I using a Dell quad core desktop with 8gb of ram which works fine with 12mp files, just wondering if that would be enough to handle the D800's 36mp files?

mVs
D2x, D300s, D700 & D800

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

If you are using Photoshop, Lightroom. Capture or another program it is certainly a question that purchasers should ask.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/

Correct me if I'm wrong here but I thought that you get a choice of crop factor for NEF as follows;
FX format (36×24):
7,360 × 4,912 (L),
5,520 × 3,680 (M),
3,680 × 2,456 (S,

So 36MP, 20MP or 9MP. Is this correct?

Twitter
Facebook

>Correct me if I'm wrong here but I thought that you get a
>choice of crop factor for NEF as follows;
>FX format (36×24):
>7,360 × 4,912 (L),
>5,520 × 3,680 (M),
>3,680 × 2,456 (S,
>
>So 36MP, 20MP or 9MP. Is this correct?
>

This seems to be a novel idea? I have a Canon G12 and was initially happy it that you could set an aspect ratio to images such 3.2 or 4.3 until I discovered it only applied to jpegs. I am not sure cropping in camera of raw files is such a good idea. Once done no retreat unlike Photoshop.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/

>Correct me if I'm wrong here...

...OK

The figures you quote are for Image Size. This alters the number of pixels recorded in a JPEG image; it doesn't apply to NEF images and is not the same as the different Image Area settings - FX, 5:4, 1.2x and DX.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

>>Correct me if I'm wrong here...
>
>...OK
>
>The figures you quote are for Image Size. This alters
>the number of pixels recorded in a JPEG image; it doesn't
>apply to NEF images and is not the same as the different
>Image Area settings - FX, 5:4, 1.2x and DX.

And, unless this has been changed from the D3, the problem with any of the crop modes (Image Area Settings) is that you don't get to use the entire viewfinder for your picture. It simply grays out the portion of the frame you are not using, which makes the image you are actually capturing appear much smaller than it would be if you were using full frame.

Does anyone know if this has been changed from the D3? Sure would be nice if the image you are capturing filled the frame in the crop modes.

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

That's an interesting point. I use the 5:4 crop mode nearly 100% of the time on my D3s. I wish I had it on my other cameras. But it would be nice to have the entire viewfinder. Not sure how possible that is as long as that remains an optical process rather than a purely electronic one.

------
Webpage: http://www.ptfphoto.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>That's an interesting point. I use the 5:4 crop mode nearly
>100% of the time on my D3s. I wish I had it on my other
>cameras. But it would be nice to have the entire viewfinder.
>Not sure how possible that is as long as that remains an
>optical process rather than a purely electronic one.

The reason I asked if this viewfinder cropping has changed is that in the Tech Specs on the NikonUSA site it says this:

Viewfinder Frame Coverage:
FX (36x24): 100% Horizontal and 100% Vertical Approx.
1.2x (30x20): 97% Horizontal and 97% Vertical Approx.
DX (24x16): 97% Horizontal and 97% Vertical Approx.
5:4 (30x24): 97% Horizontal and 97% Vertical Approx.

If this means what I hope it does, they may have addressed my question and just couldn't quite get full frame coverage. Maybe??? That would be a huge step in the right direction. Filling the viewfinder would make the DX mode on the D800 very usable at 16 MP, just like the D4.

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

Russ,

My guess is that this is some sort of masking done in the viewfinder, and not changes in magnification.

Gary in SE Michigan, USA. Co-organizer of the Southern Michigan Chapter
Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the camera.
D4, D800e, D300, D90, F6, FM3a (black), FM2n (chrome)
YashicaMat 124, Graflex Speed Graphic 4x5
My Nikonians Gallery & Our Chapter Gallery

>Russ,
>
>My guess is that this is some sort of masking done in the
>viewfinder, and not changes in magnification.

You are right for my D3. In the DX mode I get about 67% of the frame on my D3.

But, on the D800 the Specs say there is 97% viewfinder coverage in DX mode in both vertical and horizontal. That indicates optical processing in the viewfinder to enlarge the viewed image, doesn't it?

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

Magnification is fixed at .7x.

