Adobe Camera Raw Misidentifying Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
A true and therefore preferred solution to the Canon lens ID problem would be forcing them via Anti-cartel legislation to at least open up that lens ID list to thirdparty lens manufacturers and assigning a block of 4-digit codes to them .. e.g. 9000 to 9999. That way every lens with Canon mount could get its own unique lens ID and be supported by Canon cameras to the extent thirdparty lens makers manage to correctly "guess" compatibility with Canon lens mount protocol and hardware requirements regarding AF system and drive, IS system, meteribg, flash distance information, etc.
Would make life easier for everybody, especially for Canon customers and create a bit more of a level playing field for anybody wanting to offer great lenses to work well with Canon cameras. Which in turn would enrich and strengthen Canon lens mount eco-system(s) ...
Would make life easier for everybody, especially for Canon customers and create a bit more of a level playing field for anybody wanting to offer great lenses to work well with Canon cameras. Which in turn would enrich and strengthen Canon lens mount eco-system(s) ...
Upvote
0
3kramd5 said:
Lighten-up buddy. No software company makes perfect software. No matter how much testing is done, bugs will always creep in. The level of perfection you're whining about is not possible, unless you want Adobe to wait years between releases, and charge much more money for their software.
The bug is found, it'll be updated quickly. Case closed. That's what commercial software gets you.
If you have an issue with it, by all means... use GIMP. Sounds like it's more your preference anyways.
Upvote
0
fwiw I've known since day one too since it is clearly shown in bridge. Don't blame sigma et al for wrong ID's like it is hard to get right since CaptureOne has reported it just fine for me and presume other none adobe stuff does too so I think it is adobe at fault here.
Mistakes are easily made, as for IQ destroying come on that is a bit harsh! Applying auto adjustments especially seeing the outcome as you do it leaves little danger with common sense. Too much automation and little brain power don't mix well an someone foolish enough to do that would wreck things on manual too by applying too much/too little of something on the ACR sliders me thinks.
Mistakes are easily made, as for IQ destroying come on that is a bit harsh! Applying auto adjustments especially seeing the outcome as you do it leaves little danger with common sense. Too much automation and little brain power don't mix well an someone foolish enough to do that would wreck things on manual too by applying too much/too little of something on the ACR sliders me thinks.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
Not a problem with the EOS system nor Canon's problem, per se. My OEM lenses are never misidentified.
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
Might as well suggest using anti-Cartel legislation to force Apple to facilitate Windows 10 running on iOS devices.
Canon is a corporation, not a cartel. If, say, Canon and Nikon were colluding to keep Sony from entering the market, anti-Cartel legislation could apply. You can't compel an individual company to go out of its way to allow other companies to piggyback on its hardware, though.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Bravissimo! Technological achievement of the year: Canon's very own lens ID system works decently with their own original Canon lenses.
In my (limited) legal understanding the way Canon is trying to actively lock out any and all third-party lens manufacturers from their mount as much as possible - including behaviour like use of a totally closed-loop numbering system for lens identification - constitutes a clear case of unfair competition. At least within the EU commpon market legislation and for products that are marketed and sold (also) to individual consumers (not only to businesses/corporations) - which clearly is the case for all Canon EOS cameras and EF/S/M lenses.
I will therefore bring the matter to the attention of the EU consumer rights commissioner to look into it. I've found them to be fairly responsive to such hints/"complaints" from EU citiziens in some earlier instances. At the very minimum a number of Canon marketing employees and legal consultants have to fill in detailed forms and provide answers to all sorts of inquisitive nasty EU commission questions ... that should keep 'em busy for a day or two, during which time they are too busy to think about ever new ways of "marketing differentiation" and how to lock out competitors and how to best gouge their customers. 8)
Upvote
0
Lee Jay said:
see the list some way down on this page: http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/TagNames/Canon.html
137 = Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L or Sigma or Tamron Lens
137.1 = Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM
137.2 = Sigma 50-200mm f/4-5.6 DC OS HSM
137.3 = Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM
137.4 = Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM
137.5 = Sigma 18-125mm f/3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM
137.6 = Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM
137.7 = Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS HSM
137.8 = Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM [II]
137.9 = Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD
137.10 = Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM
137.11 = Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II VC
137.12 = Tamron SP 60mm f/2 Macro Di II
137.13 = Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM
137.14 = Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD
137.15 = Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM
137.16 = Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG HSM II
172 = Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L or Sigma Lens
172.1 = Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM | S
Upvote
0
I don't know whether third party lens makers are really evaluating all options and then carefully chose a lens ID they expect to cause the least problems or whether they just assign "any working number" in their despair.
