Support for that camera was added to in the the most recent release of Lightroom and Camera Raw. That version of Camera Raw will not work with Photoshop CS5, nor will Lightroom 5.7.1 support that camera. If you don't want to upgrade then you can download the free DNG converter version 9.1.1 and use it to create DNG copies of your files that can be used in the software that you have. If you want to work on the native raw files then you will have to upgrade to Lightroom 6 or subscribe to the creative cloud photography program. At any rate, the software that you have will not support that camera. It's an upgrade or use the DNG converter. The DNG converter is a good choice because those DNG files are still the raw image data, and you can use every feature that Camera Raw or Lightroom 5.7.1 have to offer.
So I have one of the most advanced and trend setting cameras and am forced by Adobe to ditch Lightroom 5 and get 6? Seems to me if they can offer RAW translation in 6 they should be very easily able to offer this as an upgrade to 5. Very disappointed in Adobe not continuing to support 5.
Adobe is not forcing you to do anything. You don't have to use Lightroom or any other Adobe software. When a new version of Lightroom is released, updates cease on the previous version. That's the way it has always been. Adobe is providing you with a FREE solution. You can use the latest DNG converter to convert your raw images to DNG files. The DNG files contain the same raw image data. It's just a different standardized container. Did I mention that the DNG converter is free. And besides that, it doesn't cost anything. If you choose not to upgrade your software then the DNG converter is a viable solution. It gives you all the capabilities that your version of Lightroom has to offer. You have access to your raw image data. There really is no downside. You may argue that you don't want to have to convert to DNG. There are many Lightroom users who routinely convert to DNG when they download their images. It really isn't an extra step because you have to download the images anyway. You simply use the DNG converter as your download software.
If you buy the very latest camera from any camera maker, and expect to be able to work on the native raw images that it produces, then you should expect to have to purchase the latest version of any software in order to have support for that camera. You made a substantial investment to purchase that new camera. Isn't it worth a software upgrade as well to ensure that you have software that will support the camera as you expect it to be supported?
Of course they are not forcing me to do anything..but up to this point Adobe did provide updates as raw conversion requirements change. If they can provide a DNG converter free, why can't they at least include that as an interface with lightroom 5? But Adobe is not doing anything to encourage one to want to use their products in the future. And the intermediate step of converting raw files to DNG (do a couple hundred at a time and see what I mean) interjects a time consuming middle step that has to be repeated when you import the DNG files.
Lightroom 5, any version of it, is now what you would consider a "last year's" model. It's no longer in production. It's no longer updated. It's history. Lightroom does not use the Camera Raw plug-in. All of the technology is part of the Lightroom program. It's unrealistic for you to expect Adobe to continue to update software that has been superseded by newer more powerful software. It's the way it has always been with Lightroom and Camera Raw. When a new major version is released production stops on the previous version. If you decide to purchase the latest and greatest camera, you should expect to purchase software that will really support it. But Lightroom 5 WILL support the raw images from that camera if you use the FREE DNG converter.
Thanks Jim, I assume you must work for Adobe. Each new version of software, throw away the old if you want forward compatibility. So the rule of thumb is, we provide upgrades until we make something new, then forget about it. It is simply a way of applying pressure on consumers to replace "outdated" software when in fact it really is still useful and powerful. Can you imagine purchasing a car and not having parts available as soon as the next year model is out? Neither can I.
Jim nor I work for Adobe. We are volunteers and regular users helping answer questions on the forum. No software company will update outdated software. I upgraded my OS from Win 8 to 8.1, and my version of Poser wouldn't work anymore. I had to buy a new version, as TechSmith wouldn't update the outdated version. You analogy about the car is flawed. you can still get old "parts" for PS. but If you buy a car, good luck on getting the car manufacture to replace your engine with the current years engine. That's what you're asking of Adobe.
No, I do not work for Adobe. I am just a user like yourself. Your car analogy doesn't really work, in my opinion. Carmakers provide parts and will issue recalls if there are problems with what they sold. But when a new model is introduced with new and improved features, those new and improved features are not made available to previous models. When a new camera is added to the list of supported cameras in Lightroom, it is a new feature. It isn't fixing an old problem. It's unrealistic to expect Lightroom to add new camera support to a version of Lightroom that they are no longer working on. Adobe has moved on to the new current release. If you expect Lightroom 5 to support that new camera, then how far back would you expect them to go? Lightroom 4, or 3, or all the way back to 1? That isn't the way it works. When Lightroom 6/CC was introduced, there were new cameras added, but there were also new features added. It's a new model year. If you don't want the new model, that's fine. Adobe has provided the DNG converter as a solution. The choice is yours. You spend hundreds of dollars on a new camera. Lightroom continues to improve with every upgrade. Why would you want to use old out of date software with the latest camera? You upgrade your camera, you have to expect to upgrade your software. That's the way it has always been.
Not entirely so...let's say my old model auto needs a new windshield. The current windshield replacement fits but has improved anti glare coating. I am willing to pay for the upgrade windshield, but don't want to purchase the entire car to get me there. I would gladly pay an upgrade fee for latest RAW converter, just don't appreciate having to purchase the whole program (and the potential new learning curve) if I am to use Lightroom with Sony RAW. In addition, upgrades continue on 5 for RAW codes added over the years for those who haven't upgraded, and Adobe has the code as they offer it in 6. And why not offer the DNG converter as a free upgrade and incorporate it into 5 if they are willing to offer it free outside of the program?
