# Adobe Camera Raw Misidentifying Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 4, 2016)

```
<p>It’s been brought to our attention by <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=17462" target="_blank">Sean at The-Digital-Picture</a> that Adobe Camera RAW (Version 9.3.1) is misidentifying the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG Art series lens. ACR is reading the lens ID as the Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4.</p>
<p>Adobe is aware of the issue and will fix the bug in the next release of Camera Raw.</p>
<p>The Digital Picture Notes:</p>
<blockquote><p>To counteract the issue, when using the Sigma 50mm Art be sure to manually choose the <b>Sigma 50mm f1.4 DG HSM A014</b> lens profile from the drop down list if a correction profile is desired. Also note that images saved and converted by Photoshop will display the incorrect lens in the EXIF even if no lens profile correction is applied.</p></blockquote>
<p>It’s not a huge deal, but we thought you should know.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2016)

A cheap way to get a Zeiss lens?


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 4, 2016)

It is a big deal if every single image taken with this lens gets an IQ-killing treatment from Adobe software, unless Adobe customers are aware and take corrective action manually for every bloody single image captured with that lens. f*cking Adobe, although i am personally not directly affected by this Adobe bug as i do not own a single Sigma lens and avoid all thirdparty lenses at any cost (quite literally, given Canon lens prices).

Ii is a totally inexcusable Adobe mistake and they should be forced to reimburse CC rental fee or 50% of all PS and LR purchases between bugfix and date when the sigma 50A was launched. That would teach them a lesson to be a bit more thorough in their software testing before releasing it to their paying clients.

I shall live to see Adobe go bankrupt and I will mark the day in red in my calendar. They are on their way ...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 4, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> they should be forced to reimburse CC rental fee or 50% of all PS and LR purchases between bugfix and date when the sigma 50A was launched.



Sure, 50% sounds like an equitable reparation for what a minor, fixable flaw in what probably amounts to less than one ten thousandth of one percent of the code.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> I shall live to see Adobe go bankrupt and I will mark the day in red in my calendar. *They are on their way* ...



Yep, it sure looks like it... :


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 4, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> It is a big deal if every single image taken with this lens gets an IQ-killing treatment from Adobe software, unless Adobe customers are aware and take corrective action manually for every bloody single image captured with that lens. f*cking Adobe, although i am personally not directly affected by this Adobe bug as i do not own a single Sigma lens and avoid all thirdparty lenses at any cost (quite literally, given Canon lens prices).
> 
> Ii is a totally inexcusable Adobe mistake and they should be forced to reimburse CC rental fee or 50% of all PS and LR purchases between bugfix and date when the sigma 50A was launched. That would teach them a lesson to be a bit more thorough in their software testing before releasing it to their paying clients.
> 
> I shall live to see Adobe go bankrupt and I will mark the day in red in my calendar. They are on their way ...



You are making a assumption that is incorrect. A person has to intentionally apply the lens correction feature for it to have a tiny almost insignificant effect.


----------



## SeanS (Jan 4, 2016)

Adobe has had to step up their Customer Service game since transitioning to a subscription model, and by my account they aren't doing a terrible job of it. Remember the radical import changes they made to Lightroom? A few weeks later and everything gets fixed. I posted twice in the Photoshop forum and had one of their Camera RAW Engineers respond to both posts within an hour. That's actually pretty impressive.

Adobe seems to be doing a good job of listening to their customers and fixing issues when they become aware of them. And for the small price of $9.99/mo? For any serious image-maker, that's an incredibly reasonable investment for a constantly updated Photoshop and Lightroom.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 4, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> It is a big deal if every single image taken with this lens gets an IQ-killing treatment from Adobe software, unless Adobe customers are aware and take corrective action manually for every bloody single image captured with that lens. f*cking Adobe, although i am personally not directly affected by this Adobe bug as i do not own a single Sigma lens and avoid all thirdparty lenses at any cost (quite literally, given Canon lens prices).
> 
> Ii is a totally inexcusable Adobe mistake and they should be forced to reimburse CC rental fee or 50% of all PS and LR purchases between bugfix and date when the sigma 50A was launched. That would teach them a lesson to be a bit more thorough in their software testing before releasing it to their paying clients.
> 
> I shall live to see Adobe go bankrupt and I will mark the day in red in my calendar. They are on their way ...



You seem to know very little about, well, all of it. First of all, applying the profile automatically is an *option*, it's not mandatory. Second, lens ID's are a very complex problem because there really aren't any standards. It's not at all uncommon for more than one lens to have the same lens ID. Then you're stuck trying to figure out which lens is which by searching other fields like, say, focal length and maximum aperture. Third, it's not unheard of for lens firmware to change during a manufacturing run, thus potentially altering the metadata recorded by the camera when connected to the lens. Finally, different cameras can record different lens metadata for the same lens.

Now, think about testing all possible cameras (say, 300 of them) with all possible lenses (say, 150 or so). That's 45,000 combinations to test.

I don't have inside information on how this bug came to be, I'm just trying to point out that this particular situation (lens identification) is much more difficult than it may seem at first glance.


----------



## Zv (Jan 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> It is a big deal if every single image taken with this lens gets an IQ-killing treatment from Adobe software, unless Adobe customers are aware and take corrective action manually for every bloody single image captured with that lens. f*cking Adobe, although i am personally not directly affected by this Adobe bug as i do not own a single Sigma lens and avoid all thirdparty lenses at any cost (quite literally, given Canon lens prices).