Of course faked lens ID may and often will - have unwanted effects: not only wrong lens correction profiles (e.g. in DPP), in case of Sigma 50 also in Adobe ACR/LR/PS) but also re. AF behaviour on all or certain Canon EOS bodies/firmware versions - e.g. use of outer sensors, use of cross-sensors, or double precision f/2.8 sensors not used, even if the lens is faster than f/2.8 ... etc.
I'd would also be vary of impacts on the effectiveness of Canon's ETTL II flash protocol and resulting images when original Canon speedlites are used, if lens distance information sent from lens to camera is expected to apply to an EF 85/1.2 L but in reality applies to a Sigma 18-35/1.8 lens etc.
Again, I really am convinced it is not only unfair market practice by Canon but also truly dumb of them to try and lock out competitors by using cloded lens ID lists, causing competitor's prioducts to (possible) get inferior results. It makes the Canon ecosystem not as strong as it could be and it punishes Canon camera clients ... and tarnishes Canon's reputation as well: if images captured with a third party lens are not as well-focussed as they should be due to some lens ID mess-up, not every Canon user will blame it on the lens, but rather on the camera and Canon ...
Of course faked lens ID may and often will - have unwanted effects: not only wrong lens correction profiles (e.g. in DPP), in case of Sigma 50 also in Adobe ACR/LR/PS) but also re. AF behaviour on all or certain Canon EOS bodies/firmware versions - e.g. use of outer sensors, use of cross-sensors, or double precision f/2.8 sensors not used, even if the lens is faster than f/2.8 ... etc.
I'd would also be vary of impacts on the effectiveness of Canon's ETTL II flash protocol and resulting images when original Canon speedlites are used, if lens distance information sent from lens to camera is expected to apply to an EF 85/1.2 L but in reality applies to a Sigma 18-35/1.8 lens etc.
Again, I really am convinced it is not only unfair market practice by Canon but also truly dumb of them to try and lock out competitors by using cloded lens ID lists, causing competitor's prioducts to (possible) get inferior results. It makes the Canon ecosystem not as strong as it could be and it punishes Canon camera clients ... and tarnishes Canon's reputation as well: if images captured with a third party lens are not as well-focussed as they should be due to some lens ID mess-up, not every Canon user will blame it on the lens, but rather on the camera and Canon ...
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:neuroanatomist said:
Bravissimo! Technological achievement of the year: Canon's very own lens ID system works decently with their own original Canon lenses.
In my (limited) legal understanding the way Canon is trying to actively lock out any and all third-party lens manufacturers from their mount as much as possible - including behaviour like use of a totally closed-loop numbering system for lens identification - constitutes a clear case of unfair competition. At least within the EU commpon market legislation and for products that are marketed and sold (also) to individual consumers (not only to businesses/corporations) - which clearly is the case for all Canon EOS cameras and EF/S/M lenses.
I will therefore bring the matter to the attention of the EU consumer rights commissioner to look into it. I've found them to be fairly responsive to such hints/"complaints" from EU citiziens in some earlier instances. At the very minimum a number of Canon marketing employees and legal consultants have to fill in detailed forms and provide answers to all sorts of inquisitive nasty EU commission questions ... that should keep 'em busy for a day or two, during which time they are too busy to think about ever new ways of "marketing differentiation" and how to lock out competitors and how to best gouge their customers. 8)
So Canon is legally obligated to do extra work to facilitate the efforts of other vendors to make fully compatible products? Obligated to make their AF protocols, E-TTL protocols, etc., public or at least offer them for license? After providing lens codes for other manufacturers, Canon is obligated to test all competitors' lenses with each new camera to validate compatibility?
