Panasonic GM1 support?

[NNN634281212310876220]

I had expected GM1 support to have been there by now, GX7 support is available for some time now and these two cams are very similar from a image pipeline perspective. Actually, changing the EXIF of GM1 files GX7 actually produces good results in C1, but this is not a preferable workflow. Please also include support for the GM1 12-32 lens. When can we expect support for this tiny gem?

[Drew]

Camera support is as much up to the Manufacture as it is Phase One.
If Panasonic provides us with a GM1 to review we can begin investigating for support.

[ChrisM]

Camera support is as much up to the Manufacture as it is Phase One.
If Panasonic provides us with a GM1 to review we can begin investigating for support.

Since this is a returning issue: lacking or absent camera support due to camera manufacturers not sending their new bodies in:
Why not set up relations with a camera store to get new bodies on loan for a week or so?
A company with the stature of Phase one should not be hampered by ill willed camera manufacturers regarding decent support for new camera bodies.
It am not sure it is really credible.

Chris

[Drew]

Why not set up relations with a camera store to get new bodies on loan for a week or so?

... and who's to say we don't already have this in place

Sometimes it's simply not that easy as a camera store may only have equipment that's been used/abused (which should not be considered a "Gold Standard"), may not have such a camera in a "Floor Model" stock which we can use for a time to review, or perhaps the Manufacture will only allow us to support a camera if it comes directly from them, meeting their precise specification (because sometimes there's not 100% consistency in every unit shipped/sold).
I understand that everyone who owns a particular camera deems it the MOST important camera necessary for support but there's a lot more going on behind the scenes (politically as well as legally) than most people realize.
In this specific case, if Panasonic will provide us a camera, we'd be happy to look into supporting it.

[Peter]

Hello there

I have to take the posts by Chris and Drew at face value. In summary PO and Cap1 seem to struggle more often than not in keeping their camera and lens profile portfolio up to date.

Disappointment and frustration all round. So how does DxO do it so well?

I'm tired of nagging. I regret (no I don't) that I have taken Cap1 off my computer. Time to move on.

I wish you all well.

Peter

[ChrisM]

Hello there

I have to take the posts by Chris and Drew at face value. In summary PO and Cap1 seem to struggle more often than not in keeping their camera and lens profile portfolio up to date.

Disappointment and frustration all round. So how does DxO do it so well?

I'm tired of nagging. I regret (no I don't) that I have taken Cap1 off my computer. Time to move on.

I wish you all well.

Peter

Peter, good luck with your ventures into other raw converters.
In my book, CO1 is still the best raw converter around, and only getting better. So to me it's worth the nagging that I have to lower myself to, having chosen a camera brand that is somehow not popular at Phase one
Be it political or not, I still only ask for what is written on their website: getting the best out of each individual camera by means of careful profiling.

Regards
Chris

[NNN634281212310876220]

Drew, thanks for the update, frustrating that Panasonic is not working with you on this. Would you consider providing 'preliminary support' for the GM1 on the basis of your GX7 profile? The imaging pipelines of the GX7 and GM1 are 99.9% identical, if not 100%. The lens can come later, but it safes me going into EXIF hacking (which I am now doing).
Thanks, Michel

EDIT: I have just sent Panasonic Denmark a request to support Phase One with test cameras (specifically the GM1 in this case), it should be in their interest too.

[Keith Reeder]

Disappointment and frustration all round. So how does DxO do it so well?

Newsflash: it doesn't. You see "is camera x ever going to be supported..?" posts on the DxO forum too. Do a search for the word "niche" on the forum and you'll see exactly what I mean.

The recurring theme there - and here - is that the cameras that take time are low volume/low sale pieces from one of the smaller players in the camera world.

Remember too that DxO doesn't have its own range of cameras to support.

As to the software itself (and I speak as an owner/user of Optics Pro), it's extremely feature-poor in comparison to Capture One Pro, in addition to being desperately weak in some significant IQ terms, like highlight recovery.

Funny though; being a Canon user, I've never, ever had to wait for camera support in Capture One; and as an aside, Phase One beat Adobe/Lightroom hands-down with Nikon D4S support.

Do the sums. If you choose to use a "niche" camera, waiting for third party Raw support is a price you might have to pay.

Regardless of the converter.

It's simple supply and demand - as I've pointed out numerous times on the DxO forum, too.

[ChrisM]

Disappointment and frustration all round. So how does DxO do it so well?

It's simple supply and demand - as I've pointed out numerous times on the DxO forum, too.

Keith, read the promotion info for CO1 on the Phase one website. There is no disclaimer of any sorts with regards to support on demand or any such thing. CO1 is a professional product and openly and specifically claims "best colors and image quality for every individual camera through careful profiling".
Now, having to wait a bit, because you use a camera that is less popular, is one thing. Waiting endlessly and getting very poor support due to lack of true profiling is a whole different matter.

Chris

[jknights]

Disappointment and frustration all round. So how does DxO do it so well?

Newsflash: it doesn't. You see "is camera x ever going to be supported..?" posts on the DxO forum too. Do a search for the word "niche" on the forum and you'll see exactly what I mean.

The recurring theme there - and here - is that the cameras that take time are low volume/low sale pieces from one of the smaller players in the camera world.

