Support Nikon D600
Hi,
can you tell me when the Nikon D600 will be supported in C1?
Thx
can you tell me when the Nikon D600 will be supported in C1?
Thx
0
-
Unfortunately we do not provide ETA's on the forum.
Demand for this camera has been quite light but it is on our list of cameras we wish to support in the future.0 -
Chalk me up as an interested party. Thanks. 0 -
Use Lightroom ... this works 😊
bye0 -
Prefer Capture One, thanks. 0 -
[quote="Drew" wrote:
Unfortunately we do not provide ETA's on the forum.
Demand for this camera has been quite light but it is on our list of cameras we wish to support in the future.
I would like very much an ETA - and If you do not inform about it in this forum - where can I then get the information?
It seems to be an odd answer - saying that the demand for using D600 Nef files in Capture One is light. I am surprised it can be an issue whether or whether not to include Nikon D600 in Capture One.0 -
Support for the camera will come but demand sets the priority.
As demand is light, so is the priority.
We'll get there but there is no ETA and none will be provided on the forum or through a support case. I apologize for the vagueness but we simply can't promise to meet a deadline when it comes to camera support as there are likely to be unanticipated hurdles in the implementation process.0 -
How do you measure demand? As a D600 owner, do I request it through a formal channel? 0 -
[quote="NNN634375418839388047" wrote:
How do you measure demand? As a D600 owner, do I request it through a formal channel?
Yes, this would be most helpful. Please create a support case and we will log it as a Feature Request.0 -
Hi Drew
While I understand the economic reasoning of "there isn't much demand", there's another way to look at it.
Quite simply, the more cameras you support, the more users you will have. Conversely, the less cameras you support, the less users you will have.
There are also a bunch of users here who like Capture One, but who are forced into using other software (usually Lightroom), because one or other camera of theirs is not supported by you. This, of course, sparks the ever-renewing debates about which software is better, and, since almost all the cameras around are supported by Lightroom, you have an attrition of users over time who decide to just stick to one software package.
So, there's an economic reasoning, similar to yours of being demand-based, that your users have to live by (because you are making that decision for them) about whether to keep paying for two programs instead of one.
I really like the way CO works, and I like the default color rendition, but I never use it anymore. Why? Because you don't support my Fuji Xpro1. I'm an amateur, and I don't want to work with multiple programs, and I certainly don't want to keep upgrading CO and Lightroom when Lightroom supports every camera I am likely to buy.
I'm not sure how many users you have lost and continue to lose, but the fact is that this loss IS happening. Lightroom keeps on improving in terms of features and rendition, and it keeps on going down in price. It's getting to be a hard sell to use any other software, and, like it or not, the main reason is security - you know your camera WILL be supported, usually almost as soon as it is available.0 -
[quote="Mike141" wrote:
...Quite simply, the more cameras you support, the more users you will have. Conversely, the less cameras you support, the less users you will have...
Of course and in an ideal world we would like nothing better than to support all cameras thus gaining more customers.
But someone here has to BUILD support for it, and the time it takes them to properly create support costs time/money and that needs to come from somewhere.
As such, if we decide to build support for a camera that few people use we have invested heavily with no return and taken the available resources away from a camera that perhaps many people use.
In the end we cannot support all cameras as we do operate limited resources, as does everyone else.
The ultimate solution is quite simple, if you want support for a camera let us know through a support case. We will log the case and when the number of requests is high enough to re-prioritize, we'll try to find the resources to build support.0 -
[quote="Drew" wrote:
Of course and in an ideal world we would like nothing better than to support all cameras thus gaining more customers.
But someone here has to BUILD support for it, and the time it takes them to properly create support costs time/money and that needs to come from somewhere.
As such, if we decide to build support for a camera that few people use we have invested heavily with no return and taken the available resources away from a camera that perhaps many people use.
In the end we cannot support all cameras as we do operate limited resources, as does everyone else.
Hi Drew
This isn't about me personally, I submitted a support case awhile ago.
I suppose continuing this debate is not productive, and it is after all your business.