LOL. Good luck with your efforts to waste the time of your government officials. :
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
No they are not obliged to disclose or license anything. But locking it up the way they do goes [probably] too far. All I am asking them to do in this context is to provide a sufficiently large block of lens IDs so that third-party lens makers can assign a unique lens ID to each of their lenses in Canon mount and Canon cameras and more importantly Raw cobnverters and Photo Editing Software can easily and clearly distinguish the lens model used to capture a specific image on a Canon camera.
Or any other measure that achieves the generic goal of UNIQUE LENS IDs for each and any lens that can be mounted natively on a Canon EOS camera, whether it is made by Canon or any other company. Of course third-party lens makers would then still have to make sure, they organize that block of lens IDs amongst themselves and avoid assigning different lens models to the same string value.
The request is reasonable, simple to comply with and fair. It does not not entail Canon having to share or release ANY proprietary information, intellectual property or "company secrets". It would be a win-win-win for Canon, Canon clients and the entire imaging industry except for competing camera makers with their own proprietary lens mounts.
Upvote
0
kphoto99 said:AvTvM said:
That would make Canon's life so much easier. If they see a lens id of 9xxx they can add a random amount to the AF distance without affecting any of Canon lenses
1. Canon could have done so by now, why would it do so if a block of IDs was allocated to 3rd party lens manufacturers?
2. IIRC, I've read the camera uses the lens ID to decide how to operate the lens, e.g. due to how the lens' motor behaves, hence 3rd party manufacturers choose IDs that gives optimal results.
Upvote
0
Antono Refa said:
Indeed...and if so, that would mean work by Canon to support those lenses, or rather since they won't do so unless legally obligated (about as likely as hell freezing over), it means no tweaking of performance for lenses, vs. the approximation 3rd party lenses get now by picking the most appropriate OEM lens ID.
So if AvTvM's cozy relationship with EU antitrust officials results in Canon allocating a block of ID numbers, it may just mean 3rd party vendors ignore them for better performance, or use them for accurate EXIF (assuming the Adobe/Apple/et al. adopt them, will the EU force them to do so? :
) at the expense of lens performance. Look over there, AvTvM – it's a
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
I didn't ask you what lens IDs I could get, I asked what Canon lenses directly replace the Sigma 18-35/1.8 and 150-600C I own. You recommended only buying first party lenses, but in my Canon lens catalog, no Canon lenses exist as direct replacements for the third-party lenses I have, and use successfully.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
It means no such thing for Canon. They provide a block of unique lens IDs for thirdparty lens makers and continue to leave them to their own devices and their more or less successful efforts at re-engineering Canon's ways with lens protocol, AF workings, ETTL workings etc. - everything as is today. Canon EOS bodies will continue to recognize the obly "legit" Code 180 lens ID ... Canon EF 85/1.2 L ... and support it fully whereas all other lenses faling that ID or using a block 9000 ID will be legt alone to their own devices. I am sure Canon firmware and software does a much better job in recognizing and differentiating original and faked lens IDs than those poor confused programmer interns at Adobe.
More important is the strategic view: instead of issueing statements like "umpteen million Canon EF lenses produced" Canon could advertise "Dear photogs, we proudly present our latest, greatest and most innovative EOS image capturing machine, the 1DX-2, along with a quiver of 120 (or whatever the number is) of original Canon EF/S/M lenses (tick appropriate box), the sharpest arrows in the entire wild west and supported by a lot of compatible tomahawks from our allies and admirers around the globe - the finest optical companies like Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and Zeiss ... The full arsenal at your disposal .., to shoot and capture the images you like. The force is with you, use it wisely."
So ... no windmills to be seen near or far.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
