Nikon’s schedule to release Mac OS X 10.6 support for its software products

Nikon plans to release Mac OS 10.6.x compatible versions of Camera Control Pro 2, Capture NX 2, Nikon Transfer, and View NX in these time frames:

Capture NX 2: end of December 2009
Camera Control Pro 2: end of November 2009
Nikon Transfer: end of January 2010
View NX: end of January 2010

This entry was posted in Nikon Software. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • A day late and a dollar short. While Nikon has been dicking around with upgrades that are an OS version behind, Adobe cranked out the beta for LR3, which combines outstanding RAW conversion with an actual usable work flow.

    • As you say ‘beta’, Adobe hasnt finished LR3.. I suppose Nikon has their stuff in beta now too, they are just more closed about it, like Apple, and that is fine. does mean that there will probably be more bugs creeping into the final product, but that will get fixed..

      Hey, even Apple hasnt updated Aperture yet, to make full use of 10.6’s new options.. and they made the OS…

      I do agree that it is a bit to late, but could be worse..

      • Anony-mou

        NX interface is junk but the RAW support is obviously perfect. People raving about the Lightroom RAW support are either blind, or have very low standards. Anything outside of mid-day sun looks like CRAP in LR. Of course, how can they know, they have never tried NX. I have both.

        • nikkor_2

          “NX … RAW support is obviously perfect.”


  • Steve

    Ridiculous. The OS will have been in release for four months by the time they get the CNX2 upgrade done. And developer betas were available for many months before public release of Snow Leopard. What the hell have Nikon’s software developers been doing during all that time? It’s simply not acceptable that it’s taking them this long to be compatible with an OS that a huge portion of their customer base uses.

    • Torgo

      Not that it isn’t silly that it’s taken this long, but don’t be too quick to blame the developers. As a software developer, I can tell you that more times than not the reason for things like this come from marketing, or some business unit who has control over what development works on.
      They have their idea of what’s important, and will pull development off of upgrade projects like this in order to get another project done. If it was actually important to the higher-ups to gave this done, and it was delayed because of a developer problem, I’m sure we would have seen an update that was buggy as all get out, since in those cases marketing ignores the developers saying that it’s not ready to release, and they just release it anyway, with the promise of, “Well release an update right away!” 😉

      • T

        As evidenced by the very simple workarounds for the ViewNX problems, it is a very simple packaging bug that should take less than a day to fix, test and publish. I’m a software development manager by trade and I have to agree with my parent poster that this is likely an asshat management decision. Probably related to them not wanting to release a patch when they are sitting on a stock pile of pressed CDs ready for distribution (a major flaw in the “packaged” software distribution model).

        I’m very very disappointed with NIK software and Nikon for not pressing them harder on this issue.

        • Steve

          Yeah, you guys are right. I work in software dev too (project management), so I know exactly what you’re speaking of. In being in a hurry, I used “developers” in the sense of “publishers.” Sloppy language on my part. It’s undoubtedly a (really crappy) management decision.

  • ettore

    and Linux????????

  • Nobody is slower than nikon…

    • Bubba Satori

      Pro Tools.

  • Jeff T.

    This is the exact reason I just returned the shinny new 27″ APPLE IMAC back to the major retailer I purchased it from. I can’t believe that Nikon is not going to provide support or compatibility until 2010 for Capture NX which is nice to use for Transfer to the Mac. Unbelievable poor support on Nikon’s behalf, in my opinion.

    • Neil

      So you returned a cool iMac in protest of Nikon’s sloth-like development?

      • Anony-mou

        No, he returned it because it’s a POS plain and simple.

        • Go. Away. Little harry man beast.

        • Clue-impaired? Macs make me so much more productive than PCs. Applescript has no peer on PCs, period. I manage well over 100,000 images from all over the world. From my own photos from the other side of the world, to pictures the Queen of England has sent me to Corbis, Getty, and hundreds of photographers. Macs make it much easier to manage this massive number of photos.

          So, I know PCs are pretty good too at this kind of stuff, but to dismiss them as junk is plain naive, or stupid. Take yer pick which it is.

      • Anonymous

        Yes the IMac was returned promptly to the store. It is way overpriced and does not perform anywhere close to the Core i7 computer (Vista) that I built myself for way less money. I didn’t return the Imac solely because of the Nikon Capture NX non compatibility issues, but it was surely one of the reasons. I had to right click sometimes 5 times with either the Mini or Majic Mouse and that was very irritating to say the least. The scroll on the mouses were terrible, both models, the list goes on and on, but this isn’t a forum on Mac’s and their lack of performance and compatibility issues.