One point, which we as outsiders are not privy too, is just how much this "heavy investment" is. Realistically, just how many copies of CO do you need to sell, or, the other way round, how many copies are you prepared to NOT sell, when you don't support a camera like the D600? I'm not asking you to give us that answer, I'm asking you to consider that answer for yourself.
I'm just saying that another approach to this is, take the knock upfront, and you will get the reward later. Build the subway or the rapid transit line, and around the stops you will find apartment buildings springing up to make use of the infrastructure. Until the infrastructure is there, the apartment buildings won't exist.
Thanks for engaging in this, and so quickly. I've made my point and you have made yours, so no need on my part to continue.0 -
[quote="Mike141" wrote:
... Build the subway or the rapid transit line, and around the stops you will find apartment buildings springing up to make use of the infrastructure. Until the infrastructure is there, the apartment buildings won't exist.
And if only 4 commuters out of thousands request a subway, do you invest and build it in hopes that the satisfied majority carpool crowd uses it or do you wait until there is a substantial demand? 😉0 -
[quote="Drew" wrote:
[quote="Mike141" wrote:
... Build the subway or the rapid transit line, and around the stops you will find apartment buildings springing up to make use of the infrastructure. Until the infrastructure is there, the apartment buildings won't exist.
And if only 4 commuters out of thousands request a subway, do you invest and build it in hopes that the satisfied majority carpool crowd uses it or do you wait until there is a substantial demand? 😉
And in many high tech business (where I come from), this is why you have a product manager who actually does market research.
You can't hope, and you shouldn't guess. And a company certainly cannot afford to do everything.
Actually, I sympathize a lot with CO, as the camera makers do you no favors by outputting multiple cameras, most often with different file formats per model. And as a user, I would expect a company like CO to actually test and verify that the software they sell actually performs as promised. This becomes costly and time consuming.
Personally, I'd like to see a very clear business model which is published which focuses more on performance than it does on volume of cameras supported.
In the end, you will have more satisfied users and a more profitable business.0 -
I still wonder how PhaseOne can hesitate to make Capture One work with Nikon D600 files - it is not just a random Nikon camera. It is one of Nikon new main cameras - and a substitute for D700. It is a camera that sooner or later have to be included in Capture One - so why hesitate. 0 -
[quote="Knud Erik" wrote:
I still wonder how PhaseOne can hesitate to make Capture One work with Nikon D600 files - it is not just a random Nikon camera. It is one of Nikon new main cameras - and a substitute for D700. It is a camera that sooner or later have to be included in Capture One - so why hesitate.
My point exactly. As I said, I don't have this camera, but it's just really strange that this particular camera has to wait.0 -
[quote="Knud Erik" wrote:
I still wonder how PhaseOne can hesitate to make Capture One work with Nikon D600 files - it is not just a random Nikon camera. It is one of Nikon new main cameras - and a substitute for D700. It is a camera that sooner or later have to be included in Capture One - so why hesitate.
Who says were hesitating?
How do you know were not working on it, as well as many other tasks at the moment? 😉
Clearly it's not ready or it would be in the software but since, as you have said, it's not a "random Nikon camera" there should be no doubt that support will be available as soon as possible.
I apologize if the timeline is not what you expect or need but we are certainly working on it.0 -
[quote="Drew" wrote:
[quote="Knud Erik" wrote:
I still wonder how PhaseOne can hesitate to make Capture One work with Nikon D600 files - it is not just a random Nikon camera. It is one of Nikon new main cameras - and a substitute for D700. It is a camera that sooner or later have to be included in Capture One - so why hesitate.
Who says were hesitating?
How do you know were not working on it, as well as many other tasks at the moment? 😉
Clearly it's not ready or it would be in the software but since, as you have said, it's not a "random Nikon camera" there should be no doubt that support will be available as soon as possible.
I apologize if the timeline is not what you expect or need but we are certainly working on it.
Drew
With all due respect, you said earlier in this conversation:
"Support for the camera will come but demand sets the priority.
As demand is light, so is the priority."
I'm sure this is the only reason for the conversation that is going on.0 -
Interesting way of handling customers. Being a product manager in the software industry I am amazed by the responses here, not even sharing a roadmap or anything.
