Nikon Raw To Jpg Converter Software Free Download
Loyce Calk
Image quality is remarkably good as l long as I mount it to a good lens. Since it only uses the central area of the lens, the better corrected the lens is, the better the image. Flaws become quite visible, flare will be exaggerated, and chromatic aberration will fringe heavily. My favorite lens to use with this is the Nikkor ED AF 300mm f4, which is very well corrected. Because of the optics in the converter, no advantage is gained when using a lens faster than f3.5, except that those lenses can be stopped down to that point to reduce those aberrations.
I am using the Nikon D850 and am aware that Adobe LR does not yet support the Nikon RAW files. So I am using the DNG Converter (as proposed by Adobe) for the first time ever. Can it be that there is a loss of image quality in DNG compared to the original RAW File? If this is so, how long will it take Adobe to get a RAW/LR update who makes it possible to read RAW Files without using the converter? (I am based in Switzerland).
Yes, I'm using my D850's RAW files with DNG converter and then importing them to post-process, I strongly feel (and see) the difference in colors as they look about 25-30% dull as when compared to the JPEG of the same file saved on secondary card. I happened to look at the JPEGs because I saw the dull DNG's and that looked very unsatisfying and I asked myself, "Are these D850 RAW files? That's BAD!"
I've never used DNG converter before and hence never worked with them in past, but I'm having a feeling that the same Uncoverted NEF (RAW) file will look (a little if not more) better than DNG files when imported and compared - And we have to wait for the native D850 NEF support for that.... Any inputs?
Yes, I'm using my D850's RAW files with DNG converter and then importing them to post-process, I strongly feel (and see) the difference in colors as they look about 25-30% dull as when compared to the JPEG of the same file saved on secondary card.
This has nothing to do with the DNG converter. That's how RAW photos are, they have no development applied, while the JPGs do have development applied in the camera. You have to edit the RAWs to get them to look as nice, or nicer, than the JPGs.
Here on my D850 review, you can easily see the difference. What's clear is that there is an evident difference in how DNG converter manages M-Raw compared to Nikon's software, making them almost not usable at the moment. Hope you guys can send this note to developers because now for us could be a great limit.
This was as close as I could get to this insect without making it move away from me, while using the 105mm without a teleconverter. Nikon Z 50, Aperture Priority, Shade white balance, ISO 900, 1/250 at f/8 in Matrix metering, 0.0 EV, Nikkor AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED lens.
This winter I used that lens/teleconverter/FTZ adapter combination to do water droplet photography. Nikon Z 6 II, Manual exposure, Flash white balance, ISO 500, 1/200 at f/32, Nikkor VR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED lens with Nikkor TC-20e III teleconverter for 210mm.
Teleconverters are designed to work with "fast" lenses such as a 70-200 f/2.8. You lose about a stop with a 1.4x converter and 2 stops with a 2x, so AF will no longer work properly if you use one with an "ordinary" consumer-type zoom lens (plus you will find the viewfinder image dark as a result of the loss of light).
I really cannot recommend any teleconverter for use with the 55-300VR
ages ago(permalink)
With a lens with a max aperture 5.6 at 300mm, you would be wasting your money buying a teleconverter. As Chris and Walt said, your AF won't work witn a TC attached, and the viewfinder would be some kind of challenge to use.
ages ago(permalink)
I had a Nikon 55-300mm VR lens (since replaced) for my D5100 and paired it with a Tamron 1.4X teleconverter. Although the Nikon literature says its TCs won't work, I had no issues with the Tamron TC. The lens/camera retained AF and metering across the focal length and aperture range.
I have a Sigma 150-500mm zoom that I use for wildlife and that also works with the Tamron TC (however, with or without the TC, a tripod reasonable light is required for good IQ). If I had to do over, I would instead opt for a Nikon 300mm f4.0 lens (see this link: www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Autofocus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Len...).
Then learn to use the D5100 in full manual mode and work in getting closer to my subjects!
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
Ed Ludt edited this topic ages ago.
Optics: 6 elements in 4 groups for the TC-1.4x, 8 elements in 5 groups for the TC-2.0x. Both teleconverters have one aspherical element and employ fluorine coating at the front and back. The F TCs have 7/4 and 7/5 elements/groups and also have fluorine coating (at least the F TC-14E III). [+]
The best thing about the teleconverters is that they integrate transparently into the Z system with all the correct EXIF-data and that lens-profiles, image stabilization, auto-focus, etc. are working as expected.