Jim

>Magnification is fixed at .7x.

So, what does it mean?

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

Maybe the 97% indicates how well the maska indicate the actual DX and other crop sizes

Gary in SE Michigan, USA. Co-organizer of the Southern Michigan Chapter
Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the camera.
D4, D800e, D300, D90, F6, FM3a (black), FM2n (chrome)
YashicaMat 124, Graflex Speed Graphic 4x5
My Nikonians Gallery & Our Chapter Gallery

>If you are using Photoshop, Lightroom. Capture or another
>program it is certainly a question that purchasers should
>ask.
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/

This is the ultimate red herring.

Do you watch HD video (Youtube and the like) on your computer? That video is nearly 2MB per frame when recorded and at 30fps is 60MB per SECOND. It's compressed down about 5:1 for the internet so we are 8MB per SECOND... over the internet.

Any modern $800 laptop should handle these files just fine. I've got a 4 year old, high end, Dual Core Dell laptop, playing RAW video at 1GB per minute. No problems at all.

------
Webpage: http://www.ptfphoto.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Not so long ago when 1-2GB of RAM was the standard we scanned 35mm film with 4000dpi and 5600dpi scanners at 16bits per channel and got files way larger than 75MB.
All depends on how you define "fast"
My iMac which is about 18 months old, handles 5600dpi scans that produce 225MB files at a reasonable pace.

Regards
Dinil



Struck by Light - Blog & Gallery
Visible Range - Photography & Beyond

Definitely. As a developer I look at the question a little differently. It's more about how fast the computer will be to accomplish the task. I doubt any modern computer (~3-4 years) would have an issue. It'll just be slower. I have a dual core first gen i7 processor with 8 gb memory. Doing a major filter operation with Nik on my D700 files generally take 15-30 seconds. I'd expect that to turn into a 60-90 second operation. Annoying but definitely workable. Storage space would then become more of an issue. I'd have to become more choosy in what I keep.

Rick Walker has had no problem with processing D3x files over the past three years - the files of the D800 are larger but it's not the end of the world.

Nikon Capture and View were just optimized to improve speed with 64 bit processing in Capture. Even with View and 32 bit the images of the D3x have been processed fine.

Rob Van Patten was with Cliff Maurer on the D800 shoot. They processed images that are posted with View NX2 only.
http://weblog.robvanpetten.com/

I saw one reference to opening the large files in Photoshop as a TIFF. The file was something like 208MB.


Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Workshops

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera

I could get by with an old single core 64 bit Athlon on a really good motherboard and 4GB memory plus one TB Hard Drive.

What we all are going to need is an USB 3.0 card for downloads from the Camera or USB 3.0 Card Reader.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I recently bought a Buffalo 3.0 USB external 2tb drive and installed a Buffalo PCI card. Then bought the Lexar 3.0 card reader. The transfer rates jumped from about 10MB's with USB 2 to over 40MB's. The external drive advertised about 88MB's and I have had in excess of that and less, but it averages around what was advertised

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/

>I using a Dell quad core desktop with 8gb of ram which works
>fine with 12mp files, just wondering if that would be enough
>to handle the D800's 36mp files?

My Camera: D3, shooting all raw images

Here are a couple of data points to consider.

My old computer that I just upgraded from was an Dell XPS 410 (about six years old):

Processor: Intel CORE Duo 6700, 2.66GHz
RAM: 4 GB
OS: 32 bit Vista
Software: LR 3.6 and CS5.
The upgrade from CS3 to CS5 brought it to its knees! Totally unacceptable!

I recently upgraded my computer to a Dell Studio XPS 9100 with:
PROCESSOR: Intel CORE I7, 2.8GHz
RAM: 12GB
OS: 64 bit Windows 7

This new computer is perfect for D3 raw images. CS5 and LR both open almost instantly, and there is no unusual hesitation when editing. I can also open as many windows as I want to. I have not found the limit. One time I opened 50 raw images in CS5 at one time by mistake (had a total gallery selected in LR). It never even hic-upped.

I expect my new computer to handle D800 raw images just fine.

I think your computer is somewhere between these two data points, but my guess is it will do fine with D800 raw images.

