A great attractions to PL5 is automatic lens corrections with DXO’s renowned lens profiles. That is when they exist. As a predominantly sports shooter, I am finding that, I am being drawn away from using PL5, simply because profiles, a key benefit, don’t exist.
I’m not talking about rare lenses but ones that are a mainstay of Canon’s pro telephoto line up;
Canon EF200mm f/2.0L IS USM
Canon EF200mm f/2.0L IS USM with EF 1.4x III
Canon EF400mm f/2.8L IS USM II with EF 1.4x III
Canon RF400mm f/2.8L IS USM
Canon RF400mm f/2.8L IS USM with RF 1.4x
Canon RF600mm f/4.0L IS USM
Canon RF600mm f/4.0L IS USM with RF 1.4x
PL5 is so rarely mentioned in photography groups that use prime telephotos - sports, bird, big game. Even fanboys, like me, can’t explain away the absence of any profile. Canon’s own one is better than none. I use R5s but am not about to start creating my own profiles when they are available in software.
Am I missing something here? Is there a priority of going after the mass market? Do the above lenses fit into a low-priority area for DXO? I’d really like to understand, as it’s becoming a big problem.
These are also the very sort of lenses that where supported many of us will use converters for us on new mirrorless cameras as they are also expensive. There is no way at present of using a converter to use them on a new camera. I have started a which feature do you need to try to get support for converters as my lenses are supported on Canon but not on Sony.
Yes, a lot of pros use Topaz Denoise AI, probably because it’s an integrated or stand-alone product, a bit like DXO PureRAW. I’ve used them all and, for me they are, in order of quality, DEEPPrime, DeNoise then PureRAW. DEEPPrime requires PL5 to be purchased, to get the flexibility desired.
I think DXO would sell a lot more to big white prime users, who have the money, if those lenses were supported with profiles. It seems such a huge oversight, unless primarily aiming for the mass market.
Anyway, it’s having an impact on me because I use PL5, so I need to look at options.
I’m assuming you’re a Sony user. I thought there were Metabones converters but haven’t checked. I mostly use RF glass on R5s, so don’t have any issues other than the RF Extenders can’t be used on all white lenses.
Yes there are Metabones converters but they are about twice the cost of the Sigma one. They do have a list of supported lenses, but don’t list most many big white ones which is I think just like DXO not many used so don’t bother testing them. I didn’t go over to the Canon cameras as the lenses make up most of the weight, I have a bag that can either have a camera and lense, a 70-350 and 11-20 lense thats not much bigger than one needed for my old 5Ds and a lense. The Canon R would save a bit but not much. The Sony camearas are not as well built as the Canon but that in part where the weught comes from.
This isn’t a module as it no more affects the image than a macro extension tube. (I use extension tubes and as they retain full electrical contact PL just works as if they aren’t there and uses camera and lenses modules) Its a need for DXO to wake up to the changing reality of such things which allow customers to use a range of lenses made for one make of camera on another make camera. In my case Canon lenses on Sony E fitting cameras. It’s the long standing user wish to be able to select a lenses module to use on a camera one (usually where a one hadn’t been profiled), but in my case all my lenses have been profiled on Camron bodies but can’t be matched up to my Sony cameras that also have been profiled but currently it can’t be done. Ideally PL would use the lenses camera data and select the relevant modules but just being able to do it manually would be a big step forward.
A DxO module is created by measuring how one lens (model) performs on one specific camera (model), which means that if we have e.g. 100 lens- and camera models that we can pair, we’ll get 10’000 modules…
The method in itself limits the ability of DxO to push out modules and stay synchronised with whatever new body or lens comes along. DxO offers the module suggestion page in order to prioritise module creation according to customer request, but DxO might still be limited by available workforce - and gear availability.
Interesting but I wonder how they deal latter lenses or cameras to add profiles to as DXO appear to be dependent on borrowing stuff? It could be a lenses or camera profile once made is merely added to the new gear with possible adaptions if needed. We often see users being asked to send in images to make changes to profiles rather than the profile being re done as clearly they do not have all the gear profiled.
Making one module from one individual lens attached to one individual body will result in a module that might not fit 90% of pairs, just because the tested lens and body were at the edge of the specs. Sometimes I wonder, how a (small) company like DxO can manage to make the modules at all. Rented gear? Borrowed gear? Dependent on the goodwill of manufacturers? Buy the stuff, test it and resell it?
Come on. Do you think DXO is testing all EF lenses again with the R3 to come up with brand new profiles for the combination?
Is DXO testing the Z9 with all previous Z and F mount lenses? Of course they aren’t.
DXO is spot checking a few lenses with these new cameras. And also profiling things like the sensor color rendering and perhaps a few other elements that may relate to how light coming it at certain angles is captured by the sensor. But there is no way they have to recharacterize each lens and body combination.
I am a Sony shooter and the only adapted lens I use is the Canon 200/2.0 which isn’t supported on canon cameras, so I can’t comment on how DXO handles other adapted lenses.
It would be nice if we could manually select a lens profile if the lens wasn’t recognized.
Okay, in a model world of 100x100 items, >200 measurements must be made plus 10’000 computer runs. Again, running one test with one lens is simply not good enough, you need several runs with several lenses each in order to get an idea of how good your results will be in a real world of measuring errors and sample variation…
“A lens can’t be tested without a camera body, but fortunately each lens doesn’t have to be tested with each body. In fact, for each camera manufacturer, one camera body is selected as the baseline, or reference camera. This is typically one of the highest-end model cameras available, with the highest resolution sensor. That gives the most accurate information for the lens tests.”
I purchased PL4 Elite in 2021 and quickly stopped using it when I realized there was no lens profile available for some of my lenses (recent full frame Sony e-mount lenses). I don’t know why they can’t add support of the default embedded profile (in RAW) when their optimized profile is not available. I understand why all Pros use Lightroom. I don’t like the subscription model, but the processing flow is definitely faster (no time wasted on unsupported lens profiles).
I’m surprised that you did not discover that some of your lenses were not supported during the 31 day free trial of the software. Have you requested support for the lenses that are not currently supported?
1- I didn’t test all my lenses during the trial. And I assumed the embedded profile was supported as in CaptureOne that I was using until PL.
2- I replaced some of my lenses after I bought PL
3- I requested support of my unsupported lenses with no success. The latest request was this one = https://feedback.dxo.com/t/lens-support-sigma-100-400mm-dg-dn-sony-e-mount/ , in September.
I learned my lesson. Buy PL only if all your current lenses are supported AND you are sure to never replace them.