I have a Mac Pro Quad Core with 12mb RAM and it handles the larger files fine, no big drama compared to my previous 12mp cameras with my normal workflow (which is 95% Lightroom)
You should be fine but more RAM never hurts as a generalization.
Whenever this kind of question crops up I always mention it's a REALLY good idea to go USB 3.0 on your card reader as this is a big bottleneck reduction in file import times. 14 bit lossless compressed RAW files are about 30mb
The quick answer is it should be fine. I think it largely depends on the software you are using. Also, I am assuming you are using some flavor of Windows and (another assumption) that it's a 64Bit OS. The reason is that Windows XP 32bit and I "think" Win7 32bit for example will only "see" at the most 3mb of RAM. And more RAM is better.
---------------------------- A picture is worth a thousand words! I took a photograph and couldn't think of that many. I guess I'll keep trying!
You should not have much of a problem. The larger files will slow down a bit the machine, however, by adding an external drive for cache you will likely make up for the slowdown and afford to keep at hand all changes made to an image while post-processing. If you have USB 3.0 ports you could go for a USB 3.0 drive. Maybe you would like to check on the Iomega eGo drives. They are really fast. Other current options include the WD My Passport, the WD My Passport Edge, and still others are now WiFi
Thanks guys, no need to upgrade the puter. My pp software is Nikon Nx2 and ViewNX2 and PhotoShop Elements 8 which will need to be upgraded. I have plenty of memory with 1gb onboard and a 1gb external drive. Trying to decide between the D7000 or a D600.
The latest two versions of Capture NX2 fully support 64 bit processors/operating systems and work faster. When upgraded Elements will be fine since it uses memory more efficiently than NX2. I use a variety of programs on a 4 core i7 laptop with with the same memory for D800 raw files so you should not have any problems with D600 files.
The file size is not really an important point in deciding which camera to get. The first question is what subjects and in what conditions are shooting. The price and reach of the D7000 make it an attractive attractive addition. Do those point trump the better IQ and DR of the more expensive D600? I still use my D7000 and have gotten to like it even more after having the D800 join the bag. They both are used during events and theater performances. Your profile shows your primary camera is a D700 and a slew of prime lenses so you know the differences in lens demands between D600 FX and the D7000 DX. You have the lenses for a painless move to high res FX but for most first time FX users is the biggest roadblock to making the move.
>My home computer is a quad core Dell with 8mb of ram. I have >no problems with the 12mp files from my D700, D300s or D2x. >Just wondering how it will handle files twice as large with my >current setup?
As someone who does this side of IT for a living, you're fine, even with a first generation quad core. Operations will go more slowly as the files are around twice the size, but that will be about it.
If you want to improve performance, your best bet is by installing a cheap, small SSD and when you first bring the files in, put them on that, then move them off to a spinning disk when you're done. Generally speaking Adobe programs (and most other photo programs) have cruddy memory allocation (a legacy of having to work with Apple Carbon for so long) compared to what would be optimal, so more than 8 GB generally goes to waste anyway - plus, Windows NT 6 family (that's Vista, 7 and 8) are extremely effective at paging to disk, so the SSD will give a larger boost in performance for photo editing. Nifty, eh?
For what it's worth, I have a Core i5 dual core laptop (read: slower than a desktop) with 8 GB of RAM and it'll load up anything I ask of it just fine, even the D800E's files from review sites.