<html><head><meta name="qrichtext" content="1" /></head><body style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Courier New">
<p>Remco Viëtor wrote:</p>
<p>> on Wednesday 25 May 2011, Simon Oosthoek wrote:</p>
<p>> > On 25/05/11 13:45, Marie-Noëlle Augendre wrote:</p>
<p>> > > Thanks for the hint. I just tried exiftool and here is (part of) the</p>
<p>> > > result of the command exiftool -a -u -g1 IMG_8930.CR2</p>
<p>> > > Lens : 70.0 - 300.0 mm</p>
<p>> > > Lens ID : Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di VC</p>
<p>> > > USD</p>
<p>> ></p>
<p>> > Just to add a false datapoint to the mix:</p>
<p>> > $ exiftool -a -u -g1 DSC07242.JPG |grep -i lens</p>
<p>> > Lens Type : Tamron or Sigma Lens (128)</p>
<p>> > Lens ID : Tamron 28-300mm F3.5-6.3</p>
<p>> ></p>
<p>> > I recently got a new Sigma 18-250 lens for my Sony Alpha camera.</p>
<p>> > Definitely not a Tamron 28-300...</p>
<p>> > I know it's quite a recent model for Sony Alpha mount, but if this stuff</p>
<p>> > is reported wrong in some/most cases, what use is a lens database? You</p>
<p>> > could always set it manually, but that's usually too much trouble.</p>
<p>> ></p>
<p>> > Would more accurate information be hidden in other fields (custom Sony</p>
<p>> > fields?)</p>
<p>> > Is there a way to help sort this out?</p>
<p>></p>
<p>> I had a (quick) look at the code.</p>
<p>> The lens description values are already in the custom fields (makerdata).</p>
<p>> There's a (hard-coded) list of LensID values in the code. Those values are</p>
<p>> decimal values, with the integer part coding either a Minolta/Sony lens, or</p>
<p>> a third-party series of lenses. In the 2nd case, the exact lens is then</p>
<p>> supposed to be given by the decimal part.</p>
<p>></p>
<p>> In your case, you have a LensType of 128.x. The 128 part indicates a Tamron</p>
<p>> or Sigma lens, and then there are 8 options in the list... (file</p>
<p>> Minolta.pm, then search for Tamron...)</p>
<p>></p>
<p>> So it is quite possible that your lens, being new, isn't in the code base</p>
<p>> yet (but at least the brand is recognised...) And given how much</p>
<p>> cooperation open- source projects usually get from camera manufacturers,</p>
<p>> I'd say your best bet to get your lens included is sending a bug report</p>
<p>> with a ARW file and the exact name of your lens (or dig out the exact code</p>
<p>> yourself and send it with a lens description)</p>
<p></p>
<p>Sounds reasonable, but shouldn't tools report "unknown" if they need to rely on a built-in table, and a specific lens isn't found in the table?</p>
<p></p>
<p>I could also imagine something like the PCI IDs database on SourceForge where people can sumbmit IDs for yet unknown devices:</p>
<p>http://pciids.sourceforge.net/</p>
<p></p>
<p>The PCI IDs can then be updated online as an external file, from which PCI tools read the IDs and associated information.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Since new lenses should not appear too often, maybe an "official" email address should be sufficient, where users could submit ID codes of new lenses which they have figured out using a certain exiftool command. The folks who receive the email can then add it to a simple file which could be updated online.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Martin</p>
<p></p>
</body></html>