Still no profile support for Canon RF 70-200mm 2.8 L IS USM!
Logged
Also with the latest update to version 15.1.2.1, the lens profile for the Canon RF 70-200mm 2.8 L IS USM was again not made available. Please do this immediately.
-
Official comment
Hi Luka,
Thank you for your feedback on Capture One - we appreciate the time you’ve taken to contribute towards the development of the software.
Currently, those lenses are not supported by Capture One although the Camera Team of our R&D department is always working to support new lenses as soon as possible.
Every lens profile is carefully done In-house by our engineers which is why support for some lenses might take a bit of time, but rest assured that all is done with the interest of making the best software we can.
I will forward your request to our Camera Team, they consider every request and then prioritize the most requested lens profiles to speed up support.
-
are you not ashamed to post such standardised BS answers again and again ? for yeasr user have to wait very long before even popular and professional used lenses are added but worse you lens profiles often suck which does not speak you invest a lot of time in creating them.
1 -
Permanently deleted user
CSP whining again - what a surprise...
Why are you even here, if Capture One is SO bad?
1 -
go f..k yourself a.....e
-2 -
What I don't understand, really, why is it even necessary that C1 or other raw converter software companies create lens profiles at all, why are the manufacturer provided profiles not already perfect?
Is that because of sample to sample variations during lens production?
But if so, how does a profile help which is created by a raw converter software company? They probably only have one, or a few samples at best, but we users have other samples.
Don't know if Canon raw files provide an embedded profile as Nikon Z does, but at least for the Nikon Z kit lens (24-70 f4) in addition to the manufacturer profile there is an additional C1 profile.
This lens costs 1000+ bucks if bought new, so why don't have such lenses which are sold for 1k or 2k close to zero sample variations, and be perfectly profiled by the manufacturer?
For example, after I bought a Nikon Z7 with that kit lens, I photographed a wall (because it was a very nice ancient wall of an abby, actually), but I noticed it was not evenly sharp or unsharp across the field. So back home set up Jim Kasson's lens testing procedure and the results confirmed uniformity was bad enough (fo rme) to send the whole package back.
This test is "only" for sharpness, but I reckon that production tolerances which are affecting sharness could also affect distortion.
The next Z7 kit with that lens which I bought was acceptably uniform (sharp or unsharp) in all corners and at opposite edges.
That's what really annoys me, a lot of time wasted for testing and sending back&forth, for high-priced lenses. And I am lucky to have the option to send it back.New lens lines at least should have new or improved production processes, one could assume, with qualtity control build-in between process steps and a final QC which deserves its name. I would rather pay more for a lens with a quality control and tighter tolerance specs and not having to fear to get a bad copy and do time-consuming and error-prone testing by myself. We are in 2022.
Testing each lens could be done by the manufacturers (and not only in Otus land), Roger Cicala / lensrentals.com does this regularly when buying new lenses, and returns them if needed, and on occasion when lenses are returned from the rentals, if I am informed correctly. It takes them 15 minutes per lens on a test-bench, afaik.
-1 -
maybe camera companies have other priorities for their lens profiles as they have to be applied fast in camera and why should lens profiles not be build with higher accuracy by 3.party software companies as they are the ones which charge you ?
c1 also can't often even get lens vignetting right and I don't believe that has something to do with lens variations.
you also don't know if the misalignment comes from your camera or the lens. if you have a good camera service you can send them in to match them, it is in my view also often much better to have the lens adjusted instead of an immediate exchange.
what I don't understand is that c1 does not provide the tools so we can build our on profiles and match them to our cameras.
1 -
maybe camera companies have other priorities for their lens profiles as they have to be applied fast in camera
Hm, if the camera brightens pixels (vignetting), shifts pixels (distortion), sharpens lens corners and corrects for CA, I don't think this would take any longer with a good profile as compared to a not so good profile, but who knows.
why should lens profiles not be build with higher accuracy by 3.party software companies as they are the ones which charge you ?
Well, a raw converter costs a couple of hundred bucks for a perpetual license for almost every important camera and lens, and the camera seller charges me one to two thousand bucks for one lens only. And, it is the lens manufacturer's product they are selling me, and today in digital age, the lens profile is part of how the lens renders an image, so I think the accountabilty is mostly on the lens manufacturer, they are the ones charging me.
you also don't know if the misalignment comes from your camera or the lens.
That's partially true, in general terms, the method from Jim Kasson mostly rules that out though. And if lensrentals.com test dozens or more of the same lens model with their test bench, the variations certainly come from the lenses (some lens models have more variations than others, this rules out a systematical error with their test bench and procedure).
if you have a good camera service you can send them in to match them, it is in my view also often much better to have the lens adjusted instead of an immediate exchange.
I live nearby a (good?) service but they failed with my DSLR and only two lenses to adjust the system so that both lenses don't have back or front focus, and AF finetune adjustments did not do the trick either. And it had been in the service twice (the first time the AF finetune value was maxed out already for one of the lenses). The old DSLR focussing concept (mainly separated AF system) calls for such problems with high resolution cameras and sharp lenses, and I actually sold my DSLR gear and went to Sony mirrorless for a while, I was a happy camper then, and even happier when Nikon joined the mirrorless market. Happy but with the exception of manufacturer tolerances.
In many cases (images) neither matter (DSLR AF concept weakness and lens variations), but in other cases it does.
what I don't understand is that c1 does not provide the tools so we can build our on profiles and match them to our cameras.
This would make a good feature request.
-1 -
@BeO
An article I read some time ago - back when Micro4/3rds had appeared and the need for small lenses to go with the small cameras could only be satisfied at the cost point by fixing lens coirrection using software rather then optical methods - that pointed out the potential for providing lens by lens corrections rather than just batch by batch or a fixed adjustment for the design that might only be checked against each batch to assess whether the production run was likely to be within design tolerances.
At the time the idea seemed to be more likely apply to premium price lenses as and add on "service" to justify the higher retail value.
But by now I would imagine that the manufacturing capability could quite easily assess the tolerances of lenses in a batch and decide which ones could take a "default" correction and which might nee an alternative correction.
For premium lenses it would surely make sense to test them and simply load a correction file that reflected the results for each lens.
Now, once one has reached that stage it seems likely that manufacturing tolerances could be a little more liberal (especially in mass-market lenses?) because the correction could be applied in software.
That, in turn, could cut some of the main costs associated with designing and manufacturing the lens and so add to the profit margin or allow greater price flexibility for marketing.
So one might think it would be an attractive proposition - especially for ranges of new lenses for new bodies and lens mounts. (Maybe not so interesting for re-visiting existing, established products).
IF that could be the case, the concept of testing a couple of lenses and creating some correction parameters might be meaningless as there would be much less expectation that the manufacturers would be seeking optical consistency. Lab testing might not be able to produce a reliable adjustment file that would work for all examples of the lens.
So that would leave either the Manufacturer profile or some sort of lens by individual lens AI based analysis tool.
I suppose one could also just use the Manufacturer Profile and present it with a different name?
Whatever the future it would be interesting to have a deeper understanding of what it is likely to hold.
1 -
Software lens correction as part of the lens design makes sense, it results in cheaper and lighter lenses and / or better image quality. But I don't capture images with a lens design in front of my camera, I rather mount a real incarnation of a lens design to it. And I think that the effect of most manufacturing tolerances, if they are too sloppy, cannot be profiled away, maybe some of them, to certain extent.
0 -
@Keith R
you can open a bottle of champagne I will no longer contribute to this forum
1
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
10 comments