D810 support?

[Vladimirovich]

There are minor differences, starting by a reverse Byte Order from MM to II (it's in the header) to a few changes in the offsets. I was able to open the NEF available from Imaging Resource in RawDigger and RawTherapee by editing the camera model (to D800E) using a hex editor.

This trick has some drawbacks, as it seems to stripe a few pixels (the image shows 7334*4926) but otherwise is workable

indeed minor... Adobe spent more time using the actual D810 camera and monochromator in their lab to collect the data to build their dcp profiles  ...

[fdisilvestro]

try to find the differences in the format between D800 and D800e and D810 in dcraw code and show us :-)

PS: http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/dcraw.c

Apparently the main difference is in the matrices, no difference between D800 and D800E, As far as I can see the matrix for the D810 is not from adobe (it has the comment DJC, the default matrices are from the adobe DNG converter for dcraw). I could not find other specific differences for the D810 in the code, but I might be wrong. Also the value for "black"  seems to confirm that the black point offset is not subtracted in the D810

const char *prefix;
    short black, maximum, trans[12];

{ "Nikon D810", 596, 0, /* DJC */ { 6502,-2328,154,-4249,9943,4307,-1303,2538,8108 } },

{ "Nikon D800", 0, 0,
   { 7866,-2108,-555,-4869,12483,2681,-1176,2069,7501 } },

[fdisilvestro]

I was able to open the NEF available from Imaging Resource in RawDigger and RawTherapee by editing the camera model (to D800E) using a hex editor.

Correction to my previous post: The last version of RawTherapee already had the support for the D810

[digitaldog]

try to find the differences in the format between D800 and D800e and D810 in dcraw code and show us :-)
PS: http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/dcraw.c

There's no reason to, there IS a difference such that all the raw converters that were not updated for D810 can't access the raw data. It's as simple as that! You guys can analyze all you want, the facts remain the same. I don't care if you find the differing raws 99.9 percent similar or 99.99999 percent similar, the facts are, that data isn't accessible until the raw conveters are updated. If you had any feelings for your fellow photographers who just tossed over $3K for a camera and want to process their data, (instead of dissecting the minutia of a raw file), as I've witnessed just this week on numerous forums, that would be a refreshing adjustment on your part.

Here are the facts, dismiss them if you can!

1. Using just Adobe as an example, day before yesterday, if you had a D810 (and from the various forums, it's clear some did), you couldn't access your raw data in the raw converter you wish. The JPEG from the same camera could be opened in a 20 year old copy of Photoshop and other products. Them's the facts.

2. I don't care if it took Thomas or Eric 30 seconds to look at the raw and update their product. It shouldn't be necessary. It wasn't with the JPEG. So I'm going to assume whatever Nikon and Canon do to write a JPEG, that would be oh so lovely for them to also do with their raw files. Now if you say this is impossible, go for it. Is it impossible Vladimirovich?

3. Even if it took Adobe 30 seconds to detect the differences and a mere 3 days to update their product, it's unnecessary, expensive, frustrating to customers and dilutes the limited resource for all companies that have to do this. Now unlike you and your pals who love to look inside raw files, these companies have better things to do than rebuild their converters for raw support. They have business to run, customers to please. I'm not at all sure if you fit into that world or not. But consider it.

So here's the FUD in respect to how the raw files are handled: Frustration, Unacceptable, Disservice. FUD from Nikon, Canon and all the other companies who waste our time and our software engineer's time altering a byte or three!

See if you can spend a bit less time looking at bytes and rather have some sympathy for your fellow photographers (assuming you are one) who just want to drop big bucks on a camera body and use it as they desire. They only have limited options waiting:

1. Shoot JPEG (try selling that one Vladimirovich)
2. Use the manufacturers raw converter and wait

Clearly unacceptable to many photographers based on the posts all over the net. You think that's an acceptable set of options for someone who just spent $3000? I don't.

