Mike,

I'd suggest explicitly mentioning the D800E and not just the D800.

Corel's AfterShot Pro lists both but will not open the "E". The problem is that their converter sees D800E in the exif data (or where ever) and even though the 800 & 800E RAW files are the same, their converter refuses to recognize the "E" (because of the "E" in the name). Even though a work around (rename all of your filenames in the exif data) exists - no thanks to Corel - after nearly 3 months they still haven't issued a fix. I, for one, have better things to do than drag out ExifTool to rename files.

My reason for the suggestion is that folks have been bitten in the past by similar problems with RAW support for new cameras. I know several who will not buy or upgrade products that fail to handle their RAW files - until after the early adopters have their crack at it. They would assume that QU doesn't do D800E (even though it does as I just demonstrated to myself).

Great 4th of July present! Now I'll have to compare it to the results I have been getting with Canon's software with my 5D Mark III files, which has been very good. I like the lens tuning in the Canon software that they just added for some of their lenses.

I have the Canon software and tried it with my more modest  (but very good) 600D. The lens correction is ok if it's covered in the database but with a reasonable lens, it's not often correction is needed.
You'll find with Qimage Ultimate it is much quicker to get an excellent result from a raw image - the raw refine interface is so easy to use and copy setting to multiple images. If you need any extra tweaks, the image editor is available with the amazing TTS.

I wish I had that feature a week ago when I was checking a Profile Prism profiles  I made for the 600D.
What a difference the camera profile makes, see http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage-ultimate/the-advantage-of-using-custom-camera-profiles-in-qimage-ultimate/

Terry

Chuck,
Not sure what you mean; new version not picking up your D 800 files.
I have a feeling that all is OK with the images, but the color space is Adobe and you want a custom camera profile like Terry showed for his new Canon 600D

If I am wrong and you have a problem with Qimage Ultimate decoding the D800 images, please holler loud!

http://www.ddisoftware.com/shopping/index.html#cameraq

The camera profiles are created by one camera owner of that particular model (Nikon D800) based on an email instruction set from Mike Chaney. The camera owner also needs an IT-8 target.
You take the shot, and send it to Mike. Of course, the person who took the profile shot gets a free profile for his effort.

If you are interested in being the camera profile shooter for the D800, I would suggest that you email Mike at mchaney@ddisoftware.com, and mention it here too that you are interested.

Hope this helps!

Fred

I am afraid I am disappointed with Qimage for RAW processing now compared to Canon's DPP software. The sharpness I am getting using Canon's software comparing some photos I took this morning with the 5D MArk III and the 400mm 5.6 L lens is so much better with Canon's software. It's like it was shot with two different cameras or a different lens. I hadn't noticed this much of a difference with the 5D Mark II or the 7D.

Perhaps I can explain what is probably going on.
Each and every raw processing program including Photo Shop and Lightroom, Canon's raw processor, etc uses a default amount of sharpening and applies it to the raw image.
Of course, that includes Qimage Ultimate too.
So it is possible and likely that the lens you are using and the Mark III needs more sharpening than the your previous examples.
That's why Qimage Ultimate allows you to customize the sharpening and the noise reduction for each camera.

See snaps.
069 shows the settings for my 20D
070 shows the LOAD selection box with a few cameras for which I took the time to customize based on images I had to test.
072 shows the settings for the 5D Mark II. Notice less sharpening applied mainly because less noise reduction was used.
073 shows a GH1 Panasonic. Again customized. That one needed MORE noise reduction, and with the equalizer more to the left, it gets more sharpening too.

There are other factors involved too such as the amount of applied contrast for example.
As Terry pointed out, what a difference a camera profile can make too.
Your Canon software that came with the Mark III might have one in it.  You will have to explore to find out.

Fred

and

To some extent it's a matter of taste. From my early days with a Canon DSLR, I always understood that Canon's DPP default processing is the same as the in-camera processing for jpg's.
After doing some comparisons, I think it is still the case - so why shoot in raw and merely use the Canon DPP defaults?
Fred said;
Not only sharpening but contrast too. The Canon default is for a higher contrast, higher levels of sharpening and higher levels of noise reduction. This is what I'd expect for in-camera jpg's to give an image, which on first impressions, appears to be more punchy and sharper.
My comparisons with a 1600 iso image showed significant artefacts with the Canon default sharpening and in general on other lower iso images, noise levels were not as good.

My own preference is to have modest levels of raw sharpening (close to the QU default) and then use the QU editor to be more selective with Tone Targeted Sharpening depending on the characteristics of the image. Most of my prints are from the raw image so there is no wasted effort and resources in producing another image for printing.
Terry