Being a long time user of Capture One (since D70) I like the software but I am not prepared to wait forever, If you force me to switch that switch will not be a switch just until you get your act together to support one of Nikons major cameras.
amazed and dissatisified would sum me up.0 -
Do I really have to buy another copy of Lightroom? Phase One is so much better than LR or Aperture. I have both. I've been ditching MF and LF for FF, Nikons including the D600.
Please don't make me choose LR again.0 -
[quote="Mike141" wrote:
With all due respect, you said earlier in this conversation...
I absolutely did say that and I stand by it. However that does not mean we're not working on it 😄[quote="Christian1521" wrote:
I am amazed by the responses here, not even sharing a roadmap or anything
I wish we could share road maps but unfortunately that's not how our system is set up. I apologize for disappointing. ☹️[quote="NNN634474995527243569" wrote:
Please don't make me choose LR again.
Frankly I'm a bit confused by this thread all together. I feel as though we have been completely upfront and honest about how we handle camera support as well as how we are approaching this specific camera. The long time users of our software should know from experience that if a camera comes out on the first of the month, we likely won't have support by the 15th. We're a very diverse company, not just a software company, and support for cameras takes time. As this camera is only a month old (announced the 13th of Sept), it will invariably take a bit longer for us to meet your needs. Looking to the past I'd say 90 days is about the average turn around time (pending demand).
Please be patient, as stated earlier we're working on it and I hope we can have it for you soon. (and even counting from the 7 people on this thread, demand is still quite low 😉 )0 -
[quote="Drew" wrote:
Frankly I'm a bit confused by this thread all together. I feel as though we have been completely upfront and honest about how we handle camera support as well as how we are approaching this specific camera.
Yes you have, and we have clearly stated that we dont really like that way. The way you handle it is by not telling us anything. We should be patient and just trust in you, but you dont give us any information more than that you wont give us any information.
We all know that sooner or later you will support the camera. So I dont get why you cant specify when. Is it because of fear of your competitors? Your lack of information is just about to drive us to them. If you said, December 2012 we will support it, then we would know, but for all we know you might support it by Q2 next year, and quite frankly we dont want to wait until then. Adobe supports the camera NOW, ( http://forums.adobe.com/message/4743847 ) so its up to you to keep us as customers.0 -
I am sorry you feel that way. I can only direct you to our track record for camera support as previously mentioned. Again, as the camera is only a month old it's quite new and support will come as soon as we can provide it, which can vary depending on several criteria. 0 -
Perhaps the time has come for early adopters of new camera releases to suggest to the manufacturers that they make technical information and samples - images, bodies and at at least one representative lens - available to all RAW convertor developers before release and for a period afterwards for support purposes. About 6 to 8 months of loan should suffice I would have thought.
One assumes that Adobe manages to always appear to be at the head of the game either because it has arrangements with the manufacturers (who expect early adopters to be agencies and so on that also use Adobe products extensively) or because they feel they have enough information available to put a beta support release into the public domain. Perhaps both.
How many other RAW convertor vendors have announced support so far? If not many that it woould seem only reasonable that the body manufacturers are asked by their customers to provide support to the market as soon as they can, if not sooner.
Fortunately I am lucky enough not to be able to justify the cost of being an early adopter so these matters are of purely academic interest to me. 😐
Grant0 -
I apologise for getting so involved / contentious in this conversation. I fully understand where you are coming from, and I hope you understand that from me, and I guess everyone else, our responses are simply because we like your software.
I personally haven't used CO in over a year now - why? I have a Sony A900, which you support. I had a Sony A77, which is round 15 months old and still only has preliminary support, and I have a Fuji XPro1 which has no support.
Next month my older cameras are going, and I'll only have a Sony A99, not yet released, and a Fuji EX1, not yet released. I won't be able to use CO for a while for the A99, and probably never for the Fuji. Lightroom already supports both these cameras in its current software version.
Why am I still here on this board? Because I find CO to be the best RAW converter available, I own it, but I can't use it!! It's really frustrating.