> 
> Ii is a totally inexcusable Adobe mistake and they should be forced to reimburse CC rental fee or 50% of all PS and LR purchases between bugfix and date when the sigma 50A was launched. That would teach them a lesson to be a bit more thorough in their software testing before releasing it to their paying clients.
> 
> I shall live to see Adobe go bankrupt and I will mark the day in red in my calendar. They are on their way ...



This can be fixed manually in about 3 minutes or less. Just filter your catalog using a smart collection for "50mm Milvus". Manually correct the first image then copy settings and apply to all images in collection.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 5, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> I don't have inside information on how this bug came to be, I'm just trying to point out that this particular situation (lens identification) is much more difficult than it may seem at first glance.



For all O know, Canon lens IDs are clear and unique per lens. 
This lens ID is read and recorded as the same code by every Canon EOS camera body. So no need to test against different Canon EOS cameras, so not 45.000 combinations
It is well known, that reverse-engineering third-party lensmakers like Sigma or Zeiss are using fake Canon lens IDs (often re-assigning lens IDs from old, out of production Canon lenses to their thirdparty lenses. this has repratedly caused all sorts of havoc for a good number of third party lenses (i recall such incidents for Sigma and Tamron lenses). The problem seems to be much more pronounced with Canon mount lenses than with Nikon or other camera makers - exacerbated by Canons ongping tinkering with their lens mount protocol, which seems to be at least in part targeted at thirdparty lens compatibility with Canon camera bodies.

One would expect a company like Adobe to have knowledge about this and the wherewithalls to carefully check and test thirdparty lenses faked IDs in conjunction with Canon cameras and Canon .cr2 RAW files rather than just launching a lens correction profile. It should not be hard for Adobe to quickly figure out, if a thirdparty lens uses the same fake lensID that is also used by another thirdparty (or Canon) lens. Obviously they did not take this into consideration for the sigma 50A profile. On a side note, it would be interesting to know what fake lens ID for which genuine (out of production or current) Canon EF lens Sigma has chosen for the 50A in Canon mount. Possibly some legacy Canon 50mm lens - 50/1.8 (I) or 50/1.0 ?

Not least because of these reverse-engineering fake lensID shenanigansand all sorts of potential and real problems associated with it (especially AF-related) I have ceased to use any thirdparty lenses on Canon cameras. To me it is not worth the hassle. Canon lenses on Canon bodies with "sample variation" on both ends is bad enough, no need to introduce more issues.

And Adobe is to blame for not paying enough - or any? - attention to this well-known problem area of fake Canon lensIDs. They really should have caught on to the issue of both Zeiss and Sigma using the same fake lensID for their lenses.

I generally use lens correction profiles in LR by default on importing raws and don't think i am the only one to do so. I would like being able to rely on RAW converter software to apply the correct profile for each lens.

The suggested workaround (clone correct lens profile setting to all images captured with Sigma 50A) sounds good, but it still takes a dedicated effort by Adobe + Sigma 50A + Canon camera users to apply it and depending on situation it may take more than just 3 minutes.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> And Adobe is to blame for not paying enough - or any? - attention to this well-known problem area of fake Canon lensIDs. They really should have caught on to the issue of both Zeiss and Sigma using the same fake lensID for their lenses.



Setting aside whether Zeiss and Sigma are cloning Canon lens IDs (I won't attest to that), yes - Adobe is to blame for not catching it in their implementation. Accordingly, they are going to fix the issue. What more can you reasonably ask for? A retroactive 50% price adjustment is not a reasonable expectation for a bug of this magnitude.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 5, 2016)

I thought Zeiss paid for licensing and got unique numbers from Canon, Sigma refuse to.

I'd say this is 100% Sigma's fault, how can a third party software company, who work perfectly legitimately with Canon and Canon products, be blamed when they fail to outsmart another third party companies hardware that deliberately uses cloned serial ID's to work? That is a farcical projection of responsibilities.

If Sigma owners want to save some money buying their lenses then know compatibility is an area where Sigma have a long history of not giving a shit about their customers and is a corner they are very happy to cut. The savings come from somewhere, this is one place.


----------



## Nininini (Jan 5, 2016)

SeanS said:


> And for the small price of $9.99/mo? For any serious image-maker, that's an incredibly reasonable investment



It's a costly program imo. Let's face it, 99% of photographers are hobbyists. Some freelance and hobbyists might make a few bucks going to a wedding or shooting for a friend, and for those people it might make sense.

But the pros with full time employment, shooting for Reuters, AP, Police, Forensics, none of those people pay a dime for these programs. They often shoot JPG and if they need Lightroom, they get it for free, or in the case of Reuters, they have a custom program. They don't pay a dime for their cameras either, Reuters issues them.

The argument that you earn back the money doesn't make a lot of sense to me.Yes, I'm sure some do, but the majority would be better off buying Corel Aftershot or using Canon's DPP program that comes with the camera, it's much cheaper than paying $10 every month, which adds up rather fast. Not to mention these programs are far more intuitive and fun to use than the UI nightmare that Lightroom has become.

I feel cheated having to keep paying for a program, I stopped using Adobe products, I don't want to feel like I'm on a ball and chain paying money every month and never owning the program. And the "pros earn it back" argument is really silly, pros don't pay for these programs themselves.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 5, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> I thought Zeiss paid for licensing and got unique numbers from Canon, Sigma refuse to.



That's what I assume, given the sigma showing up as a Zeiss and not the Zeiss showing up as a canon.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 5, 2016)

Update: just found this really neat list of Canon exif tags and string values, including lens IDs.
