My D800E arrived today no Capture NX2 software

[sridip_nag1]

<p>Shun,<br>

Completely agree that the NX2 software is not nearly as good as the competition. If a person is in a situation where they have to buy a piece of software, the nod would have to go to Lr4, especially considering the price point it's at since Lr4 was released. I use it and love it. Since I do not have the D800E as yes, I haven't been able to test out the Moire tool.</p>

<p> </p>

[roypanos]

<p>When I bought my D700 (in the UK) CNX2 was offered "free". Unlike what a previous poster has suggested it wasn't just a case of registering and entering an authorisation code - they actually had to send me a complete boxed package of the application. Which I thought was pretty dumb, commercially. The code is actually on the CD case.</p>

<p>CNX2 has an eccentric interface and even at this fairly late stage (I'm running a current release on a fast box with Win 7/64 and 8Gb RAM) isn't 100% stable. That said it's not nearly as buggy* or awkward to use as I've seen claimed quite frequently. With D700 files I still find it's quite amazing how much shadow and highlight recovery NX2 can accomplish.<br>

Roy</p>

<p>* Unlike the "message" fields of this site right now, which is extremely unstable under Chrome.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"but you can't make the D800 photos sharper"</em> Don't tell that to DXO and users of DXO software - <strong>softness correction</strong> is one of the best features of their software. It really woks. I have yet to find a lens that does not benefit from this feature.</p>

<p>I am hoping they will add a moiré reduction feature once they support the D800e.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>correction to my post above:</p>

<p>"It really <strong>works</strong>. I have yet to find a <strong>supported</strong> lens that does not benefit from this feature.</p>

[zafar1]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>softness correction</strong> is one of the best features of their software. It really woks. I have yet to find a lens that does not benefit from this feature.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course we can sharpen D800 images, but we can do the same for D800e also; and while the D800 sharpening will display sharpening artifacts relatively quickly you can go harder on D800E images because of better clarity.</p>

[habsphoto]

<p>It goes without sayin' that if you apply the same amount of post production (PS, DXO, NIK, Unsharp masking, LR4, Clarity, etc...) sharpening magic to a D800 and a D800E image the D800E image will indeed be sharper. Of course at the levels of after-sharpening that is common in the world today... that may be a matter of too-over-sharpened and way-too-over-sharpened.<br>

-Steve Schafer</p>

[elliot1]

<p>DXO lens softness correction is not the same as traditional sharpening - there are no sharpening artifacts.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>This is a sample of DXO's lens softness correction (100% crop). I used the default setting which is set at -.5 (a pretty conservative amount of correction), but it usually gets the job done. Unsharpen mask was not applied. No other sharpening was applied.</p>

<p>The setting range can be adjusted manually from -2 to +2.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[zack_zoll]

<p>I cannot speak for the D800E, but I did sell a D800 here in New York that came with an NX2 code. However! The NX2 version was too old to read the .NEF files from the D800, and we had to download an update, in addition to the actual program download.</p>

[erik_christensen3]

<p>quote To me, $3000 for the D800 is a major bargain unquote<br>

unfortunately I think too many around the world have been of the same opinion, so Nikon has now increased the price in many countries incl. SEA. I Saigon the D800 is now USD 200 more expensive than Canon 5DIII ! D4 is about USD 700 more expensive than in USA</p>

[alex_zepeda]

<p>Elliot, does DXO still bundle malware with their software? I don't care how good anything from DXO is, the alternatives from Nikon, Adobe, and anyone else are inherently superior as it's only DXO that's bothered to force people to install something as insidious as PACE.</p>

<p>Shun, software development is expensive... but "forcing" end users to bear the the additional cost of software is something that's worked out pretty well for Canon. In an ideal world I'd like to see Nikon open up their file format and compete on a more even playing ground. But, really, I'd be pretty content to see them offer something at least a little more powerful than View NX2 for free.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Alex, I have been a user of DXO for many, many years (since the D70 first came out) and have never had to install add-on programs of any kind.</p>

<p>DXO has yet to announce any news of support for the D800 even though the D4 is already supported.</p>

[greg_alton]

