1 yr after release, Pentax K-3 III still without key lens support

As with an earlier thread that I posted, I don’t want this to be perceived as the usual clamouring-for-lens-modules thread. That’s because I’ve never been a friend of quick and dirty solutions and hold DxO’s conscientious approach to creating their correction modules based on a robust number of test images in high respect. That is, I’m willing to be patient for those modules to materialize, as long as I get the sense that a serious effort is made to keep up with them.

However, you’d probably be reasonable to expect that once a flagship DSLR like the Pentax K-3 III has been on the market for a substantial time, a full year in this case, that not only the camera itself is supported, but also the modern lenses that bring out the full potential of that camera. Therefore, not offering a module for something like the HD Pentax-DA 10-17mm F3.5-4.5 Fish-Eye ED may be a sad oversight (wouldn’t mind at all if it were fixed though), but not supporting a pro’s bread-and-butter lens like the HD Pentax-DA* 16-50mm F2.8 ED PLM AW is, well, just disappointing.

Unfortunately, Pentax full-frame shooters seem to be faring hardly better. If you’re shooting a K-1 II, for example, and hoping for modules concerning the HD FA Limiteds (21, 31, 43, 77 mm), you’re out of luck altogether. Commendably, the new HD Pentax-D FA 70-210mm F4 ED SDM WR is supported.

In summary, there is considerable room for improvement in the Pentax lens support department. I do understand that not having been sent loaners may be part of the problem. But still, isn’t there any way of seeking such loaners in a somewhat more proactive manner on DxO’s part?

I’m still waiting for a HD PENTAX-DA 1:5.6 560mm ED AW module for the K3, K3II let alone my K-3 III.
Given up waiting really.

1 Like

Sometimes it comes with a prise to select a smaller brand on the market. I have experienced that in quite a few ways. We who had KonicaMinolta and later migrated to Sony experienced exactly the same things even with Adobe Lightroom. Some functions there was exclusively for Canon and Nikon and it might even have been the case that Lightroom at that time handled Canon and Nikon RAW in a better way than our Sony ARW-files. Tethering for example was not supported at all for Sony but for CaNikon.

I can understand why DXO still after a year haven´t prioritized to developed lens profiles for a brand that is used of comparably few users when it took four months to get a camera profile for such a popular camera model as Sony’s A7 IV and maybe three months for Nikon Z9 and Canon R3.

There were for example practically no second hand market for Sony in my country the early days of that brand too but an abundance of Canon and Nikon second hand gear. Sometimes I felt like I was walking in a desert when I faced the very limited market support for KonicaMinolta too. Just buying a flash was a problem. Buying Sony-lenses often forced us to loook abroad for them. In these days Sony was far from the company it is today on the system camera market. The difference is enormous now.

I came from Pentax too and used Pentax for say close to 30 years (from the first years of the seventies) but I never saw them as an option when I went digital 2005 but it was pure luck Sony developed like it did. I think everything turned when Canon users found they could get access to better sensors at that time by putting their old lenses on Sonys A7r II with metabones adapters. I don´t think it is too much to say that it was the dissatisfied Sony-migrating Canon-users that at that time were frustrated over the slow sensor-R&D at Canon that increased Sony’s reputation as a platform. When Sony bought Minolta A-mount I don’t think KonicaMinolta even had 5% of the digital system camera market and even Sony struggled the first decade after the take over because they started almost from scratch with the camera bodies. They had to because Minoltas DNA was electro mechanical while Sonys was electronical.

Market shares are very important and the brands with poor market penetration just can´t compete when it comes to keep up with the R&D-race and their platforms market offers. Today it seems also that the most important third party lens manufacturers focus mostly on Sony, Canon, Fuji and Nikon. Selecting anything else than the most popular platforms is to select a more limited supply of both camera bodies, lenses and photo accessories. Today there is more than 350 different lense types from 20 plus manufacturers on the market för Sony E-mount and there are litterally more lenses released on the market every week still. E-mount has an tremendous momentum now compared to how it once was when E-mount and NEX was released on the market.

… but I still have a soft spot for Pentax and hope they will survive.

1 Like

All valid points, @Stenis, and an interesting perspective too. And, of course, I have few illusions as far as Pentax’s likely place on DxO’s priority list is concerned, considering the lack of market share outside Japan. Still, Pentax used to be particularly strong in France, DxO’s home market, and they should remember Pentaxians as a pretty dedicated and constant bunch of photographers. By which I mean that they don’t tend to represent passing trade but may well be among DxO’s most faithful customers. Also, Pentax gear releases are comparatively sparse, with ample time between them, so actually it wouldn’t take all that many resources to keep them reasonably covered with modules.

In an ideal world, DxO would have an extra department keeping track of new releases across brands and proactively seeking loaners, instead of just waiting for them to miraculously happen (not meant as sarcastically as it may sound). After all, the camera- and lens-specific modules remain one of DxO’s major selling points, one should think.

That doesn’t mean “… for all brands equally” :wink:

And that doesn’t mean, French photographers with a Pentax system at hand represent an equally big group of customers. It also doesn’t mean, they use DxO in majority.