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/TagNames/Canon.html

Zeiss Milvus 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 and Sigma 50 Art and Sigma 24/1.4 Art and bloody Zeiss Otus 28 all fake Canon lens ID value 180 which originally is reserved for Canon EF 35/1.4 (original). So both Zeiss and Sigma are faking it and are primary culprits. Adobe is still to blame for the current mess and not properly checking for lens ID issues ... since even a dumb forum yokel like me could find this list with just 2 minutes of googling. 

180	= Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L or Other Lens
180.1	= Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM | A
180.2	= Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM | A
180.3	= Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4
180.4	= Zeiss Milvus 85mm f/1.4
180.5	= Zeiss Otus 28mm f/1.4 ZE

Note: differentiating decimal value after dot appears to be just added by the magic lantern folks who seem to be the originators of this list - as far as I understand it.

My guess is that Adobe software just checked combination of lens id code and focal length and possibly f/stop .. and therefore Zeiss Milvus 50 and Sigma 50 Art were not properly differentiated. Maybe adobe software also cannot properly alphasort list entries and therefore "Zeiss" comes up first before "Sigma" when looking up cpde 180 and 50mm and f/1.4 ... as simple as that. And every single new thirdparty fake lens ID lens is bound to cause the same mess again ...

Further interesting reading on the subject of lens ID and its ramifications to be found on this Canon link:
https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART108675&pmv=print&impressions=false&viewlocale=en_US

Conclusion: I will continue to avoid thirdparty lenses (although there are some known issues even with regards to a number of - discontinued, low-grade junk - original Canon lenses in conjunction with certain Canon cameras/firmware combinations).

Lastly: Also interesting to note that Canon has moved to 4 digit lens Model codes starting with 41## for all STM lenses.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 5, 2016)

SeanS said:


> Adobe seems to be doing a good job of listening to their customers and fixing issues when they become aware of them. And for the small price of $9.99/mo? For any serious image-maker, that's an incredibly reasonable investment for a constantly updated Photoshop and Lightroom.



If you use Photoshop. I don't. Too slow, too bloated. About 99% of what's been added in the last 10 years is for graphic artists.

I did my first Photoshop edit of an image in a year a couple days ago, and that was done on Elements without as much PS bloat. I have CS6, Elements 9, and used to have CC. I prefer Elements to the other two. It's faster, easier to use, and has all the power I need, in combination with Lightroom.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 5, 2016)

Nininini said:


> I feel cheated having to keep paying for a program



You feel cheated for voluntarily entering into such an agreement?

Shrug.

Out of curiosity, do you run any computer security software? I haven't found one worth a second thought which doesn't have a recurring cost in the last decade. Similarly, most of the software I use at my main job is licensed annually. It's just the way of things.


----------



## Nininini (Jan 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Conclusion: I will continue to avoid thirdparty lenses



Been doing this for years. When I saw my brother in law spend several hours cconfiguring his Sigma lens on the USB dock to get it to focus properly, I bought him a proper canon lens, his Sigma lens and his silly dock, hasn't been used since.


----------



## Nininini (Jan 5, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> You feel cheated for voluntarily entering into such an agreement?



Yah, and it's not just the price every month. Every month you also give them your CC information, your account, I just prefer owning something.

As far as the program itself, I'm not sure what's so great about Lightroom that I can't do in either Aftershot or Canon DPP. And the Lightroom UI has become a mess, and importing the photos takes ages, it is instant in Aftershot and DPP.



3kramd5 said:


> Out of curiosity, do you run any computer security software? I haven't found one worth a second thought which doesn't have a recurring cost in the last decade.



I bought a security program. But there are several good free security programs, one is Avast. Avast is one of the few that is capable of stopping the Regin trojan being used by government agencies right now. Another one that managed to stop it is Kaspersky Lab.

The only US anti-virus that is blocking it is Symantec, the rest probably have NSA backdoors.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 5, 2016)

+1 
I also use free version of Avast after having paid for many years for McAfee and Norton junk. Avast works just as well or better and has far fewer nags and popups or other unwanted disturbances.

For now i keep using LR 5.7 because I have purchased it and it does what i need. Will not upgrade to 6 and never go CC rental. Also purchased CS5 license but hate PS user interface and bloat, wiped it off my PC. Also hate how Adobe clutters my entire system and Windows registry with all sorts of entries all over the place. A huge mess. Will eventually go back to DPP if Canon ever manages to sort out that ugly version 3 vs. 4 mess. Otherwise it'll likely be Capture One Pro.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 5, 2016)

Avast free is nice as far as it goes. As far as full suites (eg avast Internet security, which has a recurring cost), I find ESET's solution to be the lightest (from a resources standpoint).


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 5, 2016)

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) ...


----------



## gmon750 (Jan 5, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > they should be forced to reimburse CC rental fee or 50% of all PS and LR purchases between bugfix and date when the sigma 50A was launched.
> ...



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.


----------



## jdavidse (Jan 5, 2016)

Come on CR, you just now noticed this? I've known since the day I bought my Sigma 50, as I'm sure everyone else who owns it has. It is annoying but I'm glad it's finally getting some press, I suppose.


----------



## kten (Jan 5, 2016)

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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2016)

dilbert said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Update: just found this really neat list of Canon exif tags and string values, including lens IDs.
> ...



Not a problem with the EOS system nor Canon's problem, per se. My OEM lenses are never misidentified.


----------



## uri.raz (Jan 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> 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.



A link up the thread detailing the EXIF tag shows there's a LensModel tag which is a 64 characters long string, seems like a better location for the purpose.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> 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.