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

I have a 16GB system, but I'm working with 140+ mp files without problems. In fact, I didn't even have so much trouble scanning some of those files on my 4GB laptop. It was definitely not the same as working with 12 and 20mp files, though. (Obviously those 140mp files are scans of large format negatives, rather than pure captures of from a camera, but that doesn't matter from the perspective of sizing a processing computer.)

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

What happens when you layer them in Photoshop? What does the file size and scratch do?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/

I can get four to five layers on these big files before I blow out of memory. Fortunately I rarely need that many. But remember, these are 4x the size of even the D800's files - I should be able to get 18-20 layers with a D800. I know that's not enough for some folks, but for most of us that's plenty.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

This issue has been discussed elsewhere in "The D800/D800E are reality!" regarding the D800. I only have a Intel dual core processor and 4 Gb memory and as I've mentioned in my thread, see below, by scrupulous housekeeping of my 6 year old PC I have no problems loading D700 files with Photoshop CS5, Lightroom 3 and sometimes Nikon Capture NX2 all open. Your quad core processor and 8Gb memory should eat the task of D800 files. It's not all about hard disk clutter, but it certainly does have a significant impact on process efficiency. I also have a i7 with the same programs loaded and 4Gb Ram and likewise I work in the same fashion, but not with to marked difference.

http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=226&topic_id=35819&mesg_id=35819&page=#36199

Visit my Nikonians gallery

I found the most important thing is your MotherBoard.
If the pipelines are clogged, it does not matter what processor of how much memory you have.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>I found the most important thing is your MotherBoard.
>If the pipelines are clogged, it does not matter what
>processor of how much memory you have.

Your processor is located on the motherboard, and has a whole lot to do with processing speed. And the amount of RAM is critical... try running PS with only 2GB of memory

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>I also have a i7 with the same programs loaded
>and 4Gb Ram and likewise I work in the same fashion, but not
>with to marked difference.

I think the biggest impact to photo processing speed is the amount of RAM. CS5 and LR both use huge amounts of RAM and if it runs out, it switches to virtual memory on the hard drive, and then things slow to a crawl. 12GB of RAM is why my machine handles CS5 and LR so well. The speed of the processor is secondary.

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

As we say in development, a computer is only as fast as the slowest part under load. 99.99% of the time that's disk i/o. If someone switches to a SSD, for example, even 3 generation old processors will suddenly look much speedier.

<I think the biggest impact to photo processing speed is the amount of RAM. CS5 and LR both use huge amounts of RAM >

I agree, but for use in CS5, Lightroom etc I obtain acceptable speeds. I believe that very high RAM is more relevant to gaming, however 8Gb will help photo software I'm sure. i still go along the line of PC clutter being the real rogue. as explained in another thread earlier today, I partitoned off part of my hard disk and dedicated it to my photo software programs, this helped greatly.

Visit my Nikonians gallery

What GPU is on your machine?

The quad core and RAM would be OK but if you can add RAM for the MOBO do it.

If the CPU is doing a lot of the graphics work (not likely with a quad chip) then you should have a dedicated GPU like Nvidia with on board processing of at least say 1GB of RAM.

If, you are heading into Adobe Premium Professional suite (CS5.5+) for example in video, then Nvidia will be integral to getting maximum levels of cross suite (Dynamic link) uses.

That will use files from within Photo Shop, After Effects, Premiere Pro etc, and link them without reloading each program which bloat the system, and make the changes across the files without being rendered first.

The Mercury playback engine allows for native file edits, without having to transcode when loading video, but, again that will be GPU and MOBO RAM dependent.

If you are NOT using video, then your rig should do just fine with PS, CNX2 etc even at the larger file size.

Even with files converted to TIFF in CNX2 or LR3, my 2 stroke Toshiba, runs fairly fast at files from the D3S, which natively are around 25MB but often exceeding 45MB is size if converted..

HTH's

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Guys get a bigger computer. I build my own and the parts are so cheap its not even worth talking about. If you have a case and power supply laying around you can build a killer state of art computer for 600-700 bucks and that will kill any Dell or Mac at or above 2 grand.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I don't have the tie nor knowledge to build a computer. Hat do you recommend?