[Vladimirovich]

There's no reason to, there IS a difference such that all the raw converters that were not updated for D810 can't access the raw data.

that's a different story - talk w/ them... Adobe had no issues 

that data isn't accessible until the raw conveters are updated.

and again take you grievances to raw converter manufacturers... you are using Adobe, are you not ? you didn't download RC release yet ?

If you had any feelings for your fellow photographers who just tossed over $3K for a camera

I have no feeling for somebody who rush to toss money w/o understanding that camera is a small part of the workflow - be it a "professional" photographer or "amateur"... and DNG does not solve the problem because you know there are things like color transforms and even if the color profile(s) is(are) stored in DNG that is not the same as profiles supplied by your manufacturer of choice (and please do not suggest a crap from 24 patch target)

1. Using just Adobe as an example, day before yesterday, if you had a D810 (and from the various forums, it's clear some did), you couldn't access your raw data in the raw converter you wish. The JPEG from the same camera could be opened in a 20 year old copy of Photoshop and other products. Them's the facts.

and those who purchased it mostly were perfectly aware about what it the situation or were using Nikon OEM or were JPG shooter or were people with proper skills to use D810 as it is... I do not see a mass hysteria anywhere except some people in this thread 

2. I don't care if it took Thomas or Eric 30 seconds to look at the raw and update their product. It shouldn't be necessary.

it is necessary - you know some people for a change like to use Adobe dcp profiles... not the rendering that manufacturer suggests

3. Even if it took Adobe 30 seconds to detect the differences and a mere 3 days to update their product, it's unnecessary, expensive, frustrating to customers and dilutes the limited resource for all companies that have to do this. Now unlike you and your pals who love to look inside raw files, these companies have better things to do than rebuild their converters for raw support. They have business to run, customers to please. I'm not at all sure if you fit into that world or not. But consider it.

you kind of forget that Nikon has no obligation to care about Adobe... manufacturers comprising 95% of the raw enabled camera market (except some very minor/nicher players like Ricoh or Leica) do not want to have anything to do with DNG for a reason... and you refuse to understand those reasons... DNG is not a solution - solution is to have the reasons for manufacturers to document the data inside their raw files (in the format of their choice and under their own sole control - which is certainly not DNG)... does Adobe document how other raw converters can reproduce their rendering ? only partially ... why don't you start a campaign for Adobe to make a full disclosure, huh ? so that I can just use another raw converter if for whatever reason I can't use Adobe tools...  BTW - do you know what next step will be later down the road... instead of raw files cameras will be generating software available to you on a paid subscription basis that will interact with raw converters to produce a rendering - but no raw files (data), instead active ".exe" files with API to rawconverters... no more passive data generating no revenue to camera manufacturer  ... nice idea, huh... you want to continue to use your shots - pay subscribtions fees, because peeking inside what camera generated as a software code per shot will be an illegal breaking that code.

So here's the FUD in respect to how the raw files are handled: Frustration, Unacceptable, Disservice. FUD from Nikon, Canon and all the other companies who waste our time and our software engineer's time altering a byte or three!

See if you can spend a bit less time looking at bytes and rather have some sympathy for your fellow photographers (assuming you are one) who just want to drop big bucks on a camera body and use it as they desire. They only have limited options waiting:

1. Shoot JPEG (try selling that one Vladimirovich)
2. Use the manufacturers raw converter and wait

Clearly unacceptable to many photographers based on the posts all over the net. You think that's an acceptable set of options for someone who just spent $3000? I don't.

I did not see any significant number of posts... just a regular bunch, which manufacturers simply ignore - more so they know that those people will be buyhing their product nevertheless... have guts to start not using anything but Leica and Ricoh for a change... make a stand.