<p>While software is expensive to develop, each ADDITIONAL copy is as close to free as you get - it costs nothing (ok, very little) to make an additional copy (almost zero marginal cost). Nikon would not have to charge $100 extra for each camera; they've already paid for the software that they're charging $100 plus for now. The only thing they would be giving up is the marginal revenue from selling the software separately, which I would guess is a drop in the bucket for Nikon, and would if anything have a positive impact on camera sales. Nikon sold over 4 million DSLRs in 2011, and many more compacts; sales were over US$10 billion (most of that in imaging products). I doubt that Capture NX2 amounts to much in sales, but even minor effects on sales of cameras can have a big impact on the brand.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The key point here is that Nikon knows that 1) a lot of people do not use NX2 even if offered for free, 2) a lot of people have more than one Nikon DSLR, and they don't want to penalize these customers. I personally think the core algorithms of NX2 are excellent but the user interface and memory management have issues every once in a while, though the current version seems to run fine in my current computer. I use Adobe software also, each piece has its place in the process. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>While software is expensive to develop, each ADDITIONAL copy is as close to free as you get - it costs nothing (ok, very little) to make an additional copy (almost zero marginal cost). Nikon would not have to charge $100 extra for each camera; they've already paid for the software that they're charging $100 plus for now. The only thing they would be giving up is the marginal revenue from selling the software separately, which I would guess is a drop in the bucket for Nikon, and would if anything have a positive impact on camera sales.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry Greg; that is completely nonsense.</p>

<p>Software development is expensive. Therefore the cost of development has to be spread among each copy sold. As I said earlier, once you have it developed, the "manufacturing cost" for each additional copy is almost zero; for example, you can have a server somewhere and people can just download it over the internet. There can be no distribution and shipping cost. And software is not an object one can hold in his/her hands. Thus people have the notion that software is cheap or free, while it is anything but. If Nikon gives away NX2 for free, how do they recoup their investment on the original development cost as well as continuous upgrade? The original NX2 came out in 2008. There has been several minor upgrades in the last 4 years and there has been no additional charge. Meanwhile, Nikon has to pay for such continuous R&D effort on the NX2.</p>

<p>Even "hardware" have similar cost structures. It may only cost Nikon $1000 to manufacture each additional D4. However, before they came up with the final D4 design, Nikon have spent years of R&D effort on different alternative designs. There could be half a dozen different customized prototypes that are expensive to build and there may be different sensor designs and prototypes. Most of those designs never go into any product and are essentially "wasted." Such R&D cost must be recuperated from the D4 units that are actually sold. Therefore, likewise, suggesting that those R&D cost is somehow already paid for so that Nikon should sell the D4 at $1000 or $2000 is simply silly.</p>

<p>Greg, I sure hope you never run any software development business. You will lose money like crazy and be out of business in no time.</p>

 

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Even if a car is cheap I still expect it to come with a spare tyre incase I run into trouble. Shame on you Nikon. </p>

[greg_alton]

<p>Shun, lots of companies give away software. Apple for one. Nikon - inside every camera. All the car manufacturers - inside their cars. Many other examples. The fact that it costs money to make has very little to do with how the company makes money off that investment - often the better model is to give the software away (or bundle) and make money elsewhere, particularly for companies whose 'core' business is not selling software but a package which includes software. This does not in any way 'disrespect' the difficult and expensive work of making software. My point is that it would make more sense to focus on making money off the cameras by keeping customers happy and bundling Capture - and indeed if it makes enough customers less happy (because they're not getting the results they expect), not including it is harming their core business. Your statement that including the software means they would 'have to' increase camera prices by $100 is simply not true. Nikon sells something like 4 million DSLRs a year; that's a lot of DSLR sales over which to amortize the software cost. And I'm betting that their sales of Capture contribute little to their total revenue.</p>

[habsphoto]

<p>Software is just like photos... Once you recoup the hundred or so bucks it cost you to take the photo... the picture can get used for free by anyone with a mouse. ;-)<br>

I took a bunch of mini-blind photos today, no moire. And they were very small in the frame. <br>