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.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 5, 2016)

Nininini said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Conclusion: I will continue to avoid thirdparty lenses
> ...



Which Canon lens replaces either my Sigma 18-35/1.8 or 150-600C?


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 5, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not a problem with the EOS system nor Canon's problem, per se. My OEM lenses are never misidentified.



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)


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 5, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> Which Canon lens replaces either my Sigma 18-35/1.8 or 150-600C?



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*


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Which Canon lens replaces either my Sigma 18-35/1.8 or 150-600C?
> ...



You can use an 85mm in place of an 18-35mm? Cool!


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 5, 2016)

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 ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Not a problem with the EOS system nor Canon's problem, per se. My OEM lenses are never misidentified.
> ...



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. :


----------



## kphoto99 (Jan 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> 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) ...



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


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 5, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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?



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.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 5, 2016)

kphoto99 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> 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.



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 windmill giant camera cartel. Grab your lance and mount your horse, there's work to be done!


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Which Canon lens replaces either my Sigma 18-35/1.8 or 150-600C?
> ...



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.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 5, 2016)

neuroanatomist 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.



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.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 6, 2016)

Hi Dilbert. 
Would it be too far fetched to think that one of those little chunks of silicon found in a lens would provide that info to the camera under electrical torture? I have no idea, just thinking out loud! 

Cheers, Graham. 



dilbert said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist 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.
> ...



It's quite a stretch to assume that, were they even inclined to, the entire third party lens industry could agree to ownership of each and every entry. You'd see the bigs trying to claim vast portions of the block, and double+ booking would no doubt ensue (and likely still others would continue using canon numbers for the reasons discussed above).

So what you're really considering is asking government to force canon to open up a block of numbers that they themselves can not use, which has very little chance of effectively solving the "not a big deal" problem at hand.

While it does sound like something bureaucrats would jump at, I'm going to out on a limb and say "not gonna happen."


----------



## bwud (Jan 6, 2016)

I have to assume that what was suggest above about third party manufacturers trying to get canon bodies to drive their lenses as OEM has some truth to it. They may have no desire to identify correctly.

Interestingly, when I put my sigma 70-200 on my 5D3, Lightroom recognizes it correctly. However when I adapt my 16-35 f/4L IS to my A7R II, Lightroom recognizes it as the Sony 16-35 OSS. Some may assume that Sony and Metabones are acting as a cartel to stick it to canon, but anyone who pays attention to either of their marketing knows that's not true. Rather, it's likely advantageous to spoof native lenses where available.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> While it does sound like something bureaucrats would jump at, I'm going to out on a limb and say "not gonna happen."



It won't go anywhere – I generally don't give bureaucrats much credit, but in this case even they can't be that foolish. Going after one non-EU company to benefit mostly non-EU competitors, to 'fix' what amounts to a total non-issue for EU consumers because obviously the 3rd party lenses work just fine on Canon bodies. 

But why not let him tilt at the windmill. Could be fun to watch!


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 6, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



That's a good point.

But...

1. The LensType field is 16 bits long. Why wouldn't Sigma (or Tamron, or any other 3rd party lens maker) pick a range of unused numbers, say 2000-3000, and use them sequentially for their lenses?

2. If the issue is fooling the camera into thinking it's a Canon lens, the camera can find this out same way Adobe does - cross checking the code against MaxFocalLength, ,MinFocalLength, MaxAperture, MinAperture, etc?

Based on eflens.com, Canon released <200 lenses, so a table would take 200 X 5 fields X 16 bit = ~2KB, a negligible amount of memory for a DSLR that can have lens correction data uploaded to it.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 6, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ... to 'fix' what amounts to a total non-issue for EU consumers because obviously the 3rd party lenses work just fine on Canon bodies.


Obviously they don't. At least not all of them, not all the time and/or not as well as they could and should.

AF performance is a constant field of problems with third party lenses (namely Sigma) on Canon cameras. And last time in 2011 there was a major issue caused by Canon's closed list of lens ID codes and a whole slew of Tamron lenses thatused poorly chosen spoofed/fake lens-IDs. That incident revealed that even 10+ original Canon EF lenses and their lens IDs do not play well with Canon EOS bodies.

Regulatory action in the EU would come from consumer rights protection. It does not matter, whether the maker of products is a EU company or not (it helps the case however that Canon has legal entities for marketing and sales in all EU countries). All that matters is that such products are sold to individual consumers and that the maker is (ab) using a "dominant market position" to limit competition in unfair ways and thus hurts consumer interests (essentially to get the best possible products at the best possible price). 

I am totally open as to HOW exactly the specific problem of "lens ID" is technically resolved, but .. It needs to be resolved. 

But even if such a solution should not come about, Canon is punishing itself in the longer term by aggressively trying to limit their ecosystem to "original" Canon lenses only. They don't succeed in shutting out competitors completely. It would be much smarter to co-operate with them and give customers the widest possible offering of lenses that work excellently, fully functional and totally hassle-free on any Canon camera ...


----------



## uri.raz (Jan 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ... to 'fix' what amounts to a total non-issue for EU consumers because obviously the 3rd party lenses work just fine on Canon bodies.
> ...



IIRC, the problem was that Canon limited out AF points support for old lenses that weren't sharp that far from the center.

