Nikon d610 raw file download

Options for a mostly jpeg shooter. Nov 3, Desmond. Nikon camera, best bang for the buck. Replies 8 Views 1K. Nov 7, MortyCapp. Latest threads. General Technical Discussion. Macro, Flowers, Insects, and Greenery. General Discussion. Formal Portraits and Weddings. Landscapes, Architecture, and Cityscapes. Black and White. I just bought a Z7 Started by jon. Nikon Z Mirrorless Forum. Links on this page may be to our affiliates. You further consent to service of process in any action arising from this Agreement by regular mail or other commercially reasonable means of receipted delivery.

If any provision of the Agreement shall be determined invalid for any reason, the remaining provisions shall not be invalidated and shall remain in full force and effect. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement and understanding between you and Nikon, and supersedes and replaces any other agreements relating to the subject matter of this Agreement.

The failure of any party to insist upon strict performance of any of the terms or provisions of this Agreement, or the exercise of any option, right or remedy contained herein, shall not be construed as a waiver of any future application of such term, provision, option, right or remedy, and such term, provision, option, right or remedy shall continue and remain in full force and effect.

The headings of the sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not constitute a part hereof or affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the provisions of section 3 and section 4 together with any provisions that by their express terms apply to periods after termination of this Agreement, shall survive termination of this Agreement for any reason.

Other products. Download Center D D Other products. Manuals Manuals Firmware Software. Perhaps I can help as I have the same system. In Windows, there is a choice of two different versions of ExifTool to install. The Perl distribution requires Perl to be installed on your system. A good, free Perl interpreter can be downloaded from activeperl. Stand-Alone Executable 1. Download the Windows Executable from the ExifTool home page. To install exiftool for use from the command line, continue with the following steps: 3.

Note: Occasionally users have reported that exiftool gives errors when running this version for this first time. In this case, follow the Uninstalling instructions below then re-install exiftool. Be sure that you have sufficient disk space in your TEMP directory for exiftool to unpack about 12 MB of temporary files — these are the Perl libraries used by the exiftool application which are unpacked the first time exiftool is run.

Is the reason for doing all of this is to change my D into a D? Thanks, Lisa. Hi Lisa, yes those are basicly the steps you have to take, it all sounds a little daunting at first,but it worked for me. The aim of it all is to change data attached to your raw file I think this is the Exif file , in our case we only need to change the name of the Camera from D to D and PS should be able to read your Raw files again. OK I presume you have downloaded and unzipped the Perl version, carry out steps 3 and 4.

Open the Win start menu, the easiest way to do this is to press and hold the windows key and then press the R key. The prompt box should open, type in cmd and click OK.

Now a black screen should appear with something like this in it. Now we get to the exciting bit, we now have to tell windows to modify the camera information of your raw files, for me the command looked like this. After that you press enter and if you are lukcy your computer will start modifying the files. What you should be aware of, you have to change the name of the user ie. In the given example I had my Raw files in the folder on the desktop, you will have to change this path too or perhaps put your folder on the desktop for now and move it back to where ever later.

You can copy and paste the Command line or part of it from above. But do edit it to match your user name and file location. Hope this helps, please let us know how you go on. Sorry very embarrasing, THIS is the one! I got the program installed and will try to work with the files at a later time… thanks for your reply will get back to you. Works like a champ. Saved pictures and possibly a marriage. What did I do?

Downloaded and extracted the exiftool. Created a special folder. I called mine: Dconversion 3. Copied the NEF files to the special folder.

Renamed the exiftool -k. Copied exiftool. Launched command prompt. Navigated to the special folder. Google File navigation at command prompt. NEF 9. Pressed enter. My files were converted! Ran Adobe bridge 6 and everything was just as it should be! Running Mountain Lion and Mavericks on different machines. Thank you! I figured it out!

Why does it take so long? I assume Nikon along with the other camera makers? Adobe is no help when I ask them when it will be ready. I, too, had sent in my D for the third time, and told them to keep it. They sent me a refund this was before the D was out. I have not bought mu D yet exactly for the same reason that Photo Ninja and ACR do not support it, I need these tools for my processing but if anyone has already had it, could you send a raw they need?

This is driving me nuts. I have been having the same problem and started shooting jpeg to fix it. I have tried various other things as well mind you. Afraid that just like in your review of the oily slimy Nikon D, that the Canon 6D will actually prove to have better image quality on high ISO, against your judgment?

After the holidays, Higuel. Don't you think they deserve a peaceful Christmas with family this year again? Probably just me but I cannot tell the difference between DX and full frame just by looking at them. Good idea, and if I use my DX lenses it crops automatically and I'll get a proper sized autofocus module. I like it! I can easily tell the difference on my high definition Dell monitor. The full frame is more filmlike and less noisy than APSC especially as you go to iso or more.

Magnify the images of a iso of DX and a iso of FX taken in jpeg and the difference is obvious. However if viewed on a small screen like 15 inch laptop, the difference is less noticeable until light gets dim. Raw worked in post editing can make the difference less with proper noise removal but it is still there. I would pick a D over a D as image IQ is better to start for post editing exposure adjustment.

In bright daylight at iso the difference is not as much with high quality glass. Those pictures are awful, it is either the camera or the person pressing the button. Peter Del. Picture quality looks excellent.

The tonal quality might be a touch softer but they look very realistic. I don't know why Nikon has changed its colour and tonal response in a smaller degree in all of its current line cameras but I find that disappointing. BTW, images here at first glance, look like coming from a d DPR would greatly do the whole World a favor by setting the camera with a normal prime lens on f11 and point it to a clear blue sky, take 10, images and compare images , If there are no changes, then we, the Whole world, can breath again and MIGHT have the confidence back, to actually buy the camera.