Carpe Diem!

Alicia

D300 user in western NC

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Windows 7 64 bit
500 GB hard drive
8 GB of RAM - more if possible

You can get this kind of a kit starting around $600.

Be sure you have backup drives - two at least 1 TB each and preferably 2TB.



Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Workshops

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera

Quote>Guys get a bigger computer. I build my own and the parts are
>so cheap its not even worth talking about. If you have a case
>and power supply laying around you can build a killer state of
>art computer for 600-700 bucks and that will kill any Dell or
>Mac at or above 2 grand.<Quote<<

I used to get my computers custom built, for my special use.
One day I was early.
The guy had all the components but had not put them together yet.
It took him less than an hour even though I slowed him down by watching and asking questions.

Next time I built my own and have since.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Agreed,

At No Film School's site, Koo has plans to build a hackintosh for way less then a store bought version.

http://nofilmschool.com/build-a-hackintosh/

I am a PC only user and have built my DAW and and Desktops in the past, so yes, much easier to build a standalone for way less.

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I'm one of the lucky ones that doesn't need to worry about computer specs because I'm an avid gamer. I have dual screens, intel i7 Quad core with multi threading (equivalent to having 8 cores)the CPU is liquid cooled and overclocked to 4Ghz, dual Nvidia GTX 570's in SLI, 6 gigs of tripple channel ram, 2 SSD drives in Raid0 and 2 terabyte storage drives.

When it comes to photo editing it's not all about the CPU like it is in video editing, for photos you want RAM and fast hard drives as scratch disks and a good graphics card can help with rendering your edits faster in Photoshop. The best computer upgrade I have ever done was adding SSD drives to my rig.

For those people worried about editing the D800 files, I would recommend 2 SSD drives, 1 for the Windows operating system and 1 for a scratch disk and then another 1 or 2 terabyte or bigger drives as storage and back-up. Then about 6-8GB of ram and any PCI-E graphics card that has been made in the last couple of years because you are only rendering 2-D images not 3-D gaming graphics but Photoshop can use the GPU to offload other tasks that the CPU would normally have to do. Depending on your current computer specs, all the above items should cost you around $500-$600 and you'd be set for processing and storing many D800 NEF files.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.
Visit my web site.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Point taken, and yes, drooling area is marked clearly around the post in yellow OSHA approved floor paint.

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I understand that the full size NEF file is about 36 MB. Although that is quite a bit larger than that produced by other digital 35mm equivalent digial cameras it is only about one third the size of 35mm film images scanned at 4000 ppi (the standard for scanning with dedicated film scanners). I have been working with such scanned images for some time on various "mainstream" computers, i.e. not a super expensive, super fast, machine. In my opinion, too much is being made of the "huge" size of the D800 files. Any modern computer should handle the files with no problem.


JDT

>I understand that the full size NEF file is about 36 MB.

No - a full size D800 NEF image does contain about 36MP (megapixels), but in terms of file size a 14-bit uncompressed NEF will be around 75MB (megabytes).

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

As Brian said above, the NEF size depends on the compression you use at the time of capture. Nearly all computers made in the last 5 years should not have any issues with handling a 80mb photo file but try importing 400+images into Lightroom or open multiple images in Photoshop and start adding layers and you'll soon find yourself in trouble with a lesser computer.
The difference in Lightroom when using the laptop versus my gaming desktop is night and day and the laptop is only 2 years old and that is with my D700 compressed NEF's.

So if you're editing 1 or 2 files at a time, then there is no need to worry about computer specs but I'm guessing that a lot of users on the forum are either pros that shoot weddings and events or advanced hobbyists like myself who shoot 100+ photos at a time, then need to import them, view them and edit most of them. I use Lightroom, and a good computer makes all the difference in how fast the full size photo can be rendered and how quick the changes take effect when moving the editing sliders. I my gaming computer the photos are rendered immediately but on the laptop I have to wait for a few seconds and then I have to wait again if I move a editing slider like white balance or exposure, it's only like a second or two but it's still annoying.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.
Visit my web site.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>So if you're editing 1 or 2 files at a time, then there is no
>need to worry about computer specs

Not quite true. Try the new CS5 'Content Aware Fill' on a big area of the image, and anything under about 6GB of RAM will end up going to the hard drive for virtual storage, and slow the process down to several minutes. This is where a SSD really helps.