As Canon doesn't release new firmware for cameras every time a new Canon lens is released, I wonder

1. Whether Canon cameras give special treatment to lenses with known ID.

2. Why 3rd part lens manufacturers bother spoofing Canon lenses. In other words, what is it that Canon cameras do for lenses with known IDs, that it doesn't do for lenses with unknown IDs?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> AF performance is a constant field of problems with third party lenses (namely Sigma) on Canon cameras. And last time in 2011 there was a major issue caused by Canon's closed list of lens ID codes and a whole slew of Tamron lenses thatused poorly chosen spoofed/fake lens-IDs. That incident revealed that even 10+ original Canon EF lenses and their lens IDs do not play well with Canon EOS bodies.



Canon allocating of a block of unused lens IDs for 3rd party lenses won't do squat to fix AF issues with 3rd party lenses. For 3rd party AF to work reliably and consistently, Canon would have to license their protocols and/or actively support those lenses...and the EU certainly isn't going to force them to do so. 

I suggest you use the major problem from 2011 you reference to illustrate your point. I wonder what that would sound like?

_AvTvM: "In 2011, Canon's closed Lens ID scheme caused a major problem for Tamron lenses, severely impacting consumers and limiting competition in the camera industry."

EU official: "Did all Tamron lenses stop working on all Canon cameras?"

AvTvM: "No, it was a problem with autofocus, with some Tamron lenses on a few Canon camera models."

EU official: "Did those Tamron lenses stop autofocusing on those Canon cameras?

AvTvM: "No, the center AF point which most people use worked just fine, it was a problem with the outer AF points."

EU official: "Oh, so the outer AF points stopped working with those lenses on those few camera models?"

AvTvM: "Well, ummm, no – they still worked, but they only worked as the single line type points that are found on the majority of cameras, instead of the cross type points they were supposed to be."

EU official: "So those Tamron lenses work on those few Canon bodies basically like they work on most cameras in consumers' hands? That's your 'big problem'? Who the hell are you, Don Quixote tilting at windmills? Stop wasting my valuable time and get the f___ out of my office!"_




AvTvM said:


> But even if such a solution should not come about, Canon is punishing itself in the longer term by aggressively trying to limit their ecosystem to "original" Canon lenses only. They don't succeed in shutting out competitors completely. It would be much smarter to co-operate with them and give customers the widest possible offering of lenses that work excellently, fully functional and totally hassle-free on any Canon camera ...



"Aggressively trying to limit their ecosystem?" Oh, puhhhleez...overreact much?!? Get a grip on reality, please. 'Aggressively limiting' would be actively disabling functionality for 3rd party products, do you have any evidence that they're doing so for lenses? (Yes, they took steps on batteries, but it could easily be argued that they did so for safety reasons and to counteract counterfeiting.) All they're doing is _not_ spending extra time or money to make sure 3rd party lenses work perfectly. As you pointed out above, it can be problematic even making sure all their own lenses do so, I presume the 'affected' Canon lenses are so old no one thought it worth testing them. 

Why should they expend resources to help 3rd party lens makers? They care about selling lenses, not making it more attractive to buy lenses from someone else. Should they also make sure every Yongnuo, Nissin and other 3rd party flash and wireless/RF integrates perfectly with their Speedlite system?


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 6, 2016)

uri.raz said:


> As Canon doesn't release new firmware for cameras every time a new Canon lens is released, I wonder
> 1. Whether Canon cameras give special treatment to lenses with known ID.
> 2. Why 3rd part lens manufacturers bother spoofing Canon lenses. In other words, what is it that Canon cameras do for lenses with known IDs, that it doesn't do for lenses with unknown IDs?



Quite simple. 
1. Canon cameras do NOT support attached lenses AT ALL, unless that lens provides one of the lens IDs in Canon's table of known lens IDs. This is why thirdparty providers (all of them, including Zeiss for their € 4000+ Otus lenses) are equpping thier lenses with FAKE lens IDs, spoofing a known Canon lens. 
All lenses and full details are in this table, some way down the page: http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/TagNames/Canon.html

2. Canon cameras prodive "special electronic treatment" to lenses according to their individual lens ID. this includes things likes:
* AF performance: speed of AF drive (depending on type of physical AF drive installed in lens - USM, MicroMotor, STm, etc), use of double precuision f/2.8 AF sensors in camera (depending on lens being f/2.8 or faster AND transmission of a matching lens ID), 
* ETTL II functionality - especially lens distance information, as one important input factor for ETTL II algortithms to determine power setting for compatible speedlites. 
* (presumably) IS functionality 
* any number of other parameters that camera functionality benefits from ... knowing what lens is attached and what settings are available and currently selected (e.g. selected focal length for zooms, selected f-stop, max/min f-stop, selected focus distance, lens profile data, etc. etc.) - of course all of it 100% proprietary and absolutely undocumented and undisclosed by Canon. 

Canon frequently fiddles with lens mount electronic protocol. Part of it is to accomodate additional functionality and to adapt existing and new lenses to existing and new bodies. But no small part of it is clearly targeted at making life as difficult as possible for thirdparty lenses - their makers and their users. This behaviour drives thirdparty makers into taking rather desparate measures ... e.g. experimenting with or simply guessing, which spoofed fake lens IDs might make their lenses work with Canon cameras, at least SOMEHOW and/or TO SOME EXTENT. 

Overall Canon has managed quite well to keep almost the entire lineup of their own, original EF (-S, -M) lenses ever launched since back in 1987 pretty well compatible with all film (SLR) and digital camera (DSLR, EOS M) bodies ever launched since 1987 ... and this is no small achievement. [praise for Canon - I must be sick today :-=)] On the other hand back in 2011 a number of Tamron lenses had major issues on Canon cameras and it became evident, that the root cause was that these lenses spoofed poorly chosen Canon lens IDs that were originally reserved to identify some low grade consumer zooms that were out of production for quite some time already. It became evident, that (many) Canon bodies do not (fully) support those 10+ original (!) Canon EF lenses. 