I obviously won't upgrade again, at least not until I have camera support.
I would be quite happy waiting for camera support if I knew it was coming. I would use LR or even the manufacturer's raw software for a few months until you caught up, and then I'd be back on board again, and upgrading every time.
Again, I fully understand your frustration in not being able to support every camera, but I still say that Phase One are making a mistake:
1) There are going to be many smaller but very capable cameras coming out with RAW support, and they are going to be used by DSLR owners as second cameras. Because of the number and frequency of new models, there will be relatively small demand for each of them.
2) There are many newer camera owners who are just getting into RAW software processing with these less expensive, smaller, and ever-changing cameras.
Unless you bite the bullet and increase your resources, users are just not going stay, and potential new users cannot come.
DXO are in the same boat. I think their end-user RAW processing product is dying. Their forums have one or two posts a day, there's no new users coming to their forums, so I presume no-one's buying (I own their software too - crazy 🤭). But CO is far better IMO.
If you are not going to support every camera, then at least do us the courtesy of telling us, so we can make a decision. Be a high end / specialized player in the market, but less us know and then at least we know what to expect.
Thanks as always for listening.0 -
Mike,
I think the way the camera manufacturers are going with products you might well be right. Back in the day there was a joke in the Computer world that if you coould not get something right in hardware you could always fix it in software.
The photographic manufacturing industry may be taking that joke as a business plan. If they do then they will either have to consider making their own supplied software products better, supporting third party software developers [more equally], or let their customers know that they actually only care about shifting boxes at lowest cost and highest margins.
Of course we may find that for quite a few of them once the bedrock mass production base of pocket cameras has been blown away by smart phones there is not much left to support the underlying costs of the high profile product ranges. Expect more mergers and perhaps more unified standards as a result. A long shot. Holding your breath whilst waiting not recommended.
In the end there is churn. One can go with it early, hang on and hope and reject changes. Software and hardware companies come and go, are bought out, shine brightly then disappear. That is the way of the world we have to deal with for our own continuity requirements. Frustrating, certainly, but nothing very new in all of that.
Grant0 -
Consider this one more notch on the D600 belt. Please, soon, this is now my main camera with the D800. And it took you awhile to optimize for that camera, too! If you want to be like Adobe, you better be as accommodating. 😎 0 -
Hi Grant
Yes, it's a real quandary for RAW software developers. For example, the Sony RX100 lens has HUGE distortion. Sony fixes it in camera when making JPGs, and the Sony RAW converter fixes it. Adobe fixes it too, and this clearly takes time and effort.
I think the difference between Adobe and PhaseOne is that Adobe understands that supporting every camera makes them money, even if supporting a specific camera costs them more than the sales that specific camera's support generates for them.
I also disagree with Drew's view that Adobe are specialized and PhaseOne are not. Adobe may only produce software, but it's over many different areas, many of which have nothing to do with photography. PhaseOne are a specialized photography company that produces hardware and software. And, as much as PhaseOne sometimes say that their RAW converter is not their main business, why when you go to http://www.phaseone.com is the heading "Phase One Raw Converter"?
One interesting solution is what Fuji have done. Fuji does not have its own RAW converter. Instead, it licenses a version of SilkyPix that ships with the camera. SilkyPix (they are sometimes "affectionately" known as SiklyPix) are almost as fast as Adobe at supporting cameras. They are Japanese-based and clearly have lines into all the camera manufacturers there. The problem with SilkyPix is also that it is Japanese-based, and the UI is not very intuitive to most people.[quote="SFA" wrote:
Mike,
I think the way the camera manufacturers are going with products you might well be right. Back in the day there was a joke in the Computer world that if you coould not get something right in hardware you could always fix it in software.
The photographic manufacturing industry may be taking that joke as a business plan. If they do then they will either have to consider making their own supplied software products better, supporting third party software developers [more equally], or let their customers know that they actually only care about shifting boxes at lowest cost and highest margins.
Of course we may find that for quite a few of them once the bedrock mass production base of pocket cameras has been blown away by smart phones there is not much left to support the underlying costs of the high profile product ranges. Expect more mergers and perhaps more unified standards as a result. A long shot. Holding your breath whilst waiting not recommended.
