM as shown by ExifTool
[MakerNotes] Lens Type : Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM or Sigma or Tamron Lens
I suppose that apps also see that you used an EOS R body, which (sort of) eliminates the Canon lens, which was engineered to be used on SLRs. Why all these apps pick either the Sigma or Tamron lens or both is difficult to understand though.
As ExifTool and BBEdit see no differences in lens info, I suppose that your gear is okay.
ExifTool-Export.zip (13.6 KB)
I tried several ways to work around the issue
- Converted the files with Adobe DNG Converter
→ DPL now proposes more comprehensive module options
- Hardcore Hack: Edit metadata with ExifTool to add the “Lens Model”
- Temporary Fix: Edit the DPL’s database as outlined above
Caveat: Adobe DNG Converter solves the problem in this case. It doesn’t solve all lens recognition issues though. Results depend on the info it finds in a file. Not all files are created equal though.
On the possibility of choosing the profile if the situation is unclear, I absolutely agree. This is a long term flaw of PL and I don’t understand the reason they keep it that way for so long.
That the camera sees two possible lenses is bewildering me. I can’t say “I never had this”, simply because I don’t control every image for proper EXIF data. It just never popped up when something went “the other way”. But initiated by your post I scrolled through some recent images made with a rented Nikkor 19/4 PC E (the lens has contacts for electronically aperture operation). Used with a Z 7 and FTZ adapters, all genuine Nikon stuff: No lens EXIF available except “19 4 0 0”. No maker, no serial number.
Standards which are effectively no standard are rather pointless.
Edit: Interestingly Capture One also believes in a Sigma lens:
I really wonder where that comes from?
Maybe someone at DXO decided that when the lens is not 100% known, then it MUST be a Sigma 24-70 F2.8, either the IS or non IS model.
I downloaded the test version of Lightroom CC and it also guessed at a Sigma, but it gave me the choice to choose. And as soon as I changed the lens manufacturer from Sigma to Tamron, it automatically selected the correct Tamron lens model for me. This makes me believe that it might indeed be a lens identifier issue that DXO is incorrectly solving on its own.
Back to the fact that we can’t choose our own lens profile when PL6 isn’t sure. This is a big failure/oversight on the part of DXO.
But…Adobe DNG files converted from EOS R files also don’t have the lens correction/Optical module capability…there isn’t any lens sharpeness etc with dng files, regardless of which lens is used. Even with my Canon 70-200 (EF) F2.8 II lens, or another Sigma lens…or my Tamron 45mm lens. But, with the CR3 files, optical corrections including lens sharpness are available with all lens combinations. Well that is up until v6.5 in my case.
I opened both images in Irfanview and checked the lens data. In both images they where equal. Also with exiftools.
However, when I open these images in PL6.3 I get the notification that for the _MG_2944.CR3 file there’s one module available.
The other image shows 2 modules.
How is that possible??
…well, you can still edit the database (when DPL is not running) if you must deliver an improved image…
Note the lens module ID in the first line, which also shows the lens ambiguities and the edited entry in the second line. This mod makes DPL use the correct module…as long as you don’t reindex the folder containing the files, the entries of which have been modded.
Other than that: Wait until DxO comes up with a useful fix.
… and as long as you don’t delete the database
That is the question! In my non-EXIF mind, that really doesn’t make sense. But, I am by no means an expert in any of this nor do I play one on TV.
Thanks for the information, but I don’t have that table (ZDOPSOURCE) available in DB Browser ro SQLite on my Windows 11 pc. I even changed the language to German on the odd chance that the tables are named differently…but no go. And even if I did, I am not sure I would begin to know how to edit the EXIF…but I can use my Google machine to learn how probably.
If you like, you can zip your database and attach it. I can then try to see where you’d need to modify entries…
Editing the files with ExifTool will take more effort. LensType tags use numerical IDs as well as several other tags to characterise a lens. Getting everything right will not be easy, unless you get lucky.
Thanks for the offer. I think I will first wait on DXO customer service and see if they can offer a solution. If not, I might come back to you.
Update: I have cleaned the contacts on the camera body, the ef-rf adapter as well as the lens. No change, still random images which PL6 identifies incorrectly and only gives the choice of using the wrong optical module or no optical module.
I still haven’t gotten any type of reply from DXO customer service after 2 days. Not even a “we are looking at your situation…” I worked in customer service for 18 years before moving to Germany and this is definitely poor customer service in my opinion, but I have had this sort of experience with DXO in the past.
I just had a popup listing which Apple phone was I using lising all of them as far as I could see
. Odd as it was Sony a6400 and 90 mm sony micro both preinstalled and used being used for processing. Clicked on the imige and the Apple pop up went and never came back how it could come up with it is not clearer as both camera and lense been in use for year’s with the only problem is DxO dropping distance reading in windows for the macro and other.lenses.
Maybe DXO is planning on shipping me a new Sigma lens and you all of the iPhones…I am a bit jealous I guess…
Lens id are stored as a number.The program has to interpret that number as a name. These numbers are not standardized. So maybe, I’m pretty sure, the Sigma and the Tamron lens have the same number.
I think this is the main problem. The second question is why PL6.5 is interpreting that number different as PL6.3.
They are all very old phones not a usfull current lense but the old Apple phones would probably sell well to collecters!
I have the same opinion as you. I think the third question is why doesn’t DXO allow the user to make the choice when the information it gets from the file makes it not clear which lens was used?
Imagine DPL’s lens recognition algorithm to be sure that the Sigma was used. This could be the case if some other metadata was taken into account, and DyO has said it does indeed quite a while ago.
Nevertheless, manual module selection could
- make many users happy
- relieve DxO from a piece of code that needs to be pampered regularly and does not really work perfectly today.
Also, it would be a good idea if manufacturers devised a solution that allows unambiguous lens id tagging. Computers manufacturers have done it with MAC- addresses for years.