More reading on the matter of Canon lens ID and their support by various Canon EOS cameras is to be found here: https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART108675&pmv=print&impressions=false&viewlocale=en_US

Canon's handling of the closed lens ID list and especially their use of this list to try and shut out thirdparty lenses creates a whole minefield of problems, especially to Canon customers who also want to use thirdparty lenses on their nice and expensive Canon cameras - for whatever reasons. Legally it almost certainly also qualifies as "abuse of a dominant market position" and "behaviour that hurts protected consumer rights" - at least in the EU.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 6, 2016)

Hi AvTvM. 
So all this shit started out with you pissed at bloated software that you don't use (I assume as from the venom in your comments there is no way you'd support them) then progressed to being pissed at Canon for not sharing proprietary information, and now you are going to whinge to the bloated money pit that is the eu government, cool more wasted money because they can't waste it fast enough without your help! 

Cheers, Graham. 



AvTvM said:


> 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)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Quite simple.
> 1. Canon cameras do NOT support attached lenses AT ALL, unless that lens provides one of the lens IDs in Canon's table of known lens IDs. This is why thirdparty providers (all of them, including Zeiss for their € 4000+ Otus lenses) are equpping thier lenses with FAKE lens IDs, spoofing a known Canon lens.
> All lenses and full details are in this table, some way down the page: http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/TagNames/Canon.html
> 
> ...



But you stated:



AvTvM 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.



In other words, your proposed 'fix' of Canon assigning a block of Lens IDs for 3rd parties to fight over use does nothing to solve the problem you describe.

As I've already stated, the only fix would be for Canon to actively support 3rd party lenses, i.e. expend R&D resources to do so – something that is clearly not in their best interest, and arguably not in the best interest of most consumers because it would translate to increased costs for Canon products, meaning you're shooting your argument in the foot. 




Valvebounce said:


> Hi AvTvM.
> So all this S___ started out with you pissed at bloated software that you don't use (I assume as from the venom in your comments there is no way you'd support them) then progressed to being pissed at Canon for not sharing proprietary information, and now you are going to whinge to the bloated money pit that is the eu government, cool more wasted money because they can't waste it fast enough without your help!



+1


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Canon's handling of the closed lens ID list and especially* their use of this list to try and shut out thirdparty lenses*



That's a stretch.

"How can we best insure our cameras work properly with each of our lenses, and that the lenses aren't sending erroneous and potentially malicious information to the camera? I know, by identifying them" seems far more likely.



AvTvM said:


> Legally it almost certainly also qualifies as "abuse of a dominant market position" and "behaviour that hurts protected consumer rights" - at least in the EU.



Abuse of dominant position? So if canon only had 1% market share you wouldn't have the same complaint? Position has *nothing* to do with this. 

Which rights are being hurt? Is there some protected right to have a third party piece of equipment work exactly as does an equivalent OEM piece of equipment? Or is it the protected right to have Adobe correctly recognize each and every lens with first-pass success in their software? 


BRB.

Back, just tried installing Windows XP on my iPhone again, and failed outright. I did however jailbreak the phone to install some neat apps not blessed by the Apple Store, and now my phone is crashing. Can you please address this with your complaint to the EU?


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 6, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Abuse of dominant position? So if canon only had 1% market share you wouldn't have the same complaint? Position has *nothing* to do with this.
> ... [snip] ...
> Back, just tried installing Windows XP on my iPhone again, and failed outright. I did however jailbreak the phone to install some neat apps not blessed by the Apple Store, and now my phone is crashing. Can you please address this with your complaint to the EU?



Legally it makes a lot of difference, whether a company with 1% market share does "something extremely proprietary" or if a company with a "dominant market share" in a certain category of products tries to shut out competition by unfair means - which include behaviour like absolute refusal to license patents/technology/IP to other companies [Canon!] or designing systems in a way that essentially blocks thirdparty vendors rather than taking a "technically more neutral approach". 

EU has already managed to kill Apple's extremely proprietary designs for charging cables/accessory port. Apple like all other phone makers has to use a universal charging connector [USB]. Sometimes even bureaucrats bring about good things for consumers and apply the handbrakes to unbridled corporate greed at the expense of captive customers/consumers.


----------



## Luds34 (Jan 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Quite simple.
> 1. Canon cameras do NOT support attached lenses AT ALL, unless that lens provides one of the lens IDs in Canon's table of known lens IDs.



That does not make much sense logically. That means one wouldn't be able to use a newer Canon lens then their older Canon camera body (or require body fw upgrade which we know is rarely done (for bugs) by Canon).


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Abuse of dominant position? So if canon only had 1% market share you wouldn't have the same complaint? Position has *nothing* to do with this.
> ...



Agreed. I don't believe lens IDs are anything of the sort, nor are they something Canon dreamed up after becoming dominant in order to squash competition.



AvTvM said:


> - which include behaviour like absolute refusal to license patents/technology/IP to other companies



Have you any examples of legal ramifications to a company for keeping their IP P?

Regardless, it's hard to predict any benefit to consumers to opening up a block of numbers for the Wild Wild West to use. They'd have to actively manage it and be involved. 