Remember too that DxO doesn't have its own range of cameras to support.

As to the software itself (and I speak as an owner/user of Optics Pro), it's extremely feature-poor in comparison to Capture One Pro, in addition to being desperately weak in some significant IQ terms, like highlight recovery.

Funny though; being a Canon user, I've never, ever had to wait for camera support in Capture One; and as an aside, Phase One beat Adobe/Lightroom hands-down with Nikon D4S support.

Do the sums. If you choose to use a "niche" camera, waiting for third party Raw support is a price you might have to pay.

Regardless of the converter.

It's simple supply and demand - as I've pointed out numerous times on the DxO forum, too.

Sometimes I disagree with Keith but here I am 100% with him.
Also I dislike the attitude of DxO and Adobe to their customers, it is almost as bad as Corel.

The output from Capture One Pro is top quality but I am forced to use Lightroom for cataloging. Lightroom 5.4 is not as good as COPro for handling RAW processing. Good but not great like COPro.
My wish for 2014 would be for PhaseOne to improve catalogs in Capture One Pro so I can use them for my images and then I can drop Lightroom completely.

That said I must try cataloging my image catalog with iView MediaPro since PhaseOne has taken it under its wing.
It worked before so it should work now

[Keith Reeder]

Keith, read the promotion info for CO1 on the Phase one website. There is no disclaimer of any sorts with regards to support on demand or any such thing

Nor is there on anyone else's website - including the Optics Pro website.

Seriously, Chris - this is such a basic, obvious, common-sense point, that I'm frankly appalled at the notion that anyone would expect (much less need) it to be spelled out in black and white.

CO1 is a professional product

Lots of pros using the Panny, then?

Seems to me that pros aren't complaining about the lack of support for their cameras...

(And before we go down the "pros can use any camera..." line, you know exactly what I mean).

[ChrisM]

Keith, read the promotion info for CO1 on the Phase one website. There is no disclaimer of any sorts with regards to support on demand or any such thing

Nor is there on anyone else's website - including the Optics Pro website.

Seriously, Chris - this is such a basic, obvious, common-sense point, that I'm appalled at the notion that anyone would expect (much less need) it to be spelled out in black and white.

CO1 is a professional product

Lots of pros using the Panny, then?

Seems to me that pros aren't complaining about the lack of support for their cameras...

Again, there is no disclaimer of any kind that only pros (read: Nikon and Canon and Phase one back users) can expect decent support for their camera.
I'm not in the right thread here, as I have never shot Panasonic. The Pentax K3 is my issue, and although Pentax is not a "pro" brand like Canon or Nikon, the K3 is rated as the very best Apsc dslr camera at the present moment, and what I was apalled at, was that after almost half a year after release, support was added (without any kind of disclaimer about "preliminary") with a very poor profile that was not the result of a K3 profiling job, but merely an arbitrary edit of the 2011 K5 profile.
Now, explain to me what is realistic about this?

Chris

[Keith Reeder]

Also I dislike the attitude of DxO and Adobe to their customers, it is almost as bad as Corel.

I've actually found them pretty amenable - although I'm relatively undemanding: they've taken on board my continuing concerns about their highlight recovery, and I'm waiting to see what they do about it.

In that regard, they're better than Corel, and definitely better than Bibble Labs used to be...

And as to the cataloguing thing, I'll reiterate that I've been able to convert my 127k plus image Lr catalogue to Cap One 7 Pro without any major issues: for me Cap One seems perfectly workable.

[Keith Reeder]

It is what it is, Chris.

There are, as I see it, two "likely" (I use the word in its loosest sense) reasons why a given Raw converter is slow to provide support for a niche camera.

Either:

• there's some hidden agenda and an agreed policy of deliberately delaying support purely out of spite, malice or "other" (I read just yesterday on the Adobe Lr forum that the lack of Linux support was some grand, evil scheme involving Adobe, Microsoft and Apple, to keep down "enlightened" Linux users and their choice of OS!), never mind that this would drive away users and lose the software company income;

or

• they're doing their best to maximise limited development resources, which necessarily means putting those resources where they'll benefit most users of the software - which by extension, maximises benefit to the company and its shareholders.

So, conspiracy theory, or simple economics?

I know which one I'm picking...

[jknights]

It is what it is, Chris.

There are, as I see it, two "likely" (I use the word in its loosest sense) reasons why a given Raw converter is slow to provide support for a niche camera.

Either:

• there's some hidden agenda and an agreed policy of deliberately delaying support purely out of spite, malice or "other" (I read just yesterday on the Adobe Lr forum that the lack of Linux support was some grand, evil scheme involving Adobe, Microsoft and Apple, to keep down "enlightened" Linux users and their choice of OS!), never mind that this would drive away users and lose the software company income;

or

• they're doing their best to maximise limited development resources, which necessarily means putting those resources where they'll benefit most users of the software - which by extension, maximises benefit to the company and its shareholders.

So, conspiracy theory, or simple economics?

I know which one I'm picking...

And in the second case if they have started development in a particular 4GL or other language that isnt/wasnt supported on Linux it is much, much more difficult and costly to jump ship to provide support for a third OS.