[Vladimirovich]

Apparently the main difference is in the matrices

and that's not a format - that is the data... which BTW Nikon does not want to store in raw files at all, does it ?  and even if they 'd stuff something in that rendering might be not what you expect or get used to... so every respectful raw converter has custom made profiles and that still requires time and actual camera in place... some, like Adobe, naturally have better resources and better access to cameras when they released... smaller players have to rely on 3rd party shots or dcraw code or whatever

[digitaldog]

that's a different story - talk w/ them... Adobe had no issues  

I have no idea what you're referring to.
Did or didn't the D810 need updating in both Adobe and Iridiant Developer and is or isn't the current version of C1 able to access this new file? The answer is pretty clear. Whether the raw is a tiny bit different or hugely different doesn't matter, all these companies had to update their software to access this new data. Yes or no?

and again take you grievances to raw converter manufacturers... you are using Adobe, are you not ? you didn't download RC release yet ?

Oh I have! And I'm giving grievances to people like yourself that feel the current conditions are fine, they clearly are not. Or are all the new D810 users who want to access their raws but can't insane, off base?

I have no feeling for somebody who rush to toss money w/o understanding that camera is a small part of the workflow - be it a "professional" photographer or "amateur"... and DNG does not solve the problem because you know there are things like color transforms and even if the color profile(s) is(are) stored in DNG that is not the same as profiles supplied by your manufacturer of choice (and please do not suggest a crap from 24 patch target)

It's now very clear you have no feelings for what I suspect are not fellow photographers (I'm not sure what you are, your lack of transparency here is evident. For all I know, you work in the accounting office for Nikon!).

and those who purchased it mostly were perfectly aware about what it the situation or were using Nikon OEM or were JPG shooter or were people with proper skills to use D810 as it is... I do not see a mass hysteria anywhere except some people in this thread  

NO, they were not aware or the posts just in the last 48 hours on the Adobe UtoU site alone would not have photographers asking why their shiny new camera doesn't allow them to use their shiny new raws.

you kind of forget that Nikon has no obligation to care about Adobe...

I'm asking them to have an obligation to their customers, a point you simply don't get. Another point you don't get is that this isn't about Adobe alone! It's about every stinking raw converter including in this forum, C1. You think the C1 user base and engineers like the current situation? Or would life be much kinder if they didn't have to update their converter to access data they coudln't?

manufacturers comprising 95% of the raw enabled camera market (except some very minor/nicher players like Ricoh or Leica) do not want to have anything to do with DNG for a reason...

This has nothing to do with DNG. It has to do with access to our data. Again, the day a camera ships, why should a customer not have the ability to process his raw file like the JPEG? Can you answer that? Is it acceptable to you that customers are unable to use their data as they desire but only for a few days/weeks/months until their converter of choice spends the time and money to update their product?
You are either unwilling or unable to answer any of the questions that pertain to the customer's needs in this context. So I have to suspect you're not a photographer and you probably work for an Adobe competitor (hence you inability to see this isn't a DNG or Adobe issue). Care to tell us your day job?  

I did not see any significant number of posts... just a regular bunch, which manufacturers simply ignore - more so they know that those people will be buyhing their product nevertheless... have guts to start not using anything but Leica and Ricoh for a change... make a stand.

The posts exist. The people who are frustrated shouldn't have to be, a point you continue to ignore UNLESS you can tell us that it is impossible for Nikon or Canon to release a new camera with a raw that behaves like the last such that no updates to a converter are necessary. IS THAT IMPOSSIBLE? If not, you don't have a leg to stand on. And it's clear you don't give a rats ass about those who can't access their data.

Here's the bottom line: you don't give a crap that people can't access their data and you're unable to explain why they should wait. You're unable or unwilling to tell us if this issue could be fixed by the camera companies themselves without a lick of help from Adobe or the use of DNG. You've provided no justification for the current methods whereby everyone with a new camera has to wait for an update to their converter of choice. You're unable to tell us what options otherwise are acceptable to you as presumably a photographer (stick with JPEG, use manufacturer's converter).

I don't own nor will own a D810 but I feel for my fellow photographers who are frustrated by a system that has no justification, at least one anyone has ever explained. Unless you're going to tell us it's impossible for each raw file from Nikon (or Canon) to behave like a JPEG or TIFF or DNG such that the day the camera ships, the file it produces is universally understood like those file formats.