AvTvM said:


> EU has already managed to kill Apple's extremely proprietary designs for charging cables/accessory port. Apple like all other phone makers has to use a universal charging connector [USB]. Sometimes even bureaucrats bring about good things for consumers and apply the handbrakes to unbridled corporate greed at the expense of captive customers/consumers.



Meaning future ios devices won't use lightning connectors? I certainly hope not, I prefer it to microUSB. Apple has always used USB on the other end of the cable however.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 6, 2016)

Yep. http://news.softpedia.com/news/EU-Rules-that-Apple-Must-Change-iPhone-Connector-by-2017-432366.shtml

In the EU even badass corporations like Apple have to yield to consumer rights ... if i want it so.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Yep. http://news.softpedia.com/news/EU-Rules-that-Apple-Must-Change-iPhone-Connector-by-2017-432366.shtml
> 
> In the EU even badass corporations like Apple have to yield to consumer rights ... if i want it so.



From the source linked in the article you linked:



> Whether Apple will simply update their chargers and include a lightning-to-micro-USB connector with future iPhones with lightning sold in Europe is unknown at this time.



So the EU forces badass Apple to include a white USB-to-microUSB cable plus the existing microUSB-to-lightning adapter with iDevices sold in the EU, instead of the USB-to-lightning cable they currently include. Might make a few pennies more per unit cost. 

Maybe the French company DxO will lodge a complaint against the EU for being anticompetitive by preventing their DxO ONE camera from being fully compatible with iPhones. :


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 6, 2016)

It is not yet clear, what Apple will have to put in their iPhone packages from 01/01/2017 if they want to sell their wares in any EU country any longer - but it will habe to follow a non-proprietary standard. Personally I am hoping for a (mini/Micro) USB C connector that fits into the slot bith ways. i hate USB because there us an 80% chance to get something wrong first time round that has a 50:50 chance. ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2016)

The chances of Apple changing to a microUSB port on iPhones are very slightly greater than the chances of Canon actively supporting 3rd party lenses, which in turn are very slightly greater than the chances of seeing a flock of pigs fly through the EU parliament chambers.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 6, 2016)

Apple will comply. EU is too big a market to ignore. They will have to stick a USB (C) connector into the rear of their phones, and they will no longer be able to charge me € 29 per Lightning cable every time my daughter loses or breaks one. As of 01/01/2017. 

[of course it was already agreed back in 2009 with the EU that Apple would move to universal chargers, cables and connectors. And of course badass Apple and their lobbyists were able to get EU bureaucrats to delay the thing until in 2014 the EU parliament (bless 'em!) voted the thing through ... but only to take effect in 2017. It is not easy to combat badass corporations ... but we, the consumers shall bring them to their knees. Eventually! ]


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2016)

To reiterate:



> Whether Apple will simply update their chargers and include a lightning-to-micro-USB connector with future iPhones with lightning sold in Europe is unknown at this time.



Seems like that constitutes compliance while retaining the lightning port on iDevices, rather than a microUSB port. 

Your daughter should be more careful.  Mine (6 and nearly 8 yrs) have had iPads for years and broken neither the devices nor the cables...but should they lose a cable, we've got plenty around after all the iDevices we had/have. Heck, we still have a 15 GB touch wheel iPod from 2003, the kind with an HDD and the very first model with the dock connector sitting in its dock which was FireWire only at that point, it's connected to a TV's soundbar.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 7, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Yep. http://news.softpedia.com/news/EU-Rules-that-Apple-Must-Change-iPhone-Connector-by-2017-432366.shtml
> 
> In the EU even badass corporations like Apple have to yield to consumer rights ... if i want it so.



"After announcing its intentions to try and convince electronics vendors to agree on a universal charging connector to eliminate e-waste"

So rendering the charging cables of anyone who upgrades a lightning-based apple iOS device useless will cut down on e-waste? Sure guys; chances are every device will still ship with a charging cord. Whether they're all of the same variety or not, it's the same amount of stuff. 

:


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 7, 2016)

Havin a universal charger that works with any and all smartphones would definitely open up the road to offering smartphones "body only" or "kit with charger". Just like interchangeable lens cameras can be offered "body only" or "kit with lens/es". 

Once every household memebr has such a charger, new phones would be ordered without another (f*cking proprietary) charger. Win-win-win: less expense to consumers. Less e-waste for the environment. Lower cost, hioger profits for smartphone makers. Chinese charger producers might suffer, but who cares?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Havin a universal charger that works with any and all smartphones would definitely open up the road to offering smartphones "body only" or "kit with charger". Just like interchangeable lens cameras can be offered "body only" or "kit with lens/es".
> 
> Once every household memebr has such a charger, new phones would be ordered without another (f*cking proprietary) charger. Win-win-win: less expense to consumers. Less e-waste for the environment. Lower cost, hioger profits for smartphone makers. Chinese charger producers might suffer, but who cares?



You're as correct as you usually are... 

Consider the cost of a charger against the cost for production (different packaging), distribution, and retailers' stocking need of two models differing only in an accessory costing a tiny amount (1 €, maybe less). Completely different scenario than a camera +/– lens. Your silly suggestion likely means _less_ profit for both manufacturers and retailers, all for a price difference that will be meaningless to consumers. Lose-lose-lose. Well done. :


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 7, 2016)

Dear Neuro, use your brains a bit ... who says the there need to be 2 different packages - phones + chargers and phone w/o chargers? The smart way is to sell 
1. small box with phone and 
2. smaller box with charger. 
Customers buying both at a time get an advantageous "kit price". 