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

So Russ,

Should (one,I) consider a decent (150GB SSD) as the buffer/temporary disk, and then transfer finished files to another eSATA ported destination for storage,?

Just curious, as Video, usually works best with C drive for OS, (SSD is suggested according to this thread?) and two external eSATA (7200 RPM's or better, or SSD's) for workload?

Thanks,

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Should (one,I) consider a decent (150GB SSD) as the
>buffer/temporary disk, and then transfer finished files to
>another eSATA ported destination for storage,?
>
>Just curious, as Video, usually works best with C drive for
>OS, (SSD is suggested according to this thread?) and two
>external eSATA (7200 RPM's or better, or SSD's) for workload?

Rob, I don't use any SSD's. I have two 2T internal eSATA drives. I was only saying that if you run out of RAM, SSD's would take up the slack much better than mechanical drives. I decided to go with 12GB of RAM so I wouldn't need SSD's.

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

> SSD's
>would take up the slack much better than mechanical drives. I
>decided to go with 12GB of RAM so I wouldn't need SSD's.

Keep in mind that the flash memory on an SSD actually wears out over time with each write that is performed (good for 1-2 million writes and improving). The controller re-maps them as they fail. As such, I would not recommend utilizing them for virtual RAM. Definetly spend the money on the RAM.

Brian

>
>>So if you're editing 1 or 2 files at a time, then there is
>no
>>need to worry about computer specs
>
>Not quite true. Try the new CS5 'Content Aware Fill' on a big
>area of the image, and anything under about 6GB of RAM will
>end up going to the hard drive for virtual storage, and slow
>the process down to several minutes. This is where a SSD
>really helps.
>
>Russ
>Nikonian Team Member
>http://russmacdonaldphotos.com">Russell
>MacDonald Photography
>>"http://NikonCLSPracticalGuide.blogspot.com"]Nikon
>CLS Practical Guide


Russ,
I just opened a 80mb TIFF file in CS5 and tried removing about 25% of the image using the content aware filter. I have real time CPU and RAM usage that shows up on my keyboard's LCD (logitech G15). The content aware doesn't use much RAM, just a 10% increase from 35% to 45% ( I have 6 gigs install). It actually uses more CPU power because of the calculations the software has to do to try and emulate the surrounding area. The CPU went from 5% to 70% during this process and it took my system about 5 seconds to complete the task. Now you have to remember that I have a Intel i7 chip overclocked to 4Ghz and photo editing just ain't going to push it to the limit but a normal Intel core2duo or quad core is gonna struggle.
No real point to my post but I thought I'd point this out. Plus who is going to want to remove 25% of a photo using content aware?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.
Visit my web site.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>>
>>>So if you're editing 1 or 2 files at a time, then
>there is
>>no
>>>need to worry about computer specs
>>
>>Not quite true. Try the new CS5 'Content Aware Fill' on a
>big
>>area of the image, and anything under about 6GB of RAM
>will
>>end up going to the hard drive for virtual storage, and
>slow
>>the process down to several minutes. This is where a SSD
>>really helps.

> Russ,
> I just opened a 80mb TIFF file in CS5 and tried removing
>about 25% of the image using the content aware filter. I have
>real time CPU and RAM usage that shows up on my keyboard's LCD
>(logitech G15). The content aware doesn't use much RAM, just a
>10% increase from 35% to 45% ( I have 6 gigs install). It
>actually uses more CPU power because of the calculations the
>software has to do to try and emulate the surrounding area.
>The CPU went from 5% to 70% during this process and it took my
>system about 5 seconds to complete the task. Now you have to
>remember that I have a Intel i7 chip overclocked to 4Ghz and
>photo editing just ain't going to push it to the limit but a
>normal Intel core2duo or quad core is gonna struggle.
> No real point to my post but I thought I'd point this out.
>Plus who is going to want to remove 25% of a photo using
>content aware?