[Vladimirovich]

I have no idea what you're referring to.

you just pretend for a public.

Did or didn't the D810 need updating in both Adobe and Iridiant Developer and is or isn't the current version of C1 able to access this new file?

absolutely - for example they created their own profiles :-) ... if somebody, for example, wants to use Adobe's profiles DNG does not help at all - you still have to wait 

[Vladimirovich]

The answer is pretty clear. Whether the raw is a tiny bit different or hugely different doesn't matter, all these companies had to update their software to access this new data. Yes or no? Oh I have!

they do and dcraw illustrates it is nothing to think about unless you are inclined to spread baseless FUD about huge work that poor developers have to do... they are paid to do this and don't expect the cost of Adobe tools to drop if next day all cameras will start generating DNGs...

And I'm giving grievances to people like yourself that feel the current conditions are fine, they clearly are not. Or are all the new D810 users who want to access their raws but can't insane, off base?

you are off base because you try to create an illusion of a massive problem - I count couple of dozen people rasining issues (not only here - I read many other forums) and much less who do not have other camera for their work  ... and 9 out of 10 of those are OK since yesterday, except of course those who like you just want to spread FUD - instead bug Adobe to release how their adjustments work, you know, we, photographers, want to feel safe and that the metadata reflecting our work with raw files tobe publicly available for interpretation by other raw converters... how about that ?

 

It's now very clear you have no feelings for what I suspect are not fellow photographers (I'm not sure what you are, your lack of transparency here is evident. For all I know, you work in the accounting office for Nikon!).

more FUD, when you have no arguments try to implicate your opponent in being a Nikon employee 

NO, they were not aware or the posts just in the last 48 hours on the Adobe UtoU site alone would not have photographers asking why their shiny new camera doesn't allow them to use their shiny new raws. I'm asking them to have an obligation to their customers, a point you simply don't get.

companies, as Adobe perfectly demonstrates, have obligations solely to their shareholders... oh wait, stupid me... not shareholders, that's just for a Fox audience - but to a class of options holding C level execs... shareholders might just get lucky along the way.

[Vladimirovich]

You are either unwilling or unable to answer any of the questions that pertain to the customer's needs in this context.

customers are getting support in raw converters... you either unwilling or unable to understand that most of people use OOC JPG, out of the rest most are using OEM raw converters, out of the rest most do not buy a new camera right away, most of the rest are OK to wait a little or play w/ raws using hex editors and only few repeat that endless cycle of crying that always stops in a few weeks

So I have to suspect you're not a photographer and you probably work for an Adobe competitor (hence you inability to see this isn't a DNG or Adobe issue).

OK, not I am not working for Nikon accounting - I am apparently working for Corel or ISL or who else is left standing to afford me ?

[Vladimirovich]

Care to tell us your day job?

sure, my day job is in IT staffing business ... does it make you happy ?

 The posts exist. The people who are frustrated shouldn't have to be, a point you continue to ignore UNLESS you can tell us that it is impossible for Nikon or Canon to release a new camera with a raw that behaves like the last such that no updates to a converter are necessary. IS THAT IMPOSSIBLE? If not, you don't have a leg to stand on. And it's clear you don't give a rats ass about those who can't access their data.

all kind of posts exist for posterity ( and most of them are probaby yours - on this forum   ) and yet the same people are somehow happily shooting with their non DNG cameras and marketshare of manufacturers using DNG is successfully shrinking... that's what market says = nobody (both customers and those who create raw converters) gives a damn about cameras not having DNG or even not having just publicly available description of the format & data (even partial)...  you want to change it - please, stop using anything but Ricoh and Leica and btw - stop using Adobe products too, because Adobe does support manufacturers in their behavior and to be more logical start demanting full disclosure of raw conversion metadata (how it shall be used) from Adobe too (and from C1, from ISL, from all of 'em raw converters - they are no better than camera manufacturers)...