Very simple and effective solution. I#d estimate that for every 2 or even 3 phones sold, only 1 charger would be sold. Good for everybody (except cheap Chinese charger makers) and good for the environment.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2016)

An 'advantageous kit price' to include a 1 € charger. Now that's funny!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 8, 2016)

I can't wait to see where this thread goes next.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 8, 2016)

it is mainly targeted at Apple. Their chargers are sold for anywhere from 20 to 90 € in the EU - depending what item it is for, and whether the freaking cabble on it is 1m or 2m short. Thirdparty ones are cheaper but usually don't wont work reliably or at all, since Apple has proprietarized the USB wiring/signal on their stuff. I am very glad the EU will bring this to an end.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 8, 2016)

To re-reiterate, from the source linked in the article you originally linked:



> Whether Apple will simply update their chargers and include a lightning-to-micro-USB connector with future iPhones with lightning sold in Europe is unknown at this time.



So yes, it will reduce expensive cables, but I wonder how many people will lose that little 7€ adapter? I bet your daughter will lose a few.  

I say reduce not end because I bet there'll be a healthy 3rd party market selling OEM lightning cables for people who eschew the adapter.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 8, 2016)

Hi AvTvM. 
Have I got this right, I buy my iPhone and to charge it I have to get a lead that will charge the android, Nokia, htc etc that I don't have then add an adaptor that will no doubt add a voltage drop and signal issues when I try to sync the iPhone with the STANDARD USB on my PC. Way to go meddling bureaucracy! 
If this was a world wide agreement to standardise connectors it might, just might be viable until the standard became outdated and slow then someone would have to break ranks to push forwards, as it is, it is the United Socialist States of Europe parliament being "helpful". 

Cheers, Graham. 



AvTvM said:


> it is mainly targeted at Apple. Their chargers are sold for anywhere from 20 to 90 € in the EU - depending what item it is for, and whether the freaking cabble on it is 1m or 2m short. Thirdparty ones are cheaper but usually don't wont work reliably or at all, since Apple has proprietarized the USB wiring/signal on their stuff. I am very glad the EU will bring this to an end.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 8, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> it is mainly targeted at Apple. Their chargers are sold for anywhere from 20 to 90 € in the EU - depending what item it is for, and whether the freaking cabble on it is 1m or 2m short.



I realize some EU nations may have crazy tariffs, but 90 euro for an cable? I think you may be conflating.

That's what we're talking about here: iOS device cables (which since introducing Lightning, all share); not the AC adapter (brand doesn't matter provided the electronics are equivalent, which for phones and tablets they tend to be: 1-2A @ 5V). You might see for example a MacBook charger for that much (sounds steep to me, but you never know).


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 8, 2016)

You are correct: i saw 89 € - its for a MacBook Pro charger. Crazy nevertheless. Apple iPhone charger is sold at MSRP (inclusive of 20% VAT) where I live @ € 29,90 and the cable runs at € 24,90.
Apple watch magnetic charge cables are € 35 for 1m and € 45 for the 2 meter length. 
It does not ruin people, but is still a serious ripoff and more importantly a nuisance since many households have Apple and Abdroid devices and it is a waste as far as the environment goes.


----------



## StrawberryF (Jan 9, 2016)

I thought Zeiss paid for licensing and got unique numbers from Canon, Sigma refuse to.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 9, 2016)

StrawberryF said:


> I thought Zeiss paid for licensing and got unique numbers from Canon, Sigma refuse to.



According to the table i posted, Zeiss has no different agreement. They are just another unlicensed, reverse-engineering, Canon-lens-protocol guessing thirdparty lens maker. Nothing special compared to Sigma, only much more expensive and lack of autofocus.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 9, 2016)

dilbert said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > StrawberryF said:
> ...



I've wondered about that occasionally. I imagine if they really wanted to, they could get a similar license to what, if anything, Sigma has through a Japanese office - their consumer lenses are manufactured in Japan as is. However, they'd also likely get the same lack of support from Nikon and Canon regarding AF protocol, etc., and I doubt Zeiss would want to put out a product that is in large part reverse engineering and guess work - it would hurt their reputation. Fuji and Sony cooperate with Zeiss, so they are privy to all the information necessary to build reliable AF.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 9, 2016)

From the link:

"Due to international licences, it is not possible at the moment for companies outside Japan to offer AF lenses with EF or F mounts"

However, Zeiss has Japanese operations (albeit not consumer products AKAIK) and could probably buy whatever license is required by Nikon and Sony to build AF F and EF mount lenses. They wouldn't be necessarily work any better than do sigma, tamron, etc., though, since they wouldn't have access to protocol.


----------



## zim (Jan 11, 2016)

well I for one am relieved that the EU are going to force Apple to issue a block of number to ensure that third party USB's will work on my windows phone with an OXO One attached

....... I think I'm following this


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 11, 2016)

zim said:


> well I for one am relieved that the EU are going to force Apple to issue a block of number to ensure that third party USB's will work on my windows phone with an OXO One attached
> 
> ....... I think I'm following this



But none of that matters unless Adobe correctly reads the DXO One EXIF as reported by the Windows phone and mapped to the Apple UID table. If it doesn't, you get 50% off the purchase price of your ACR platform(s), retroactive to the launch date of the third party USB.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 11, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > well I for one am relieved that the EU are going to force Apple to issue a block of number to ensure that third party USB's will work on my windows phone with an OXO One attached
> ...



I didn't think that Apple was directly involved in reproductive health, but apparently I was wrong. 

Ha - quoted before your edit.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 11, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > zim said:
> ...



Bah, you're too fast.


----------

