Opening NEF files from the D2X! Need help!

I made an effort to familiarize myself with th Nikon D2X gear yesterday.

I was impressed with the ease of use and by the Nikon macro flash system.

Unfortunately, however, my NEF files won't open in CS2, Adobe RAW, iView nor iphoto recognize them!

I looked for a download from the Nikon site but had no luck. What am I missing?

Asher

I got it!

It's in the update Adobe Raw! Happy to see the excellent nikon files!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Unfortunately, however, my NEF files won't open in CS2, Adobe RAW, iView nor iphoto recognize them!

Click to expand...

As for CS2 you need, as you found out, ACR 3.x, need not be 3.5 or 3.6 since the new firmware for the D2x this time seems to not change the file format [like the D2xs', which uses the exact same NEF but has a different entry in the model tag of the manufacturer's section].

iPhoto, IIRC, uses the RAW conversion built into MacOS, so you'd probably need an update here, too.

iView MediaPro ships with Nikon's files for viewing NEF - and I haven't had a problem with NEF thumbnails or previews, yet. There have, however, been problems reported in iView's forum. Some people had trouble with thumbnails for NEFs; normal solution is to go for a specific thumbnail size, which you can find in said forum.

Dierk,

Thanks for updating this too much of a Canon guy! I thought that th files were damaged as no software would open it. I also recovered the NEF files with different repair utilities and tried OS 10.3.9!

Suddenly it dawned on me that Nikon may not have used existing RAW packages. So I looked for a plugin for PS and voila, beautiful, no, STUNNING files!

So I'll update my other software.

Asher

your not considering the dark side are you Asher ;-) what were your likes dislikes in comparison to your 1D2?

Thanks!
Daniel

Daniel Harrison said:

your not considering the dark side are you Asher ;-) what were your likes dislikes in comparison to your 1D2?

Click to expand...

I'm not Asher, but I noticed that the noise floor in the ISO 100 D2X RAW was higher than ISO 400 in the 1DmkII.

FastStone opens the D2X & D2Xs Nefs, and it's a free download from www.faststone.org
and it renames files much easier than the way Photoshop makes you go through hoops to do.

John Sheehy said:

I'm not Asher, but I noticed that the noise floor in the ISO 100 D2X RAW was higher than ISO 400 in the 1DmkII.

Click to expand...

That's true, the Canons exhibit less noise in general. While I'm personally convinced that much of this is down to in-camera number crunching which gives less noise but very slightly softer images out of some current cameras (sharpened up in PS they still keep the low noise look), I think the 1DMKIII may be the exception in that it gives sharp noise free images right out of the box without relying solely on processing. RG seems to think that the thinner AA filter in the MKIII might be a factor in this.

Steve,

I really think the obsession with noise is overdone, frankly.

Really, Nikons cannot be knocked! No one can blame a Nikon camera for any shortcoming in their pictures!

Asher

Steve Saunders said:

That's true, the Canons exhibit less noise in general. While I'm personally convinced that much of this is down to in-camera number crunching which gives less noise but very slightly softer images out of some current cameras

Click to expand...

The real test would be resolution tests at extreme pushes from different cameras; all set to ISO 1600 but exposing for ISO 12,800 or so, and see what detail is left (using the same t-mount lens, if possible).

(sharpened up in PS they still keep the low noise look), I think the 1DMKIII may be the exception in that it gives sharp noise free images right out of the box without relying solely on processing.

RG seems to think that the thinner AA filter in the MKIII might be a factor in this.

Click to expand...

Yes; it's caused aliasing, and I don't like it one bit. Manufacturers have discovered that many people can't distinguish real, properly-resolved detail from aliasing artifacts, and are compromising their products, IMO. I was totally unimpressed by all the aliasing color moire in the mkIII RAW samples I've seen. Besides, aliasing does not help the high-frequency-detail-to-noise ratio in the unfocused or motion-blurred areas. It just makes the in-focus areas pop out like broken glass.

Aliasing, IMO, is a pacifier stuck in the mouths of users by camera companies as a stopgap to keep them from serving us what is really needed for higher resolution; higher pixel counts.

John,

What algorithms are avaiable for these aliasing artifacts?

Is there anything in ImagingPlus™ for this?

After all, these cameras are used a lot in astronomy.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Steve,

I really think the obsession with noise is overdone, frankly.

Really, Nikons cannot be knocked! No one can blame a Nikon camera for any shortcoming in their pictures!

Asher

Click to expand...

Well, that depends on what kind of shootong you're doing. I don't see many people using Nikons hand-held with telephotos, especially in shady places. I generally only see Canons in those contexts. I see both Nikon and Canons on tripods.

Me, I can't shoot birds at 1/30 - lots of people do it, but I couldn't accept the extremely low keeper rate. I hand-hold my 560 or 800mm, with the Canon set to IS0 1250 or 1600, in Tv mode at 1/250 -1/400s (with IS), in moderate light, 1/160 to 1/250 in very low light . If I get a good exposure at ISO 1250 or 1600 with my 20D and 30D, or at 800 with my XTi, noise is something you need to look for, and if the lighting is too low, and the 1250 or 1600 (1250 on the 30D is really 1600 with a pull) are not enough, the image will fall into a higher exposure index, but maintain a good shutter speed, and the sharpness from the shutter speed may cut through the extra noise. I don't think Nikons do anywhere as well in ISO 1600 under-exposure.

The newer Nikons seem to have improved a bit; the read noise is not proportional to ISO like the D2X, but it is still a couple of stops higher than the Canons at ISO 1600. Most of the comparisons shown on web sites that say Nikon has caught up are in images engineered not to show the noise differences in the shadows. They are generally high-key, and displayed with so much JPEG compression that shadows are damaged on all.

John Sheehy said:

I was totally unimpressed by all the aliasing color moire in the mkIII RAW samples I've seen.

Click to expand...

Do you happen to recall which Raw processor was used (if it was not an in-camera JPEG), or do you have links? The raw processing can make matters worse than they need to be.

Whether the 1D MkIII does or does not have a milder AA-filter, is an open question for me, since I have not seen any controlled MTF tests that could indicate that.

It is clear, and we agree on that, that Aliasing needs to be dealt with before discrete sampling takes place. After the capture it is usually impossible to seperate the lower frequency aliases from real detail. One needs to either low-pass filter the projected image, or sample it at a (>=2x) finer pitch than the available detail, to avoid it up front.

Bart

"Aliasing, IMO, is a pacifier stuck in the mouths of users by camera companies as a stopgap to keep them from serving us what is really needed for higher resolution; higher pixel counts."

YES!!

best, Klaus