Reading mode: Light Dark

Wondering out loud ....

Go to last post
B

bflood

Senior Member
Messages
2,237
Solutions
8
Reaction score
1,397
Location
Las Vegas, NV, US
Actually, wondering online ....

Nikon does not provide hardware and software specs for its lenses and autofocus systems to 3rd party manufacturers like Sigma and Tamron, and that forces those 3rd party types to "reverse engineer" their lens designs. They have to do their best to figure out by measurements and tests just how the Nikon brand stuff works. That leads to things like owners of a Sigma lens finding it won't work right on the newest Nikon body until the lens' internal firmware gets updated by Sigma.

Does anyone know if this same situation is happening with NEF files? Does Nikon make the file structure and coding available to software companies (like Adobe etc), or are they forced to reverse engineer their programs to be able to read and then modify a new and different NEF file? If so, that would explain the delay being experienced by D7200 owners in getting updates for their post processing software.

If Nikon does make the coding info available, it's a little hard to see why no one, and I mean NO ONE, had a NEF reading update available when the D7200 was introduced or immediately thereafter.
 
Mako2011 said:
Iain G Foulds said:
... Mako: It is a respect issue. Specifically, Nikon's lack of respect for it's customers.
Click to expand...
I don't feel disrespected at all. Nikon doesn't own Adobe. Now if Nikon purposely made cameras that were incompatible with ACR, I could see your point. I'm just glad Nikon respects it's customers enough to release their products when they are ready and not delay launch to get in sync with Adobe's quarterly update cycle.
Mako2011 said:
... It should do whatever necessary to respect it's customers who are confident enough to purchase it's latest models. Respect their needs, and simplify their upgrade. As it is, everyone's time is wasted and mutually frustrated by their lack of planning and preparation.
Click to expand...
So you think Nikon would be more respectful if they hold back the release of their products until Adobe says they are ready to release the update to ACR? You do realize, that likely Adobe has already written the code...it just hasn't been released yet as other Adobe updates are slated for the June release. Might get an interim update. After all, some 3rd party Raw Convertors already support D7200 NEF's.
Mako2011 said:
... I will immediately uninstall NX1 as soon as Adobe upgrades their software. Wake up Nikon.
Click to expand...
Your frustration is aimed at the wrong party, IMO. History seems to bear that out regards ACR support for mew releases from different camera manufactures. Perhaps you would feel more respected if Nikon also adopted the subscription model and your camera was tied to the net and stopped taking picture if your monthly payment didn't arrive on time.
Click to expand...
 
Brev00 said:
Yes, third parties whether software or hardware providers must reverse engineer their stuff leading to the delays you are seeing with Adobe raw processing. I wouldn't say they are forced. That is the game they choose to play. Folks are paid well to accomplish these feats. I don't feel bad for Adobe or Sigma. The issues some Sigma lenses have with new bodies is a definite issue for the consumer but a competitive advantage for Nikon.
Click to expand...
I may be wrong, but I believe the issue with Sigma lenses is of Sigma's own making: they chose to reverse engineer Nikon's lens protocols - as opposed to going the Tokina (iirc) way.
 
BirgerH said:
Mako2011 said:
Your frustration is aimed at the wrong party, IMO. History seems to bear that out regards ACR support for mew releases from different camera manufactures. Perhaps you would feel more respected if Nikon also adopted the subscription model and your camera was tied to the net and stopped taking picture if your monthly payment didn't arrive on time.

--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)
Click to expand...
That was new Mako :-)
Click to expand...
May happen someday :(
BirgerH said:
That said - I'm one of those that really like Adobes Creative Cloud. That way, I can afford both PS and LR - and alwyas having the latest update.
Click to expand...
I've been using Photoshop since it first came out. Have also been using the new subscription model since it came out as well. I honestly find the old model got me about the same practical capability as the newer subscription based model... but the newer model costs (total cost) more in the long run. In the old model I would upgrade every 3 or so years when a real upgrade came out (true new feature). In the current form...we get constant quarterly updates but they have not really been anything major...just minor tweaks that I wouldn't have upgraded for in the past. Bottom line as I see it...the new model does let some folks get in at a low initial lease cost....but the updates have been a bit lackluster. And even then...the update from CC to CC 2014 required a full install of a whole new program. That was a real waste of resources. And Adobe took capability away (Paint Filter) with the "update"
BirgerH said:
I'm just paying a new version every about ten years - before a new version was coming up far more often. (I had the CS3 - and it's not that old - actually it says 2008 - a new version about every 2 years.)
Click to expand...
For me...the upgrade every few versions model was cheaper (in total cost) vs the current subscription model.
BirgerH said:
If it was able to "update" camera-software instead of making new models every 2-3 years in the same manner - your idea would have been superb, to me :-)
Click to expand...
Depends on how much the subscription was. Based on the Adobe model, and assuming a D7XX upgrade line, I'm guessing $75 a month is what they would charge.
BirgerH said:
Will that be a reality?
Click to expand...
Hope not :)
BirgerH said:
BirgerH.
Click to expand...
--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)
 