[Vladimirovich]

Here's the bottom line: you don't give a crap that people can't access their data and you're unable to explain why they should wait.

the bottom line is that you are incapable of listening... 99.99% people (that is from a small minority who do not use OOC JPS and/or OEM raw converters) by the time when they actually buy cameras and out of those 0.0001% most just have no issues waiting till their raw converter of choice will support the camera (and as Adobe is a market leader apparently their wait is not long)... changes in the format are in 9 out 10 cases are simply absent or require less than a days work... what requires work is camera profiling and DNG is not solving this at all, specifically for converters like DxO where you might need extra work for camera+lens combos (beyond what manufacturer might store in raw file for optics correction)

You're unable or unwilling to tell us if this issue could be fixed by the camera companies themselves without a lick of help from Adobe or the use of DNG.

DNG can't fix anything because manufacturers are not willing to be tied by that Adobe standard or even non Adobe standard belonging to some organization and they are not willing in some cases to share their development work that in case of some standard they might have to disclose (case in point that I repeat to you for years - optics correction introduced by Panasonic and the time it took Adobe to incorporate that in DNG - and I always ask you a question - should the company like Panasonic wait with the release of their product and incur income loss while they waiting for Adobe to decide how Adobe wants to do it ? shall the company in case of the standard belonging to organization disclose their move to their competitors who are corporate members of that same organization and seek their approval may be for what the company in question wants to do/to store/how to store in raw files ? and Panasonic was the fine example - they did this alone and it took Adobe several month to fix the code and much more to publish the standard... and please do not suggest to store that data in a tag intended for undisclosed manufacturer data - that kills the whole idea - they are as well OK storing in their own .RW2 format)... camera manufacturers have their own valid reasons to stick with their own raw formats in order not to be tied and not to disclose in advance... they also know that most (not just most but absolute majority) their market will not be harmed by them not disclosing anything and that most of 3rd party manufacturers, though inconvenient for them, will support their cameras nevertheless and there is a possibility that some manufacturers do share the details with some companies making raw converters and in case when they don't share the changes in raw formats with every new camera model are so minor (or simply absent) that it is a non issue (except a reason for somebody to vent in a forum).

You've provided no justification for the current methods whereby everyone with a new camera has to wait for an update to their converter of choice. You're unable to tell us what options otherwise are acceptable to you as presumably a photographer (stick with JPEG, use manufacturer's converter).

I repeat you that Panasonic example for years, yet every time you pretend you did not hear about it... memory loss ?

[digitaldog]

you just pretend for a public.
absolutely - for example they created their own profiles :-) ... if somebody, for example, wants to use Adobe's profiles DNG does not help at all - you still have to wait  

Again, I don't know what your point is nor the text you just pretend for a public.
So you agree there are differences! DNG Profile or not, the behavior is such that there's a need for an update and again, is this impossible or not to rectify? Your refusal to answer a simple question to keep the manufacturers off the hook is suspect!

they do and dcraw illustrates it is nothing to think about unless you are inclined to spread baseless FUD about huge work that poor developers have to do... they are paid to do this and don't expect the cost of Adobe tools to drop if next day all cameras will start generating DNGs...

Nothing to think about? WTF is that supposed to mean? The last version of ALL raw converters and many current can't read the file right? That's something to think about for sure.

you are off base because you try to create an illusion of a massive problem

First off, that's your baggage (the so called illusion). Next, it's been an ongoing issue for YEARS! Like EVERY TIME a new camera comes out. This has affected potentially thousands of users. Just think about how often this happens. It's unacceptable to have to wait for a fix of a problem that is solely created by the camera manufactures. Tell us how and why that's justifiable? Especially when you've admitted by their own doing the raw files are different and apparently it isn’t impossible not to do so.

I count couple of dozen people rasining issues

Just this week with one camera. What about the history of all raw files and what's coming in the future. Be it dozens or hundreds maybe you can tell us what number of pissed off customers warrants a change in this on-going issue? Since it didn't affect you, it's not a big deal? Again, you have zero sympathy for photographers and you can't justify this on-going behavior in producing a non universal raw even per company let alone a universal raw format for all.

sure, my day job is in IT staffing business Grin ... does it make you happy ?

