Thank You photoclubalpha

[bfitzgerald]

I disagree because I see no obvious manipulation of raw files, certainly nothing like Pentax are doing or Sony "have done" (not seen any recent models with questionable raw)
Every camera has a tonal value that is not a debate, I was surprised at how easily the 12mp CMOS blew out on the Pentax models, and how much better it is on the Nikon ones (at various price points)

The only adaptive element to Nikon is ADL which is DRO done "right"
If you use the Nikon software it can read this in raw and apply the compensation to give images the look of your jpegs, if you use ACR this does not happen.
It's not a forced manipulation though

[agorabasta]

Well, Barry, I'm talking about raw data only. And I really know what I'm talking about.
You may well check the detailed raw histograms of Nikon 'raw' data for yourself and easily see what I mean.
Here a small neat proggie to do that http://www.rawdigger.com/news/rawdigger-0-9-10.

And having the raw data manipulated is not so necessarily a bad thing (bar limited cases e.g. astrophotography), it's just that those manipulations must be done properly. And Nikon know their job pretty well to please their target audience...

[bfitzgerald]

I'm not really into micro analysis I work on if I can't see any obvious goofing around with raw data. I'm happy enough.
Whilst the Pentax NR isn't a hugely destructive as the A700's at first release I'd prefer no obvious NR being done.
Ditto A900 I'm sure I could live with the results at ISO 3200 odd, but I think nothing is gained by playing with NR and raw.

Some folks are saying the 5dMkIII is doing some stuff to the raw, I've not really looked at that maybe it's true.