Last edited:
[..]
Mako2011 said:
I've been using Photoshop since it first came out. Have also been using the new subscription model since it came out as well. I honestly find the old model got me about the same practical capability as the newer subscription based model... but the newer model costs (total cost) more in the long run.
Click to expand...
Which is only logical. I don't think Adobe came up with the subscription model to make less money ;)
 
gucio33 said:
[..]
gucio33 said:
I've been using Photoshop since it first came out. Have also been using the new subscription model since it came out as well. I honestly find the old model got me about the same practical capability as the newer subscription based model... but the newer model costs (total cost) more in the long run.
Click to expand...
Which is only logical. I don't think Adobe came up with the subscription model to make less money ;)
Click to expand...
I agree. The intent was to make more money (or maybe just keep them in the black for the long haul? )...but turned out the new model resulted in making less money. From folks at NAB, my understanding is the loss was somewhat substantial. That's why we saw the drop in subscription price then the "free LightRoom" enticement. I think that in the long run...the model is all about keeping them solvent as now a Photoshop user is hooked with not many real options at the same level. Adobe might actually save development costs as less need/incentive to truly come up with true feature improvements to get people to switch to Photoshop. Less competition. Adobe took the Long Term approach and in that regard...I think it will make them money vs the alternative (Keeps them alive). I honestly think a good marketing move for them but the consumer may lose out in some ares...though they won't really notice as no way of comparing.
 
Mako2011 said:
Iain G Foulds said:
... Mako: It is a respect issue. Specifically, Nikon's lack of respect for it's customers.
Click to expand...
I don't feel disrespected at all. Nikon doesn't own Adobe. Now if Nikon purposely made cameras that were incompatible with ACR, I could see your point. I'm just glad Nikon respects it's customers enough to release their products when they are ready and not delay launch to get in sync with Adobe's quarterly update cycle.
Mako2011 said:
... It should do whatever necessary to respect it's customers who are confident enough to purchase it's latest models. Respect their needs, and simplify their upgrade. As it is, everyone's time is wasted and mutually frustrated by their lack of planning and preparation.
Click to expand...
So you think Nikon would be more respectful if they hold back the release of their products until Adobe says they are ready to release the update to ACR? You do realize, that likely Adobe has already written the code...it just hasn't been released yet as other Adobe updates are slated for the June release. Might get an interim update. After all, some 3rd party Raw Convertors already support D7200 NEF's.
Mako2011 said:
... I will immediately uninstall NX1 as soon as Adobe upgrades their software. Wake up Nikon.
Click to expand...
Your frustration is aimed at the wrong party, IMO. History seems to bear that out regards ACR support for mew releases from different camera manufactures. Perhaps you would feel more respected if Nikon also adopted the subscription model and your camera was tied to the net and stopped taking picture if your monthly payment didn't arrive on time.
Click to expand...
 
Not sure if this is typical but Silkypix issued support for NEF files for the D5500 about three weeks after the camera started shipping. Perhaps it just caught the normal product release cycle.
 
snapster said:
Not sure if this is typical but Silkypix issued support for NEF files for the D5500 about three weeks after the camera started shipping. Perhaps it just caught the normal product release cycle.
Click to expand...
 
We appear to be unaware of (previously unmentioned) others that are continually working on RAW file conversion and adjustment software , namely the producers of freeware like Darktable/RAWtherapee/DCRAW and UFRAW all which diligently strive to support new models when they can. It seems that these developers get ignored or dismissed as irrelevant by the mass media and professionals who promote Adobe. However some of us lesser mortals cannot justify the large outlay for this type of high end software. If you don't need most of the advanced and more complex add-ons like layers, the latter programs will serve well, both on LINUX and iMAC. After all many of the Adobe features are more allied to special effects/artwork than good old fashioned photography which many amateur photographers are quite content to accept. Some of the aforementioned programs even integrate lens correction data for a wide range of popular lenses.
 
oldnewt said:
We appear to be unaware of (previously unmentioned) others that are continually working on RAW file conversion and adjustment software , namely the producers of freeware like Darktable/RAWtherapee/DCRAW and UFRAW all which diligently strive to support new models when they can. It seems that these developers get ignored or dismissed as irrelevant by the mass media and professionals who promote Adobe. However some of us lesser mortals cannot justify the large outlay for this type of high end software. If you don't need most of the advanced and more complex add-ons like layers, the latter programs will serve well, both on LINUX and iMAC. After all many of the Adobe features are more allied to special effects/artwork than good old fashioned photography which many amateur photographers are quite content to accept. Some of the aforementioned programs even integrate lens correction data for a wide range of popular lenses.
Click to expand...
Its a fair point. But Lightroom gives you the best Adobe RAW converter with a very photography friendly feature set, including very easy local adjustment, at a reasonable price

Ok I got the teacher discount, but then the price dropped. I'm not saying this in a sort of I've got money to burn way. I have tried all the free RAW converters. To years to me £100 on Lightroom was worth more than a second lens
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top