In the end there is churn. One can go with it early, hang on and hope and reject changes. Software and hardware companies come and go, are bought out, shine brightly then disappear. That is the way of the world we have to deal with for our own continuity requirements. Frustrating, certainly, but nothing very new in all of that.
Grant0 -
Mike,
Whilst I agree with your overall view I don't think the business model is comparable between, say, Adobe and just about anyone else. The nearest comparison might be Corel but ...
That observation is for the very reasons you give really. Adobe does have a wide spread of software products - but no hardware that I am aware of. The spread of products and length of time they have been in the business gives them a large development organisation and a huge industrry presence starting, of course, with the PDF give away stuff.
Realistically the bulk of the RAW conversion business for Adobe is but a small part of their overall reach in the areas of image manipulation and "desk top publishing". They are, by design, a 'cover the market' operation. They pretty much have to be to achieve maximum penetration and dominance in the wider market.
However the fact that people (like us?) choose to use other similar products across Adobe's entire sphere of software influence suggests that people like alternatives to Adobe for a number of disparate reasons. Some people like to have multiple products available because they feel that product A is better at some things then product B an vice versa. Nothing at all wrong with that. Others will have different reasons for not preferring Adobe products.
The introduction of new 'technology', or the support for it, is not something that one should expect. It's a 'nice to have'. But in the end if, say, Ferrari refuse to make a people carrying for a large family just because one of their customers asks for one, now, that is their commercial decision (or, just possibly, technical decision that makes the the commercial decision irrelevant). So the prospective customer goes to Ford or GM who have such products. If he asks Ford or GM, as a new convert, for a supercar he may well be disappointed, although both companies do, from time to time, offer products that might claim such a title.
I have no idea if anyone on the internet keeps a record of which products (esp. RAW converters) support which new innovations and when they do so. Does anyone else have any suggestions for a source?
A very quick glance at a Google search a couple of days ago seemed to suggest that D600 support, unless self created with some sort of technical tool, only existed for Adobe RAW converter tools and, by some sort of default file handling, for Photo Mechanic in part (not a product I know much about.)
I saw suggestions that Apple's Aperture does not yet support the D600. If any company had the apparent customer support argument to address and the resources and industry connections to do so it would have to be Apple. Are they behind the curve?
As I said before - for a number of reasons, not the least being long term support of their own proprietory development approaches, it is probably about time that that onus to provide easy new product adoption was put back onto the manufacturers. They should either provide better software products themselves or, if they don't care to do that, make the adoption of their new technologies easier for third parties.
Whilst their direct clients make no fuss about the software the OEMs provide and continue to buy the products (then bin a proportion of the cost because they never use the software) the OEM's will not care at all for the individual users but will very likely take note of what the large corporate clients suggest. The agencies and similar, Most of whom are likely to be large Adobe Suite users one way or another.
One has to assume that anyone criticising Phase One for apparently being slower than Adobe to make new product RAW conversion support available are being critical because they don't, for some reason, like the Adobe product or the way it does things. There would be no point in complaining otherwise - just use the Adobe product. So might it be possible to live with the issues for a few weeks? If not, how about delaying the purchase of the latest greatest body rather than be a very early adopter? Might save a few dollars as well as the market price stabilises after the launch excitement.
And yes, I do understand that people don't want to disrupt their work flow - so why do so? What is the NEED to adopt the greatest as soon as it is released rather than a few weeks later when integration will likely be smoother?
A few of my thoughts for what they are worth. I have no doubt there will be many differing opinions.
Grant0 -
You definitely need to keep your customer base. The company that I am involved in also watches for opportunities to grab new users. Usually this happens when there is dissatisfaction (LR) and a hot new product that is bringing in people new to the market. I belong to the first category, and from the sales figures it is clear the D600 is destined for fame. 0 -
What happens if you convert Nikon D600 raw files to DNG with AdobeDNGConverter v7.2. Are these DNGs also not supported from C1? 0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
43 comments