What I am curious about with D800 owners is what kind of computer specs they have and how well their computers are dealing with processing huge D800 RAW files?
I have a two year old computer with an older i7 processor (not Intel Sandy Bridge) and 6GB of RAM. I notice that when processing my D7000 RAW files, if I do a good amount of cloning or healing with the adjustment brush in Lightroom 3, my computer slows down. But my computer doesn't have any problems with normal editing.
Sat 14-Apr-12 03:50 PM | edited Sat 14-Apr-12 03:51 PM by yellowz
I'm working on a mid 2010 27"iMac with a 1TB internal HD and a 1TB external, and 12gigs of ram. I moved from a D200 to the D800 and I honestly haven't noticed too much of a difference in the (relatively) small files from the D200 to the new ~45mb files from the D800. The USB 3.0 cable that came with the camera even seems to download files to the computer faster even though the computer doesn't support 3.0. I've done a couple HDR's and one panorama thus far and honestly haven't seen too much of a difference in processing times, but the quality of the images are incredible!
I’m using a 2-year old PC with a AMD Athlon X4 3.0GHz processor and 12 GB of DDR3 RAM and have no problems working with D800 files. My RAW files are saved as 14 bit Lossless compressed and about 45MB in size. They are a little slower to open and process than my D7000 files, but nothing that is a problem. I copy them to the PC using a Hoodman Rawsteel USB 3.0 card reader and notice it is a slower than my D7000 files but again they are almost 3 times larger and I’m using older/slower cards. Dave Jolley
David Jolley Pickerington, Ohio Please visit my Website
I'm running an Intel quad core (Q6600) and 8 gigs of RAM on my main editing machine. The D800 files take a bit longer to process with LR4 than I'm used to with LR3 and my older cameras, but then again LR4 is supposed to have a performance bug that will be addressed in 4.1. In photoshop CS5 I see no difference in speed between D800 files and other (10-ish MP)cameras I own.
My secondary machine is an Intel i7 Sandy Bridge with USB 3. Imports are way faster than with my primary machine with USB 2. Processing speed is about the same.
Enjoy the D800 when it gets there. If you do experience a slowdown just look at the image details the camera renders and you'll know it's worth your patience
My dual core Intel computer bogs on D7000 files. My Athlon X-2 does not and even works well on FullSize D800 files. However, my FX 8 core with 16GB memory is slightly faster + I can surf the internet, process a video, and view images all at the same time on two screens.
So, if your computer is old and only fast enough for one process at a time, I think it is time to upgrade.
I think it's time for me to upgrade my RAM since it's so cheap right now. Unfortunately, internal hard drives are insanely pricey right now, so I may wait a while. I'm sure I have time since my D800 isn't going to get to me for maybe about two to three months from now (just a guess).
I am running a 2 year old computer with an Intel i7-870 and 16GB RAM with a 30GB SSD for a scratch drive. I have no problem handling the larger file size.
What is a problem is I tried to make a pano. I use Arcsoft Panorama Maker and 3 different versions (4,5, & 6 trial) kept either crashing or giving me an out of memory error. I finally got it to work (ver 4) with only 7 pictures at a reduced resolution (I brought it from 7360 to 5000 and compressed the jpg to 10/12). The newer versions crashed or gave me memory errors. They are 32 bit programs and even though I closed down programs to make sure there was plenty of lower RAM it didn't make a difference. It was only using up to maybe 368,000 bytes at the time. I like that program because it can handle most of my panos automatically and generally does a nice job blending the sky where the merges are.
With your stated computer specifications, stitching a 7360 pixel jpg panorama should be effortless. I do not understand why you are having such difficulty.
I used to stitch 8 No. D300 images into a 16 bit TIFF, single row, 360° panorama which if I remember correctly was approximately 17000 pixels along the long edge at full size. At that time I was using a Pentium 4, 32 bit computer with, wait for it, 1GB of RAM.
The point is that my computer managed it fine, albeit it took a while. I used (and continue to use) PTGui. You may want to investigate replacing your stitching software.
The problem is their software, not my computer. I had talked with Tech Support when I bought 5 and it didn't work as well as 4 and they just said 'we'll give you a refund' Just tried 6 and the identical problem. It SHOULD handle it but couldn't. I just think they made the software for small jpg's that the average point n shoot client will use. Too bad as I like their software.
Intel I7-2600k @ 3.7 GHz 8 GB DRAM Solid State internal drives USB 3.0 external drives for image storage Windows 7 Pro Paintshop Pro and Adobe CS5
No performance issues at all either loading/saving images or in processing them. Ditto on a smaller Win 7 machine at 2.7 GHz.
Obviously you cannot expect the same responsiveness as with dinky D7000 files but you will find because these images are so large to begin with you will need to do significantly less processing to get them looking just right. Unless you are still using an old P4 and Win XP I do not think anyone will have a whole lot of trouble managing D800 files.
48 bit TIFFS from this camera are 200 MB apiece but no problems with these either. The systems take them in stride.
Wed 18-Apr-12 09:16 AM | edited Wed 18-Apr-12 09:22 AM by mikesrc
>So I am now thinking my planned 32 GB ram, i7 3930k computer >is overkill for D800 files after reading this thread. Maybe I >should reconsider.
No your computer can never be to fast. That's the same rig I'm going to upgrade too.
I'm using an I7 860 with 8 Gig of ram. The software I use is DXO and since it has been upgraded to work with the D800 it seems to be a lot faster. I also have CS5 but never seem to use it.And your right about hard drives I bought a new one the week before the floods and now same drive is almost 3 times higher.