Such a pity it takes an independent blogger to work out the simple experiment compared to what a large corporate website under the wings of a massive corporation should have done a long time ago, for a simple 10, shutter test.

Count me as someone who wants to see the D put through its paces before I buy it - 10, shots minimum. He said he will test another one in a few days. As a former D owner I want to be sure it's spot-free before I pull the trigger on the purchase. I expect the overall image quality to be the same. At any other time it might make sense to devote resources to verifying the has identical image quality to the but with all the PhotoPlus stuff plus the retro Nikon, why not fire the shutter a bunch of times just to be sure it's ok, then give it the gold award and move on to the stuff that's really untested.

Waste of time even testing it - except the new feature of "6 fps" and whether or not it pollutes the sensor again. Pitures at low light the ISO value was omitted, even downloading the image he is not visible. Only on low light images. You didn't think this was important in the original review, please don't let Amazon dictate another favorable review.

We covered the oil issue in our original D review and will investigate whether it's been fixed. Because we only have cameras for a month or so, we don't know whether the D sensor issue is a relatively short-term problem and we don't know whether it also affected units built after the one we used, which limits how much we can be certain of and we need to be certain before publishing about such issues.

Nobody dictates anything to us about reviews - it's the principal reviewer's decision what award to give a camera. I don't know much about Amazon's structure beyond the dpreview team, but I don't believe that having an opinion about our reviews turns up in anyone's job role. Butler, gold award for D was a joke. The whole D was crooked from the moment it was released. Sad and forgettable story. On that basis the reviewer chose to award it a gold.

Did we get everything right? Probably not - and there are some processes we've changed internally to improve future reviews, but I disagree with your assessment that it's a 'joke' or 'sad and forgettable' - what seems clear in hindsight isn't necessarily so obvious at the time.

Thanks for your comments RB, I know you try your best doing reviews, but your past snarky comments of Sony cameras that were not deserved and so now you must reap credibility gaps of your reviews.

There may be a gap between what you think and what I thought of a camera, but I don't think I've ever made a significant criticism of a camera that I've not seen echoed by some of the people who've ended up owning that model - which suggests my criticism isn't actually incredible.

Butler, maybe you are right, but I think what Nikon did with the D and their customers was pretty shameful. I am not even sure they have officially announced the issue. I think it would have been fair for D users to get a free upgrade to the D from Nikon. I left Nikon before D came out, and I steped over to Fuji and the S5, later to Sony, and unless there will be changes in Nikon policy, service, and specially pricing on their top models, I do not go back. When I see at what price they sell a D4 and if I compare it to a D and higher series, I ask myself by what they want to justify the price they ask for the D4.

Nikon sucks since many years now. Not having any oil issue with my Sensor is pristine after 12k shutter. The is a very,very good camera and I used it in very harsh climates.

No hickups. Leaving the best bodies and optics leaves you with a choice of only second best, gorry Canon colors, crappy Sony lenses. Nope I dont think you can add value to a discussion. The D got a gold, and obviously this was based on it's performance during the test, but since then this issue with the oil from the shutter has mushroomed and Nikon have managed this very badly, to say the least, and lost a lot of sales and no doubt customers along the way.

Surely there should or could have been some update to degrade the rating or add a serious caveat? I think this is what is missing and what people are somewhat dissatisfied with.. Alternatively, is there not a place for a much longer term test, in the way that car magazines do, to reflect on day-to-day usage and reliability in such "suspect" cameras, what repairs have been needed over a 12 month period etc? Surely somebody would be really pleased to be given such a camera for months merely at the price of writing periodic reports and doing some tests?

I volunteer for the D! Shamael About justifying the price of the D4, it has much better build quality, a better shutter, more processing power, more advanced metering and AF systems etc.

But you don't just pay for the materials, but also for pro-grade reliability tighter manufacturing tolerances, better quality control. Btw, the A99 isn't comparable to the D4, but rather to the D Spectro - in fairness it'll probably be of a bright sky with low cloud cover - think of it as a massive diffuser.

I too wonder why a full review is being carried out of this especially when others are still in the long-term 'preview' stage. The only interest to me and others is: is it fixed? Finally, will sample images be any different? I believe in the giant softbox concept, especially for the solstice parade or sakura con. If you guys need any camera tester for lowlight events or strobing let me know.

I do a lot of those as you can see my flickr link in profile. The D is the exact same as the D but with a new shutter mechanism that boosts continuous shooting and adds a 'Quiet Continuous' mode.

The only other upgrade is an improved auto white balance system. Do the slight updates still make the D a compelling option in a growing full-frame market? Find out in our review. Reports have been surfacing that Nikon is issuing new D cameras to customers who send in their Ds for service. It's hard to substantiate, but Nikon Rumors has been collating reports from Europe and the US which seem to show that some customers who send their Ds in for service related to the now notorious dust accumulation issue have been receiving brand new Ds in exchange.

Read Nikon's statement on the matter. Several new DSLRs were announced in , even as mirrorless cameras nipped at their heels in the entry-level and enthusiast segment of the market. Among the new DSLRs released this year were a handful of iterative updates to existing models, but also some all-new contenders, including Canon's high-tech EOS 70D and Nikon's entirely unconventional or perhaps that should be entirely traditional Df.

Click through to check out the selection, and cast your vote. Lensrentals' Roger Cicala has beaten us to testing the Nikon D for oil and dust accumulation - concluding it's 'certainly no worse than other cameras.

Click through for a link to his article. We're still working on our review of the Nikon D, but recently shot some real-world samples to see if the most recent update still retains the same top-notch photo quality found in last year's D