There are lots of times when you would do a large content aware fill. One example is when you stitch five images together to form a panorama. It leaves a ragged edge all the way around and you have to do a huge crop to get it to a rectangle - OR - you can fill the ragged edges using content-aware fill. Another is when you have pushed important things too close to the edge of the frame to be able to crop to 8x10. You can use content aware fill to artificially create the missing image on one end.

I also have an i7 but only clocked at 2.8GHz. With 4GB RAM it basically locked up when I tried to do a huge Fill. When I increased it to 12GB RAM it reduced it to just a second or so. It must be using RAM for something.

I don't have any SSD's. I have two 2T eSATA internal drives.

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

>>>
>There are lots of times when you would do a large content
>aware fill. One example is when you stitch five images
>together to form a panorama. It leaves a ragged edge all the
>way around and you have to do a huge crop to get it to a
>rectangle - OR - you can fill the ragged edges using
>content-aware fill.
>Russ<<Quote

I think a lot of us are going to face this problem with the D800.

It will be very hard to resist stitching huge files together in a Panorama.
I will be printing mine on 17" wide roll paper.

When that happens, I will max out my computer memory banks and use my 4 disk array raid before going to SSD.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>As Brian said above, the NEF size depends on the compression
>you use at the time of capture. Nearly all computers made in
>the last 5 years should not have any issues with handling a
>80mb photo file but try importing 400+images into Lightroom or
>open multiple images in Photoshop and start adding layers and
>you'll soon find yourself in trouble with a lesser computer.
> The difference in Lightroom when using the laptop versus my
>gaming desktop is night and day and the laptop is only 2 years
>old and that is with my D700 compressed NEF's.


This comment is aimed at pros more than hobbyists, but upgrading camera gear is an ecosystem upgrade. It's a back to front rethink of how you do things. Lenses may change, storage cards, computer, archiving, delivery, etc.

If you're a pro, you HAVE to think this way. Your business depends on it. Buying a new, high megapixel camera without the ecosystem to support it is like buying a new racing car without upgraded brakes.

How many people do we have shooting D700s on 1-2GB cards? Exactly.

------
Webpage: http://www.ptfphoto.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the correction. So the full size NEF is about 2/3 the size of the scanned 35mm image. As I mentioned pretty much all current mainstream computers will run Photoshop on the scanned images (most are about 120 MB after cropping off the black edges) without difficulty. Bottom Line: except for buying more storage drives, which are now inexpensive, I do not think that the size of the files created by the D800 presents any computer issue.

Added by edit: I would add that if, due to processing multiple files for constructing panoramas or any other reason one thinks that file size would be problematic, perhaps that person should not buy this camera. For my purposes I will gladly accept the added file size that necessarily comes with more pixels and make any adjustments, including computer adjustments, that are necessary. What kind of computer power does it take to process scanned medium format images and the 80 megapixel images of the big daddy version of the Mamiya digital camera? It is all relative. No reason for alarm.

JDT

A choice of computer components depend on what and how much you do at a time. Intel and Adobe recommend an Intel i7 processor for use with CS5 suites.

A 32bit operating system can only take advantage of 4GB of RAM. An Intel i5 and Windows 7 32bit will handle most graphics for a typical user. Add in a non integrated graphics processor and things will move faster. High end user should move up to Intel i7, a 64bit OS, at least 6GB of Ram, and a non integrated graphics processor.

Here is how much each version of Windows 7 64bit can access, Home Basic - 8GB, Home Premium - 8GB, Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate - 192GB.

I'm currently using a Quad Q6700/2.66 processer, 6GB of RM with Windows Professional 7 64bit and a NVIDA GeFroce 9500 GS GPU. I will typically have Outlook, Lightroom, PS CS5.5, and two other programs open at a time. When ingesting more than a hundred photos (from a D7000) I can start to tax my system. By accident, PS was opening a hundred RAW files and locked my computer up for the first time. If I was to move up to the D800 I would be looking for a new system.

I can't speak as specifically about MAC's, but last year we replaced our dual core Mac Pros with new ones.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.