        • Anony-mou

          Funny how I was right. Sorry guys…

  • Paul

    Just one more reason to not use Mac products. There’s a hierarchy when it comes to brand loyalty, and Nikon ranks higher than Apple’s overpriced and relatively underpowered systems. All emotive outbursts aside, Mac doesn’t deliver dollar for dollar to what can be had with PC based systems. The “It just works” doesn’t fly as an excuse when you cannot get the apps or updates in a timely fashion (blame Nikon, but what about the vast majority of customers who need servicing first?).

    Those who complain about NX’s workflow speed have a point if batch rendering is compared to LR or Bibble. But when quality is paramount then NX is all there is. I occasionally do tests with newer updates of other RAW converters compared to NX and still it’s not close enough to make me switch.

    • Bunk.

      • I think my comment was removed because it was inflammatory and trollish, being directed at Paul and his ilk for blindly bashing Macs when they clearly have no clue what they’re talking about.

        • yes Ron, I had to remove it – otherwise this will turn into something that we don’t want to have here, please no offends to other readers

        • Paul


    • nikkor_2

      “…when quality is paramount then NX is all there is.”


    • El Aura

      As if anybody forced you to upgrade to Snow Leopard, if you need Capture NX, just wait a few months until it is supported and upgrade then. As if all software always worked on day one after a new Windows release.

  • nuser

    they are making cameras
    I don’t understand why they bother with this stuff in the first place.
    Might as well bundle their products with LR

  • maybe Nikon software development department is busy working on NX3…

    • nikkor_2

      Touché, NR!

    • M35G35

      Isn’t the NX series developed by Nik Software?

  • stvwndr

    What’s at issue here is not that Nikon is taking its time putting out an update, but that their software was crap to begin with. Most software didn’t have problems with the 10.6 update because they were following proper development. Heck even the bloatware that PS CS4 CS3 is, didn’t have major issues with SL. Nikon’s software never really felt Mac-like, efficient, or very stable for that matter… The only reason I would still like to use it is the color rendition. LR never looks quite right though the profiles have helped quite a bit. And yes I do calibrate my monitor and understand colorspaces etc. yadda yadda yadda. So I’m not pulling this outta my @ss.

    Oh and yeah.. developers had several months BEFORE the SL release to test their software. Feel sorry for the people who purchased NX2…..

    • Amen. Nikon software has sucked worse than windows since it’s inception. I love Nikon as a camera company, but it’s business practice of favoring Windows over OS X (and collaborating with MS to the point of exclusivity) is both foolish and bothersome.

  • Joe

    Umm whats wrong with Nikon software on 10.6? I have been using it Capture NX2 and transfer with no problem…

  • john

    Nikon. FAIL!

  • Cyberwlf

    Few things i’d like to address in this thread…

    a.) NIK / Nikon software – The release schedule planned is pathetic. They have professionals who use these products and not providing even ground level support within such timeframes is lousy. As mentioned the Snow Leopard SDK has been around for quite a while, other software houses have managed much quicker turn around times than these lot, and as cited it appeared to be a packaging related issue primarily and because it appears to be a simple fix they have no real excuse.

    b.) As mentioned, PS CS4, although not without issue (even CS3) worked immediately. This reflects that the code base behind the NIK products (ViewNX in particular) is quite poor (as NX 2.2.0 is still usable even if not 64bit). Also LR 2.x BEFORE the release of Snow Leopard already had a 64bit OSX 10.6 compliant release ready, so LR3 beta or otherwise being about is actually irrelevant here as Adobe managed to get their act together despite their fallout with Apple over PS regarding the Cocoa/Carbon issue.

    c.) Macs are underpowered? People who makes such statements deserve to suffer in their ignorance. Benchmarks of current Macs show they are some of the fastest performing machines around (notably the MacBookPro line compared to other top-of-the-line PC laptops on the market). The i7’s used in the newest Macs also mean Macs have some of the fastest processors around BEFORE PCs do. So the underpowered argument is a fatally misinformed one. OSX also spawned many of the ideas Vista/Win7 copied. Both OSX 10.6 and Win7 are good OS’s, but OSX wins every time on integrated workflow environment between applications and through the OS.

    d.) NX does produce better / more accurate colour images than LR2.x (with appropriate camera profiles selected and system calibrated too). That said NX has a poor UI in some respects, more difficult learning curve, and is not half as responsive as it should’ve been. LR2.x has more options, more tools, is more responsive, way better workflow but lacks some of the controls/precision elements of NIK softwares U-point technology which is a great thing.