Sorry, when it comes to lens and sensor support by DxO, I lost all illusions .
In two ways:
First, market general share appears to play the biggest role. I was never asked (as a customer) by DxO about my camera gear. I think, they should be concerned not only about big players but the camera zoo of exisiting customers. Don’t see that happening.
Second, it’st time for a better concept of lens support in general. Support provided by the lens producers is not automatically bad, ussually teh know the flaws of their lenses well enough. I just wonder why Capture One let me choose between their or the manufacturer’s lens profile? What is so bad on getting support at all and what will be the result of all this hesitations for DxO in the long term?

1 Like

The lens profiles are definitely key feature in DXO products like Photolab and PureRaw but I am definitely of an other opinion when it comes to camera profiles. They are mainly there to give you a better starting point than without them but they are not crusial at all.

Like I have shown in a few other treads it has not been any problems at all for me to use the profile of the previous model A7 III for my new A7 IV camera. When I changed the model code in the A7 IV-files with a HEX-editor I didn’t have any problems at all editing them as I liked.

So when it comes to the camera profiles you can apply in Photolab you can in fact select any supported camera profile for any type file for any of the manufacturers supported cameras AS LONG AS YOU HAVE A SUPPORTED FILE TYPE. As soon as you get are in you can do what ever you like. I can even select a Canon 5D MK III profile for any of the supported Sony file types BUT as long as you don’t have a supported file type you are locked out completely and can’t use Photolab at all.

My point when it comes to camera profiles is that it would be far better if DXO opened Photolab completely for all type of files to let the users select an interim profile or a substitute of their liking. If they would do that none at all would have to get stuck like now waiting months and months and even years in your case for a new camera profile.

Thanks for that info Joakim , I didn’t know Capture One offered that choise. I have stopped using Capture One since a few years. Seems to be a reasonal solution for the problems with DXO:s slow profile support. Very important point! I learned something new to day too and it´s just 9:42 in the morning! Have a nice day JoJu! Better with a bird in the hand than houndreds in the woods.

You’re welcome :smiley: In C1, it’s just the selection “manufacturer profile” in lens corrections. Some of them are better than C1’s own profiles (which are not as good as the few I can use in PL, but the difference usually is rather small). And the difference between the C1 solution and fiddling with a manual lens correction is a bit more noticeable - not in favour of PL.

When I started this thread, I intended it as a friendly reminder, not as another round of DxO bashing (present company excepted). Overall, I’ve been super happy with the software ever since I started using OpticsPro in 2015. And in fairness, I currently don’t own a single Pentax camera or lens, in a fairly large kit, that doesn’t have its own module. I will say, though, that in some cases, the absence of a correction module has made me think twice about acquiring certain lenses, which is not so great.

All I’m trying to suggest is that it should be in DxO’s own long-term interest to organize its production of lens modules in a more effective and sustainable manner. As hinted above, slackening on quality would compromise one of their key selling points, so they might actually have to reorganize, hire new personnel, and/or intensify their relations with manufacturers IMHO.

Bashing?? I am just as concerned about the well being of DXO as you are but I also see the effects of the kind of self-harming behavior the slow process of meeting up with the demands of camera and lens profiles that makes the software unusabel for a long and unpredictable time for all photographers with new gear. That also tends to create a lot of unnesscessary bad will for DXO that I and Joachim has suggested a couple of pretty simple solutions for that we hope DXO should consider to look into. As I think you can see here we are really trying nothing else than to be constructive here. As a former system developer I suppose it cant´t be all that complicated to abolish the condition that locks Photolab from editing unsupported files and make the interface open for selecting a temporary supported file type (like I can do myself by batch update the camera model codes in the files by my hexeditor).

To open for a possibility to select the manufacturers lens profiles as a temporary substitute for DXO:s own will be a little bit more complicated but it would help a lot and make the lens corrections sharpening tools open even for these users.

The worst that can happen is that DXO gets an unnessesary bad reputation for not implementing profiles quick enough and by that crippling the application for a lot of users (and the competition is really much faster - even if they have exactly the same problems too that even they ought to fix). In worst case it will make a lot of photographers to use other software instead. I know myself of Sony-users that has found Sonys free own Imaging Edge software good enough - and it´s surprisingly good and it has the support for Sony ARW in place from day one a new camera is launched! That is part of what DXO in fact is facing.

As I said, “present company excepted”. You guys are pointed and constructive. I just wanted to prevent the thread from taking a less fortunate turn, is all. I’m not a forum warrior, just a passionate photographer and mostly happy DxO user who believes in evolution rather than confrontation. :slightly_smiling_face:

Well, either we confront DxO with the reality that a lot of new lenses rely so much more on lens correction than older types did - or the reality will happen anyway, not waiting until DxO figures out a way to deal with evolved strategies of lens designers.

Question is, wasn’t that obvious? How often was a YT “lens test/comparison” ending with “fantastic performer but a very steep price”? So, one approach to squeeze down the price is leave the geometrical corrections to software. Wether I like that or not. Keep also in mind that some modern mirrorless systems don’t have a wide range of different lenses in different price ranges. Nikon locks out 3rd party suppliers, so I’d need a valid lens profile for the horribly distorting 14-30/4.

On L-mount (and talking of Sigma specifically) things are worse or at least not better. Excellent sharpness, but some heavy barrel distortions take away the gained resolution. Not each picture needs all correction software can deliver, but for those which do, DxO lacks of answers where others have them implemented.

1 Like