Teleconverters often need to be taken on or off in the heat of the moment when you're in the field. The Z TELECONVERTER TC-2.0x is built for these moments. It has an anti-slip knurling tread for improved grip. It has Nikon's proprietary non-stick Fluorine Coat on the front and rear elements to make cleaning a breeze. And it has dust and drip sealing equivalent to that of an S-Line lens, ensuring your gear is ready for the toughest conditions.
This is a detailed review of the Sigma 1.4x Teleconverter EX APO DG for the Nikon mount. I had a chance to test out this teleconverter, along with the 2x Sigma teleconverter when working with the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 lens (review to be published within the next week), so I wanted to share some of my findings and compare the teleconverter to its Nikon counterpart, the Nikkor TC-14E II. In this review, I will go over the optical characteristics of the Sigma 1.4x teleconverter and talk about its performance when using both Sigma and Nikon super-telephoto lenses.
Unfortunately, due to compatibility issues with using Nikon teleconverters on Sigma lenses (see below), I had to obtain a copy of both Sigma teleconverters to test the optical performance of the new Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 Sport lens. Having a constant aperture of f/2.8, the Sigma 120-300mm sounds like a very interesting choice, especially when coupled with teleconverters. It is also an intriguing choice price-wise, since with its $3,600 MSRP price (as of August 2013), the Sigma 120-300mm is significantly cheaper than the comparable Nikon 200-400mm f/4G VR lens ($6,800) or the Canon 200-400mm f/4L IS ($11,800). With the Sigma 1.4x teleconverter, the lens essentially becomes a 170-420mm f/4 lens, which covers even more range than the 200-400mm lenses from both Nikon and Canon at the same constant aperture of f/4. While detailed test results from the teleconverter will be published in the upcoming Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 review, I will share some Imatest data with our readers from this lens and compare the performance of the teleconverter to the Nikon TC-14E II, mounted on the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II lens.
For example, when I mounted the teleconverter on the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II lens, it confused my camera into thinking that the maximum aperture of the lens was still at f/2.8 (the correct max aperture is f/4 instead, since 1.4x teleconverters lose one full stop of light). When I mounted the teleconverter on my Nikon 70-200mm, it incorrectly communicated the focal length of the lens. I also lost the ability to autofocus. The teleconverter caused both Nikon 300mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses to go to an AF loop and my 70-200mm sounded like it would break if I kept on trying to acquire autofocus. In short, only use this teleconverter with Sigma lenses!
Similar to AF performance, lens sharpness, contrast and color rendition will depend on the lens the teleconverter is coupled with. When I used the teleconverter on the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 Sport, contrast and colors looked superb. Sharpness-wise, as expected, there is definitely a drop of sharpness across the frame, but it is not outside of specs or abnormal. As you will see from the below comparisons, the Sigma 1.4x loses about the same amount of sharpness in the center as the Nikon 1.4x TC.
The Sigma 1.4x teleconverter seems to be a pretty solid choice for Sigma lenses. As you can see from this review, it works very well with the new Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 Sport lens and shows impressive performance when stopped down to f/5.6 range and smaller. It is a very compact teleconverter that only weighs 160 grams, so you could leave it on the 120-300mm f/2.8 lens without adding much more weight.
I went and bought a Sigma 2x teleconverter today and mounted it on my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 lens. I use it on a Nikon D3200. I was greatly disappointed in this lens. I get better results at 150 yards without the converter than I do with it. I ran throught all the combinations of aperture and shutter speed that I could do. I finally settled on f14 at 1/2500 of a second in bright light with 800 iso. I would not recommend this converter to anyone. Maybe the 1.4 does a good job, but you need lots of light, and a high shutter speed to make up for any shake or vibration and all of my shots looked soft. On another note, do not order a Promaster, they do not function on the sigma lens, it keeps searching and will not lock onto your focal point. I tried that before I bought the Sigma for almost $300. I feel I just wasted a lot of money. Trying to focus on flying eagles today was useless with the converter.
Some people claim that some lenses on the "compatible" list still don't work. For the most part any teleconverter works best with faster lenses. F4 or better. Nikon claims that a couple of slower lenses will work. I've not tested it personally, so I cannot state whether it does or not.
760c119bf3