    As an IT Pro myself with over a decade experience in the industry and work in the development field myself having held managerial positions i’ve always considered Nikon’s software to not be without issue but still handy enough I integrated it into my workflow and did not wish to be without it. Now Nikon has put me in a position where both my OSX Snow Leopard and Windows 7 machines aren’t even properly supported yet after a reasonable time lapse, so Nikon has dropped the ball worse than ever before.

    PS. To the monkeys who write off the Mac your only depriving yourself by holding such monolithic perspectives. Been using PCs since MSDOS days and used everything from Win3.1 through to Win7 and Apple’s IIe OS to MacOS 7 through to OS X 10.6 so can actually come from experience and see the benefits of both platforms and own multiple PCs (running Win2k,XP,Win7) and multiple Macs (running OSX 10.4/10.6) so get the best of all worlds.

    • Paul

      “c.) Macs are underpowered? People who makes such statements deserve to suffer in their ignorance.” Oh my. Please. Just because Macs now can utilize processors that the rest of the world have enjoyed forever doesn’t suddenly make them among the fastest, most powerful around. Good grief. Try upgrading your RAM & video card with a MacBook Pro to standards that gamers enjoy and you’ll see the real chasm that exists between the platforms (money, baby).

      Try using the ‘well, it’s fast enough for my purposes’ line and you’ll get some head nods, but that doesn’t make Mac a sensible alternative to the more cost effective and easily upgradable PC systems.

      Cutting edge performance never has been Apple’s forte or bragging point so don’t pretend that it is the case today. And when there’s anything decently fast and worthy of note among Macs in terms of productivity, you really pay for it compared to the PC counterpart. It’s not monolithic or outdated to assert that Macs are underpowered for their relative cost: it’s a fact that cannot be denied by current prices. Your saying it is not so doesn’t make it so.

      If you want a real performance boost on the Mac, you have to buy a whole new Mac. There are dozens of former PC users here who silently read this with that sinking feeling in their gut because they know they bought into a significantly more expensive system with few meaningful upgrade choices that make financial sense.

      • rwbenjey

        A few things:

        1. Upgrading RAM and hard drives in a MacBook Pro to the “standards gamers enjoy” is easy, it’s called 4-8GB. Exceeding 4GB in 32-bit systems won’t matter and exceeding 8GB in 64-bit systems won’t matter either if your games aren’t written in 64-bit. As far as the hard drive? Any 2.5″ SATA/SATA II drive that you can put in a windows laptop can be used as an upgrade for the MacBook Pro (however, both system platforms will have to plan for the vibration and heat increase). As far as video cards? Upgrading the video card in any laptop isn’t the easiest, Mac or PC. In regards to towers, PC has a larger variety to choose from, but Mac doesn’t lose out on performance power with it’s selection. The prices for all these upgrades are comparable. The price to upgrade a hard drive, RAM, or video card for Mac isn’t a drastic increase over the price for a PC upgrade, if any at all (you just have to know that you can shop outside the Apple store). Ex. I paid ~$400 for 12GB of Apple-approved RAM.

        2. You apparently haven’t upgraded a Mac before. You don’t have to replace your entire Mac if you want a “real” performance boost. Hard drive, RAM, and video card (tower) upgrades are easy enough to do and are affordable.

        So, what chasm?

        When I switched to a Mac Pro, I new exactly what I was buying and it’s worth every penny. It would have cost the same or more to build a comparable custom PC. Be very careful making statements like that if you don’t know.

        • Thanks, rwbenjey for further proving my point that Paul is talking out of his @ss without any actual knowledge of that which he speaks.

        • Paul

          “When I switched to a Mac Pro, I new exactly what I was buying and it’s worth every penny. It would have cost the same or more to build a comparable custom PC.”

          Cuckoo. Cuckoo.

          At $2500.00 dollars to get the intro MacPro station, with a whole whopping 3 gigs of DDR3 RAM, 640 gig drive, in a quad core nehalem, it boggles the mind to read the above statement. What planet do you shop on?