Yes thanks, it makes your POV pretty obvious now. Maybe if you were a photographer with a new camera who wanted to use it, you'd understand the problem. It's not the end of the world, no question. It's a PITA that continues month after month, year after year for no reason. But since it doesn't directly affect you, you don't really care how it affects others. Let em wait right?

customers are getting support in raw converters... you either unwilling or unable to understand that most of people use OOC JPG, out of the rest most are using OEM raw converters, out of the rest most do not buy a new camera right away, most of the rest are OK to wait a little or play w/ raws using hex editors and only few repeat that endless cycle of crying that always stops in a few weeks

Yes customers are eventually getting support from raw conveters, but WHY should they wait? What justification do you have that lets these companies continuously play this silly game making their customers wait? Again, if it's impossible for a new camera to spit out a file a current converter hasn't seen nor can use, tell us, if it isn't impossible, justify why the companies do this and why the paying public should wait.

[digitaldog]

I repeat you that Panasonic example for years, yet every time you pretend you did not hear about it... memory loss ?

The sentence makes no sense to me. What about Panasonic?

[digitaldog]

You keep bringing up DNG. This has nothing to do with DNG and everything to do with a company producing a product that can provide the paying customer with a data file they can use. ONE of the data files can't be used, the other can. Customers who want to use the raw have to wait. Why should they? Whether it's 50 or 5000.

[Denis de Gannes]

Again, I don't know what your point is nor the text you just pretend for a public.
So you agree there are differences! DNG Profile or not, the behavior is such that there's a need for an update and again, is this impossible or not to rectify? Your refusal to answer a simple question to keep the manufacturers off the hook is suspect! Nothing to think about? WTF is that supposed to mean? The last version of ALL raw converters and many current can't read the file right? That's something to think about for sure. First off, that's your baggage (the so called illusion). Next, it's been an ongoing issue for YEARS! Like EVERY TIME a new camera comes out. This has affected potentially thousands of users. Just think about how often this happens. It's unacceptable to have to wait for a fix of a problem that is solely created by the camera manufactures. Tell us how and why that's justifiable? Especially when you've admitted by their own doing the raw files are different and apparently it isn’t impossible not to do so. Just this week with one camera. What about the history of all raw files and what's coming in the future. Be it dozens or hundreds maybe you can tell us what number of pissed off customers warrants a change in this on-going issue? Since it didn't affect you, it's not a big deal? Again, you have zero sympathy for photographers and you can't justify this on-going behavior in producing a non universal raw even per company let alone a universal raw format for all. Yes thanks, it makes your POV pretty obvious now. Maybe if you were a photographer with a new camera who wanted to use it, you'd understand the problem. It's not the end of the world, no question. It's a PITA that continues month after month, year after year for no reason. But since it doesn't directly affect you, you don't really care how it affects others. Let em wait right? Yes customers are eventually getting support from raw conveters, but WHY should they wait? What justification do you have that lets these companies continuously play this silly game making their customers wait? Again, if it's impossible for a new camera to spit out a file a current converter hasn't seen nor can use, tell us, if it isn't impossible, justify why the companies do this and why the paying public should wait.

The answer to all of this is that the processing of raw data is still a rapidly evolving technology (not yet mature). The camera manufacturer believes that their technics, processing etc is their advantage in the marketing of their products. Adobe thinks their processes are superior, likewise C1, DxO, etc, etc.
This competition is what keeps pushing the development process and competition to the benefit of the consumer.
If we agreed to a standard raw format five years ago, what would we have DNG/ACR version 4.6. 

[digitaldog]

The camera manufacturer believes that their technics, processing etc is their advantage in the marketing of their products. Adobe thinks their processes are superior, likewise C1, DxO, etc, etc.
This competition is what keeps pushing the development process and competition to the benefit of the consumer.

