Hello @Harald4,
sorry for the issue, we will add missing modules soon.
Marie
1 Like
Thanks!
According to Marie’s 11/7 announcement, the 400 2.8 modules will be released in December.
you guys should be able to get the Z600 PF soon as it’s in stock everywhere 
That is not necessarily true. DxO does not purchase lenses for testing. They rely on loaners which, depending on the lens, may have limited availability and a long line of reviewers/testers and software venders waiting for a copy.
Mark
Measuring and creating the characteristics for a body and lenses separately which then gets merged into one during the final application ot the calculations are nothing new.
If DxO have a good model of how the individual measured data affects the final module (system characteristic) as an algoritm - it’s simply to apply this in the way DxO say they do.
of course not - but is it what the claim is 
?
they say they measure each combo physically … with just a slip of tongue indicating that it is not the case … and they w/o absent ( for a purpose ? ) access in DxO PL itself to OEM optics corrections from raw files make sure that a user can’t really compare that his camera and his lens is getting a better deal from DxO module vs OEM optics corrections
really one wish that DxO can state on record what the deal is about it …
what i meant is because it’s in stock everywhere they should be able to have a loan for this lens somewhere, not saying they should buy it as they won’t do that.
When it comes to new and expensive lenses there may only be a handful of loaners available in Europe even after release.
Mark
That an exclusive PhotoLab user does not have the possibility of comparing “OEM” corrections with those of DxO is OK.
But it is extremely simple to compare the result of the corrections between a PL output with the DxO lens module and an ACR output (PS, LR) with the integrated lens corrections. And there are still quite a few of us here who can do it… and have done it!
and why it is OK for an “exclusive PhotoLab user” ?
well it is not that simple - because ACR/LR do not apply all - just some (Sony) or any at all (Canon) optics corrections provided by manufacturer ( Sony and Canon are for example )
For Canon, I don’t know.
But for Sony lenses that have a correction profile, it’s very simple:
- ACR automatically applies chromatic aberration correction, without the possibility of deactivating it.
- ACR automatically applies the distortion correction profile if the corresponding box is checked (you can deactivate the correction, which has not always been the case in the past).
- The distortion and chromatic aberration corrections applied by ACR are strictly identical to those of the Sony Edit software. And of course identical to those of the camera jpeg.
(Curiously, if ACR does not allow you to deactivate the chromatic aberration correction, it is the opposite in Edit: it is the distortion correction that cannot be deactivated)
So I affirm that ACR fully applies the corrections provided by Sony.
And therefore the comparison between the lens profile corrections of Sony (and very probably all other manufacturers) and those of DxO is easy.
as I noted - ACR/LR does not apply ALL corrections provided by Sony in .ARW files… ACR/LR will apply for ARW raw file for example distortion correction provided ( if and when ) by Adobe ( external .lcp profile !!! ) - not written by Sony in ARW file … and this is NOT the same… it is simply only when you do not understand what is happening “it’s very simple” … for example for ~1 year users of Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II lens were screaming loud because Adobe did not provide their own external profile and all that time all that data was readily available in .ARW raw files - but ACR/LR was NOT able to use it - Adobe creates their own profiles, they might be close to what is written by Sony but they are different
and the whole point is that a user can decide for himself what he wants to use by comparing corrections in situ and deciding whether, for example, bother with manually entering focusing distance for a number of Fuji lenses -OR- simply using Fuji provided corrections that ALREADY account for focusing distances w/o any need to manually enter anything
Well, ok, I guess I don’t understand… and I’m not going to spend much more time arguing on this point with someone who doesn’t want to admit that what I wrote is correct… .
I suggest you post concrete examples here to support your assertions.
What is certain is that for the Sony lenses that I own (and which do not include the 24-70 f/2.8 that you mention), I am able to note that the distortion and CA corrections of ACR are identical to Sony Edit corrections, and to camera jpegs. Except of course for the oldest lenses which do not have a correction profile.
So at least for these lenses I can say that the comparison between the Sony profiles applied by ACR and those of DxO is possible (and I’m not just checking it today!)
No need to argue about it, especially here 
At DxO Labs, we do our own optic correction profiles, that’s how we work. It requires to get the lenses in our Laboratories and as there are many lenses, we don’t have possibility to provide calibration at the minute lenses are on the market but we do our best and listen customers request to sort the backlog.
For Adobe, I can’t say what they do as you can guess 
If you have the “built-in profile” in the lens correction panel it means, of course, data come from the manufacturer. If not, they have a profile aside, but it can mean they calibrated it or they got it by the manufacturer (just not in the metadata). It’s a question about what manufacturers provide and agreements between companies, and that is not public 
Again, no need to argue about it.
but you do have a choice to give users an option to use embedded optics correction data at all time to fix regular stuff like vignetting, geometric distortion and LaCA …
how that additional feature hurting DxO unless what DxO does is not much better than already available in a raw file the moment camera writes it ? come on - it is not that difficult… start with enabling users to apply relevant optics correction tags from explicit DNG formatted raw files
and it solves a number of problems ( how fast corrections are available - if at all, not getting focusing distance info ) and it does not stop DxO from producing its own optics corrections…
and if DxO’s corrections are visibly better for a user then people will use them once ( if ever ) available…
Iridient - a one person operation behind Iridient Developer and *-Transformers - gives you an option to use all those corrections for Canon, Sony, Fuji, Nikon, m43 … that covers good 99% of the market… if a one person operation can do this surely DxO can do this too… not to mention that accessing optics correction tags in DNG file is trivial
assertions about using an external profiles ? just delete a relevant .LCP file , restart ACR or LR and see your optics correction for .ARW disappear… not being the same ? take any .ARW files with say Samyang lenses like 35/1.8 - geometric distortion correction fixed by external .LCP profile and what is embedded in .ARW is different… using Iridient ( https://www.iridientdigital.com/ ) software you can see that clearly… and as noted the mere fact that Adobe spends time like a year to produce .LCP profile for a widely available lens which being 24-70/2.8 from manufacturer itself hence a staple for many photographers clearly shows that they are NOT using what Sony writes in .ARW files - one can reasonably assume that instead of not signing any paperwork with Sony and just using what is readily available in .ARW they signed some and what happened to be in that paperwork bars them from accessing ( not accessing of course - but putting to use with a straight face ) the info …
comparing company that still breaks their own record revenue every trimestrial?