          Today’s Mac prices are only better in terms of comparative value, so that whatever was bought in the past was even more costly with less relative performance.

          I swear that Apple feeds itself on such fanboy devotion, counting on folks who don’t seek sensible cost/performance ratios. Do yourself a favor and just check out what $2500.00 would get you at, say, anywhere in a performance PC on planet earth (not planet Macworld). In two minutes, I found this ‘comparable’ for $100 less that would best your Mac Pro in every meaningful category – plus BluRay:

          By your reasoning, everyone not in the cult of Mac is actually getting ripped off – besides stupidly following the 89% market share herd with untold software applications, customization, and cutting edge performance options. Wow.

          Just admit you like the system better, paid for it, and are happy.

          • rwbenjey


            The RAM and the hard drive specs may apparently do look under par for the 2009 entry level Mac Pro, but you have to look at the exact processor(s) that Apple put in to the machine I order to decide the total value. Mine Mac Pro is the 2006-2007 1st generation Mac Pro which featured 2 Intel Xeon 2.66GHz Dual-core processors–Woodcrest–which cost a whopping $1000 each at the time ( That starts the machine at an absolute minimum $2000. Add the aluminum case, power supply, motherboard, fans/heatsinks, superdrive, hard drive, RAM, and video card for $499. That makes the $2499 entry price make sense. The Intel Xeon processors in my machine are not consumer level CPUs, they are server CPUs. So your argument doesn’t work in this case.

            Now, with today’s current Mac Pro, I will agree with you that the price is bloated as the system starts at $2499, but the single Intel Xeon 2.66GHz Nahalem Quad-core CPU only accounts for $999 of that cost (vs $2000). The rest of the specs don’t make up for the extra $1400 that it’s priced at, so, today’s Mac Pro is NOT a better value than the earlier models.

            **As the 2009 model is not a better value, the deciding factor comes down to paying the extra $ for preference and/or for very stable system that is expandable up to 4TB of storage and 16GB/32GB of RAM, for the base machine (not many PC’s can be upgraded to those specs). If you are a gamer, it may not be worth the price, but if you are a creative pro, it makes all the difference in the world to have that kind of future expansion capability, my friend.

            I am not a “fanboy” as I have used both PC and Mac for many years. I am well versed on both sides of the computer spectrum.

            That machine you priced out does have an Intel Quad-core, but that processor model costs $569 while the processor in the base Mac Pro costs $999. So, overall, since RAM and hard drive space are both dirt cheap these days, it’s wiser to buy the fastest processor you can afford and upgrade the other items later. In this case, the Mac may be $100 more, but it gives you a superior base CPU that costs $429 more if you had to buy it by itself. This machine you quoted and the Mac Pro are rather equal in terms of value.

            I certainly do like the Mac Pro better, but I didn’t ignore the value factor. As this is the 1st generation machine (2006-2007), it was the best value at that time. I can pretty much guarantee there were not ANY comparable PC’s that were expandable to 2TB of internal storage and 16GB of RAM at that time (and pretty much nowadays as well). Sorry, but that’s the way it is.

          • rwbenjey

            Sorry Paul, the above link was corrupted by the parenthesis surrounding it. Here is the link again:

  • donde?

    IMO Apple is to blame with their lack of supporting backwards compatibility.

    • Neil

      It’s your opinion but your opinion is wrong. Cocoa has been out for years and if they developed within it, and adhered to platform standards, they never would have had an issue.

  • liels

    But not their b0rken Nikon Scan, which won’t work even on 10.5. Even though they are still selling new coolscans. It doesn’t matter becuase vuescan (and probably silverfast) is a lot better anyway. Nikon should realize they don’t have what it takes to be in the software biz.

  • Alex

    Any update on Nikon’s lenses rebates ?

  • Anonymous

    And the moral is …..

    stick with XP.

    • Yes, a ~10 year old (p)OS is the answer. Keep talking, we’re all listening!

      • Alex

        I have XP on all my computers, it’s very stable, don’t fix it if it’s not broken.
        NASA is using some gear made 40 years ago, because they work flawless and are reliable.

      • rwbenjey

        For a PC OS, XP is fine.