Adobe has a poor reputation for customer service based upon what I have read in different forums, and I am beginning to see why.
Not really, I am willing to pay for an upgrade, just don't want the entire car. Many software programs at least offer that if not free upgrades. Adobe has the code obviously, it would be nothing for them to offer it as an upgrade, in fact when I couldn't get the RAW images loaded, the Adobe online response is "check for new upgrades"! It takes nothing for them to support the old version with something as trivial as the updated code, it is just that they clearly want to compel users to purchase the new version if they want to use lighroom with Sony A7R II raw data (but of course works fine with my old Sony A7R.)
Other payfor raw converters, from say Phase One, don’t update older products, either. Why not ask Sony update their sensor in your old camera instead of making you buy an entirely new camera? Maybe you just want the new sensor not the larger continuous-shot buffer or faster flash-sync speed or other capabilities the newer model has.
Adobe could still be updating LR 1 for new cameras and everyone that paid $100 way back when wouldn’t have to pay anything more, but Adobe chooses to release a new version every so often, it used to be every 18 months before CC, and when that new version is released people have to pay, again. That’s how Adobe generates revenue to pay for their expenses. It’s the business model Adobe chooses to use. Are you asking for Adobe to use volunteers for every aspect of their organization, or are you just wanting other people to pay for your free benefits?
those trying to defend adobe for not updating LR5 are either insane or work for Adobe, how you could accept that LR5 isn't updated any longer simply because LR6 is out is beyond reason and to claim that no software is updated after a new version is released is clearly disingenuous
anyway i just came here to find out why my LR5 wasn't working with my A7RII, now i know, so, thanks
Adobe’s business model is to release payfor versions periodically to generate revenue to pay the people who work on LR. An alternative would be to charge enough for the first version that it would last for the lifetime of the user. So $80/year upgrade fee x 40 years of use is $3,200. Would you spend that much for LR, initially, just so you could get updates for free forever? And how about someone who is 60 years and buying LR for the first time. It’s unlikely they’ll use it for 40 years so how much should they pay? Periodic payments is a fairer model. You’re welcome to emigrate to a country where everything is provided by the government and where children scramble for rice-grains off the ground from each passing ox-cart because they’re perpetually hungry.
Shorter-term smaller payments is fairer to the CUSTOMER than a one-time-charge of $3200 to a 60-year-old photographer buying LR for the first time.
Obviously if the 60-year-old customer doesn't purchase LR at $3200 then it'd be less revenue for Adobe, so yes, it all comes down to revenue, but I'm trying to put things from the customer's point-of-view because that's who's pushing back about the current revenue model.
are you still attending secondary school or? because your reasoning skills are beyond atrocious, they're downright pathetic, and if i were wicked they would be laughable... it is inconceivable as to how you've come to your conclusions, please take some accounting and reasoning courses, you may have a great laugh at your posts in the future
i just wanted to know why my copy of LR wasn't working and now i know, and i'm done with this thread, good luck to you and your future endeavours in life.
That a company’s employees should be paid periodically for their work on an ongoing basis and that customers should pay for the results of that work periodic is pathetic and possibly laughable depending on what your being wicked means. Ok, but as someone who’s worked since they were 16, paid their way through school private secondary school through a masters degree, and is only 10 years away from retirement I have a different point-of-view, apparently, about the monetization of work and the benefits of work as well as fairness.
See, this is why I subscribed. If I ever need that support whenever I upgrade to a new camera, it's there, basically for a pittance.***
(Just to be clear, for brand-spanking new cameras, the support usually isn't there initially but it does get in there eventually.) I've always hated being behind the curve to begin with.
Not to sound like a jerk, but things cost money. Everything from development to marketing. One can't expect to coast on the freebies forever without some sacrifice on one's part down the road. One can use the DNG Converter if one doesn't want to cough up the cash, for example, but don't expect convenience. At least Adobe gives the option.
***All hail Thomas Knoll!
Wow, came here to see about why my RAW files are not being read by my new installation of LR5. Figured out it is because my original version was 5.6, so now I'm downloading the 5.7 update (should support my camera -- 7DMII -- I have LR5 on my desktop and it works, so I'm assuming this will be the fix with the update). I have to say the general attitude of those folks that say something to the effect of "well, you bought an expensive new camera, you should know that you have to now buy an expensive new version of LR if you had a previous version" are being pretty silly. Yes, you can get a converter for free, which is mentioned too often in lots of CAPS (stop shouting). But I agree that if you are just using LR to develop RAW files, the camera support is not that big of a deal. Things like stitching, HDR, etc. might be worth a new purchase, but to just develop your RAW files, come on. I'm only on here to say that not everyone has tons of money. I have a great new camera, but I'm still poor on glass. I have PSE 10 and I don't plan on getting another since it works fine with my current LR5. Just because I bought a new toy (after saving a great deal) does not mean I have to keep doing silly work arounds (yes, free) because Adobe is too lazy to provide more updates. And I'm not interested in monthly payments either just to get these fab updates. Sheesh.
Switched to Phase One after this disaster of software... Sorry, but LR6 is no alternative. Slow, laggy and lacks the quality of LR5... Adobe == EA/Ubisoft.
Milking the dead cow.
Phase One is the way to go now.