Neither of your comments has been about Capture NX-D.
Other people (including tuthill) are making sensible comments about Capture NX-D.
Well, here are my comments about NX-D: It has about the same functionality as View NX, but with a better user interface (and better than NX2). It doesn't have the degree of raw convertor control as, for example, Lightroom/ACR, or the late lamented Aperture and NX2. It allows limited tweaking of exposure, WB, highlights and so on.
A plausible workflow is to use NXD to tweak the camera control settings, then export to TIF/jpeg for further editing.
However, to me this misses the enormous advantage of raw, which is to carry out as much editing as possible on the raw image. The raw image has so much more potential than Tif, let alone a jpeg, in terms of dynamic range and potential to alter WB and tonal balance. NX-D forces you into a linear workflow of (1) raw conversion, (2) other editing, including localised editing. I find the more iterative approach of Lightroom much, much, more powerful.
NX-D has the advantage that it's Nikon's raw convertor, and Nikon know more about the sensor than anyone else - at least initially, until others have done the experimentation wouldn't be needed if Nikon weren't so pointlessly secretive.
I shall keep NX-D loaded so I can use it occasionally for a "reference Nikon raw conversion". Where I have difficulty getting what I want from Adobe conversion, I'll try NX-D to see if I'm missing something. But I doubt it will have any part in my regular workflow.
You may or may not regard my comments as correct, but if you think they're not "sensible", well let's avoid letting this conversation deteriorate in ways neither you nor I want it to.