        • except a photographer working with XP is either stupid, or shooting strictly medium size and quality JPEGs. the OS doesnt allow the ram used in todays computers. my iMac has 4gb and my “Hackintosh” has 12gb. Im wondering how i ever got by with only 4gb.

          • rwbenjey

            That’s your opinion. I don’t use XP for my photography, but I’ve seen it used and it’s fine.

            The 4GB cap applies to ALL 32-bit machines and applications (yes, even Mac). I have 12GB of RAM in my Mac Pro and it’s great until the 64-bit capable machine runs a 32-bit application; like any Adobe creative product. My system may have 12GB of RAM, but Photoshop only can recognize 4GB. The only real advantage of the extra RAM is multi-tasking, until more programs are written in 64-bit.

            So, when you are doing your photos on either your iMac or your “hackintosh”, you are still only “getting by” on 4GB for productivity. Sorry, but until the rumored CS5 specs become a reality, us photographers are stuck at 4GB for productivity.

          • T

            “The 4GB cap applies to ALL 32-bit machines and applications (yes, even Mac). ”

            That is not true at all. It varies by hardware on Operating Systems. I was powering my production web servers with 6GB of RAM >5 years ago with various 32-bit linux and solaris systems. Please see (
            Operating systems vary widely in how they carve up the RAM and make it available to the OS and to applications. But generally speaking EACH application PROCESS can address up to 3GB of RAM even on 32bit systems. On 32-bit windows, mac systems I haven’t had as much success, often the processes are limited to less than 1.5GB of RAM. On 64bit systems, systems and processes don’t have these bounds (well, the upper bounds aren’t worth talkigng about) There is a performance penalty to addressing RAM with PAE but it is nothing like the cost of going to disk or using more complicated IPC schemes.

          • rwbenjey

            If you consider the paging processes and virtual memory for computer systems, technically, you are right. But I left that part out because I am just looking at the physical RAM that the programs have access to at a time, not the virtual memory access via the hard drive, as it’s not the same. Photoshop would be a lot faster if I were able to use all 12GB of physical RAM during processing.

            I am saying that when you are using a program like Photoshop or any other 32-bit app, it doesn’t matter if you exceed 4GB of physical RAM in the system, as these programs cannot access more than that limit at a time (even if the system is 64-bit).

          • T

            I am only referring to physical RAM. I have plenty of apps that use between 12-32GB of RAM in a single process (on 64-bit systems, Linux, Solaris and Mac OSX SL-64 included). You are constrained to much smaller amount of RAM per process and per system on 32-bit machines (per system over 100GB is possible on 32-bit machines using PAE but I have not seen per process limitation exceed 3GB process / 1GB kernel on 32-bit architectures.). My original point is that there are very few minutes that are fall under the “ALL systems” category. “big memory” machines bring down many costs associated with processing lots of data.

        • rwbenjey


          I am referring to the limit of 32-bit machines/apps, not all systems period. As we both know that 64-bit vastly increases the physical RAM capability. I think we understand each other.

          • T

            Not completely. You are insisting that 32-bit MACHINES AND OS’s are limited to 4GB, which they are not thanks to PAE. Even 32-bit MACHINES can benefit easily for > 4GB of RAM … but mostly in server applications due to the differences of software architecture between server and client apps.

            But it is really not worth arguing about since nobody has used a 32bit system as a server or a high end workstation in ages. Unfortunately, the photography software industry is lacking (mostly due to the neophyte customer base lack of demand for change) and has been stuck in the 32-bit application world making advances in technology and software development technique worthless for your average photographer. Though, that said, our images are still considerably smaller than the 32-bit software limits so nobody would get any SINGLE APPLICATION benefits of conversion to 64-bit systems and software unless they are doing large scale transformations / filters over a very large number of images.

          • rwbenjey


  • About freaking time…

  • i dont get it i use Camera control pro 2 on 10.6 with out problems. it works great. although my friend just got it for his computer and when he downloads the 2.6 update it changes all the buttons and everything to their code strings or whatever its called.

    ive tried NX2, and i did like it, it works well obviously with the nikon stuff but it just doesnt seem to fit in my work flow. I can keep all my images consistent with ACR. I don’t use lightroom. Im a commercial shooter so my work flow from capture to process is color correct (gray cards, knowing light temps ect..)

    I may give NX2 another try

  • We have to wait this long for a working version of Nikon software on 10.6…Marvelous…Why not 2012? Just in time for the London Olympics…


  • Back to top