The images came back with really bad CA just like the 28mm prime I used on the bus. so I loaded a trial of NX2 and it didn't really work. Then I realized the NX2 download is not the latest so I had to update it. (Seriously?) Then with the new version it looks great. So Lightroom ain't doing it. I hate to send every image through NX2 on my way to Lightroom, that's twice the work. So I'm hoping that there will be an update to the Adobe Lightroom or ACR parameters for the D800E. <br>

That's the price we pay for being early adopters. BTW it is officially crazy-sharp.</p>

<p>-Steve Schafer</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, lots of companies give away software. Apple for one. Nikon - inside every camera. All the car manufacturers - inside their cars. Many other examples</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Greg, you need to stop thinking that software is free; it is anything but free because it is very expensive to develop. The software inside Apple, Nikon, and automobile products are already built into the cost of those (hardware) products because such hardware cannot function without the required software. I have a bunch of friends who work for Apple as software engineers, and they are very well paid. It is like when you buy a car, they are not giving you the windshield wipers for free. The car comes with wipers and the cost of the wipers is part of the overall cost of the car. The spare tire Jamie Robertson has in mind is not "free" either. Just because software is not a physical object you can easily see with your eyes and hold in your hands does not mean it is free.</p>

<p>When you buy a computer, the cost of some basic operating system (like Windows) is built into the overall cost of the computer. Microsoft is not giving that to you for free or Bill Gates wouldn't be the richest person in the world at some point. In fact, there are different levels of operating system, home edition, pro edition, etc. and the costs are different. If you want more features, the cost goes up. And if you want the Office Suite, etc., there is extra cost.</p>

[greg_alton]

<p>Shun, I have never said software is free. I agree it is expensive to develop. I have only said that once developed, <em>each additional copy</em> adds very little additional cost. Given these characteristics, it sometimes makes sense to give it away - bundle it with hardware (or sell services, or support, or ads, or any number of other business models). Indeed, every piece of hardware I have bought in recent years has included software; it's very common. My argument is simply that Nikon would be better served by including Capture with their DSLRs (after all, they include View NX2, and that hasn't killed them) because it would make their cameras work better and be more attractive and as a result sell more cameras. You stated that Nikon would 'have to' increase the prices of cameras by $100 each, but they sell 4 million plus DSLRs a year, and this $100 extra does not seem plausible; do you believe they spend $400 million annually developing capture? I see you disagree, but I'm not in any way discounting the importance or cost of software by arguing they should include it. I'm saying their software helps customers get better results from their cameras, only they can provide this, and anything that makes their cameras more competitive is so important they should make sure it gets in the hands of their customers. Lots of companies do this - again, Apple provides quite a bit of software with their computers (or free for download) that is not 'required' to use the computer - but it makes their computers more attractive and they sell more computers (or ipads, or iphones).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, I have never said software is free.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Greg, I thought you did just a couple of posts ago. You thought companies were giving away software while in fact they are not. That was our fundamental disagreement.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5136690">Greg Alton</a> , Apr 24, 2012; 01:16 a.m.<br>

Shun, lots of companies give away software. Apple for one. Nikon - inside every camera. All the car manufacturers - inside their cars.</p>

</blockquote>

 

[greg_alton]

<p>"Giving something away" is not the same as free. It costs money to develop. The way you make money off it is distinct. Call it 'including it with something else' if you prefer. I believe it would make more sense for Nikon to 'include' it when they sell DSLRs.</p>

[habsphoto]

<p>Another day out on safari and no moire in 23 of 23 images.<br>

New blog about these photos: http://schafphoto.typepad.com/1k-words-on-photography/</p>

[Kent Shafer]

<p>Steve, in your blog post you say, "I'm now looking for ways to fix the Chromatic Aberrations (CA) and convert the NEF entirely in LR4, and any ideas for fixing the moiré if I come across it."</p>

<p>Have you tried the moiré correction slider in Lightroom 4's brush tool? I tried it on the sample NEF you were kind enough to post, and it seemed to work pretty well (so far as I could tell in between the fits and starts of my ancient PC with only 4G of ram and built-in 8-track player).</p>

[richard__]

<p>It appears that the new release candidate of <a href="http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom4-1/">Lightroom 4.1</a> is targeted towards solving CA problems with new <a href="http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/04/new-color-fringe-correction-controls.html">color fringe correction controls</a> . So that might be worth checking out.</p>