You can open the raw files in View NX-i and convert them to TIFF files and output them. After that you can open and edit them in most editing software. To do this right click on the image, select output - export - convert files then select the TIFF format, a destination folder and click the convert button. There should be support for the new NEF file format shortly in most editing software.

I know the feeling, I just added a D7200 and picked up the 18-140mm kit lens because of the package deal they offered. I didn't need it, but I wanted to try it as a walk around lens with the D7200. I figured for $300 I couldn't go wrong. :thumbup:

I don't see any reason for you to buy a new lens for your trip unless you want one. The 18-105mm is comparable to the 16-85mm in the images it will produce, size and weight. It is not as robustly built (plastic mount) but I have never had a problem with mine. I also have a 16-85mm, both lenses produce very good images. The 18-105mm is a little sharper but has more distortion and CA, all of which is correctable in camera or in post processing. If you want a new lens, by all means, buy it, but you can make do with what you have. I would take the 35mm f/1.8 DX for low light to go with whichever zoom you choose.

I have a D610 and both the 70-300mm VR f/4.5-5.6 and the 70-200mm f/4. To answer your questions, first I would like to know in what you mean by better results. The 70-300mm VR provides very good results from 70-200mm, the image quality degrades beyond 200mm but can still be good. Generally the autofocus is accurate but it hunts sometimes at the long end.

My subjective opinion is that the 70-200mm f/4 is a sharper lens and the newer VR works noticably better. The autofocus on the 70-200mm f/4 is quick and accurate. There is a tripod collar available from Nikon or after market makers, I have an after market collar but never use it, I have no trouble shooting with this lens hand-held or on a tripod without the collar. It is one of my favorite lenses. Since I got the 70-200mm f/4, the only time I have used the 70-300mm VR f/4.5-5.6 was to shoot soccer games on a D7000, but that is me.

Whether the 70-200mm f/4 will give you better results, has more to do with what you are photographing and what results you are trying to achieve. One way to find out would be to select some pictures taken with the 70-300mm VR f/4.5-5.6 that you were dissatisfied with and rent or borrow a 70-200mm f/4 and shoot the same pictures. This would give you a basis for camparison. Good luck in your quest.

A Nikon D7100/D7200 combined with an 80-400mm zoom will give you sufficient reach for wildlife and bird pictures. In DX format 400mm is equal to 600mm on a full frame camera. With the 1.3 crop mode it is the equivalent of 800mm on a full frame camera and still yields a 16MP image. I do not know if you are referring to the 80-400mm D model or the new G model, you will find the G model is much sharper and focuses faster, but it is much more expensive. When you say multiplier, if you are referring to a teleconverter, you will likely lose the ability to autofocus when combined with either 80-400mm Nikon. An alternative, is a 300 f/4 lens, again there are both D and G models available. It can be combined with the TC-14 teleconverter to extend the reach and still maintain autofocus and a shallower depth of field to isolate your subject. Note: with the exception of the new 300mm f/4E PF ED VR lens, these lens all weigh more than three pounds and you will likely want a good tripod to use with any of them.

It is my understanding that the D750's chassis is made from single piece of magnesium alloy (Nikon calls it "monocoque") and the D750's polycarbonate body panels are reinforced with carbon fiber. It is weather sealed to the same standard as the D810. The D750 is actually slightly smaller and lighter than the D610, but they are very close in size. The D610 has a magnesium alloy chassis covered with polycarbonate panels. The D610's weather sealing is comparable to the D7100.

That said I have had the D610 out in inclement weather (the Oregon coast in winter) without any problem, so for me the build differences between the two models is not a critical feature.

I own a D610 and like you I have considered upgrading to a D750. The sensors in both cameras produce nearly identical results and the controls are similar. For me, the attraction that the D750 holds is in the improved auto-focus and the improved low light auto-focus abilities. The D750 also has superior bracketing abilities, wi-fi, tilting lcd with higher resolution, improved battery life, is lighter, and has better build quality. If they had released both cameras at the same time, I would have chosen the D750, but so far I have not been able to justify the upgrade, I would rather invest in some lenses. I guess it comes down to how you use a camera, if those added features are enough to make the change worthwhile.

I understand completely, I own a Zeiss 25mm f/2 and I love working with it and I love the results. I consider it money well spent.

Hi Rick, You said you wanted to add a high quality compact camera to your kit. I honestly can't think of too many times when I would pull out a compact if I had a D800 in the same bag, but that's me. If you can identify when you would use it, the choice should be easy.

I am glad I could be of help, have fun!

If you just want to blur water on a fast moving stream or a waterfall a 4 stop filter should be sufficient, you can use ISO and fstop to fine tune the shutter speed as you desire. Long exposure, say, 3 seconds to 30 seconds requires more stops, 10 stops is commonly used. This is when you need a filter that also covers the infrared range or you will get a noticeable color cast from the infrared. The reviews of variable ND filters I have read report that they all have hot spots where the filtering of light is uneven, so I choose to not use them. I have used Marumi filters, they are Japanese made filter that are modestly priced that perform well and I also use Tiffen HT filters which are more expensive but very durable if you are shooting in a harsh environment. I would recommend you start with a 4 stop filter and shoot enough pictures to determine if it accomplishes what you want to achieve. You can add more filters if you find you need them.