I don't see how that's so considering that whatever the tiny difference are between releases, it's moot given a period of time (weeks, months and in this case days) for companies to figure out how to decode the data. IOW, this delay in using the data we prefer is temporary but frustrating for those that buy a camera and wish to use it immediately. What's the justification for this as far as the camera manufacturers are concerned? How has that raw data changed from the day the camera shipped to the week later when X number of 3rd party converters now support it? It hasn't. It's just been a delay that didn't need to be.

The bottom line as I see it is this. This behavior has no justification (at least I've yet to hear any). It's just a burden on the customer albeit for a short time. IF you happen to be one of those customers, it's not pleasant nor justified. The more photographers refrain from bitching about it (which is far from FUD as defined by Vladimirovich), the less likely the condition will change.

The difference between Vladimirovich and I in terms of this debate is I believe the years of this ongoing behavior have no benefit for the customer. Just the opposite. And I don't care if only 0.01% of these customers get stuck with this versus 1% or 10%. If you're the person who's in that boat, you're not happy. I haven't had that experience but unlike Vladimirovich I can understand it. Maybe next time he's doing his IT job and a product or service he depends on causes issues, hopefully he'll step back and reflect on that feeling and see that it isn't much different from the folks who buy a camera shortly after release and can't use it as they desire. Waiting isn't a legitimate solution. Blaming someone for buying a camera early isn't an excuse. Expecting other software companies to update their converter when there's no need isn't justification for "doing your job" as he puts it.

Bottom line, a camera company on June 1st releases a camera with a new raw format that virtually every product but their own can't read. Weeks later after work, the products can read it. So what's the point of the company doing this in the first place? There is none, it's bad customer service. And the more buyers who ignore it because the timing doesn't affect them, the longer the companies continue to do this. Only when you are personally affected is this an issue. That's kind of selfish and doesn't do our industry any good.

[Bob Rockefeller]

The bottom line as I see it is this. This behavior has no justification (at least I've yet to hear any). It's just a burden on the customer albeit for a short time. IF you happen to be one of those customers, it's not pleasant nor justified. The more photographers refrain from bitching about it (which is far from FUD as defined by Vladimirovich), the less likely the condition will change.

Another sadness is that just because Adobe has released something that will convert Nikon's new RAW format, doesn't mean it's the best they can do. There are usually tweaks as they advance their understanding of the format. Nikon gets a head start because they know what's in the file. And they can stay ahead because they can take advantage of everything in the file, even if Adobe (or whoever) chooses not to. Not to mention that they have the RAW to JPG conversion algorithms to exactly match what the camera creates for JPGs.

It is irritating that each manufacturer has a different RAW format for each camera. I suppose they think they improve their format with each new release. Maybe they do.

[Denis de Gannes]

My point is simple if the manufacturer, the software developer, and the user adopt a particular standard of producing raw data. Then there would be no need for any of them to make further development of their individual process and further research and development. This will not happen.

[digitaldog]

My point is simple if the manufacturer, the software developer, and the user adopt a particular standard of producing raw data. Then there would be no need for any of them to make further development of their individual process and further research and development. This will not happen.

I'm not asking for a universal raw format (in this thread) although I'd prefer that. I'm asking why there are three Nikon variants in recent memory that are all different to a tiny degree it breaks workflows and if it's impossible they be treated the same in terms of any or all converters. I've asked several times, is this impossible?
I've asked in the past why there can't be a 3rd option on the camears: Raw, JPEG and DNG. This is obviously a political issue. If we had that 3rd choice, then who cares if the proprietary raw isn't updated for months or at all, at least those that prefer DNG and want access on day one could have it. Best of both worlds.
Or another possibility: Nikon and Canon and friends just allow any 3rd party converter company to sign an NDA, get a raw file a few weeks prior to releases. On release day, the converters understand the new data.
The current behavior isn't acceptable IMHO, but I guess that's pretty clear. I'm open to any or all of the above possibilities, I'm not open to doing business as usual when it's the photographer who suffers. Even if there are very few.