Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-20-2016, 04:49 PM   #421
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,548
For the computer it all depend what you use. I have the feeling that with jpeg, there almost not computer that would struggle and that even with lightroom this should be no issue in term of processing time. DxO is more demanding and that's a bit annoying. Actually, it is only the export that long so I don't think 36 vs 24 would make much of a difference. And as long as you don't care to see the result of the export instantly this is of no importance at all.

But if you want to have a powerfull computer for processing your picture that quite easy, buy a destop, a 4core i5, 8GB of memory a main ssd hdr of 128GB, an operating system and lightroom you are likely no more than 600$ if you take the time to do it yourself and that would be more than enough and also serve as a quite powerful computer too.

What matter a bit more is that if you are serious about your photo and not losing them you need to have some storage place for them as well as a backup solution too. All storage device will finish by fail one day (including the backup storage) so you need to always have several copy of your data kept fresh and that has to be automatically and only checked manually from time to time if you don't want it to become a pain.

36MP bump instantly your storage requirement by 50% overall. But I think the number of picture you take and much more importantly, the number of picture you keep is the most important factor here.

Even with 36MP if you have say 2TB hard drive dedicated to store the picture inside you computer and another 2TB to store the backup on a network drive, the cost is no more than say 200-250$ (2 disk and including the wireless router to make the backup on the home network) and that's 45K pictures. including backup.

I take 10K pictures a year, keeping 1500 rougly so I would like have to replace the drive long before they are full. But somebody taking 20K shoot and keeping half would be good only for 4 years. Storing say 10TB + backup permanently would be more expensive, like 500$-1000$.

But there are easy ways if money is a problem: delete much more of the crap photos you'll never want to look again. You make yourself a service because if you keep only great picture looking them again would be a pleasure and not a terrible sin to endure. This would also motivate yourself to take less picture and take more time to get the right when you shoot. You could delete the raw once you finished with a picture. I save my jpeg at 90% quality, I can't see any artifact even at 100% crop this take 4-5MB on average. Even 50% more would mean the 2TB solution would fit 250K+ pictures.

02-20-2016, 04:52 PM   #422
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,548
QuoteOriginally posted by noelpolar Quote
i run a 2008 iMac.... which is slow...... I'd replace it if time was money, but for me these days it's not. i've done all the possible internal up grades and can get by. Storage wise, a 2 second burst on a K3 is going to take up more space then the same on a K-1.

I believe I will need to upgrade my brains "delete bad photo" algorithm though. I'm a hoarder of bad photos.
Mac are expensive. They are nice but a luxury. Somebody on a budget can get even a 500$ destop under linux and raw therapee + 200$ of storage and backup and have something very fast and woth in performance of a 1500-2000$ iMac.

Laptop overall, you need to pay twice the price to get the same performance and it last half the time but consume less power and low end laptop overheat. Mac laptop are nice but even more expensive than iMac and still a luxury.

Having Mac for computer is like choosing Leica as a camera brand. Nice but expensive. I had mac before. Since I got a mortage, I seen the compute I wanted as a MacBook pro was worth 2300€ and similar window desktop was worth 700€... Plus the laptop failed after 3-4years while the desktop is always on but is perfectly stable.
02-20-2016, 06:59 PM   #423
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Having Mac for computer is like choosing Leica as a camera brand.
What an odd remark ...

Since four years, I edit my 36mp raws with a now six y.o. MacBook Pro and even at the time I purchased it, it was a hair cheaper than an equivalently built Dell or HP.

Taking resale value into account, a Mac is more value for the bang. Only problem, you won't get the stuff built to lowest standards. Just my two cents to oppose you. OT anyway
02-20-2016, 07:22 PM   #424
Veteran Member
kp0c's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 721
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
What an odd remark ...

Since four years, I edit my 36mp raws with a now six y.o. MacBook Pro and even at the time I purchased it, it was a hair cheaper than an equivalently built Dell or HP.

Taking resale value into account, a Mac is more value for the bang. Only problem, you won't get the stuff built to lowest standards. Just my two cents to oppose you. OT anyway
Resale value is such a good point and seldomely mentioned in the pc vs Mac debate. I sold my first MacBook for 3/5 the price I paid new, a little less than 3 years after purchase. A PC looses half its value, sometimes more, after 6 months and isn't worth much after a year, except for the very high end ones, which costs the same as a Mac anyway (and still don't have nearly the same resale value.) In the end, I'm not saying one is better than the other, but being overly pricy is not a valid argument against Mac imo.

02-20-2016, 07:34 PM   #425
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,123
QuoteOriginally posted by traderdrew Quote
36 megapixels might be a little to much for some older computers to handle. A friend of mine had to buy a new Apple after he purchased a higher megapixel DSLR camera. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
The old one must have been very old. My eight year-old MacBook Pro runs CS5 perfectly well with RAW files from my K-3, particularly after maxing out the RAM. I've also got two external monitors hanging off it (one via a USB-DVI converter). I'm not expecting any issues with files from the K-1. Hard drive storage is another matter, but even 2TB USB drives are starting to look cheap, now.
02-20-2016, 07:53 PM   #426
Pentaxian
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Posts: 3,003
The issue with old Macs (Intel ones) mostly is your limited to USB2 and firewire..... and you got to know when to stop upgrading the OS........and SSDs wont run at faster SATA speeds (my SSD will only connect at 1... even though the hard drives connect at 2.... many hours lost on that one). Anyway Macs for me these days.... can swap a drive in about 15 minutes on a iMac these days.
02-20-2016, 08:06 PM - 1 Like   #427
mee
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,253
Let's not make this a Mac vs PC debate.. eventually someone is accused of being a nazi, a dust up ensues, and it really just goes no where anyone wants to go.


Back to the main topic, The biggest issue you'll want to consider is system memory (RAM). Today, it is pretty cheap and should be maxed out to whatever your motherboard can accept (usually anywhere between 8 and 32 Gigabytes). You don't NEED 32 Gigs of RAM but why not if you can swing it? I'd recommend a bare minimum of 8GB though. I'm using 16 GB currently and am eyeing another 16 GB.

That said, I've loaded 80+ MP (very large) panoramas in TIFF format made with my 16MP K-5 II on an i5 2500 with 8GB. A bit slow to switch together but it worked. Actually loading the final image was no probs though.

I doubt a 36MP image (even a RAW or TIFF image) is going to seriously be a bottleneck to productivity for most people. My i5 2500 is a 5 year old processor now. If you have an upper end PC from then or a mid range from now, you're likely fine. Just ensure you have enough RAM.

imo.
02-20-2016, 08:47 PM   #428
Loyal Site Supporter
bwDraco's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,007
My laptop already struggles a bit with my standard RawTherapee workflow when dealing with several dozen 24MP Pentax K-3 II images.

What I do after each shoot is ingest the images, reject any obviously unusable images, apply a set of standard corrections from a profile to the DNGs, and make individual adjustments as needed. Once all the images are adjusted as appropriate, I process them in batch to generate the final JPEG images. After a sports event, I'll have anywhere from 20 to 100+ shots to deal with (30-60 per event is typical), and to process them all in batch can require a substantial amount of time. The noise reduction, in particular, is very, very hard on the CPU, which means that each image needs somewhere between 30 and 60 seconds to actually process. A substantial amount of memory is also needed to process each image—I'd recommend that you have at least 16 GB of memory. (My laptop has a Core i7-4800MQ [Haswell 4C/8T @ 2.7–3.5 GHz] and 24 GB of RAM.)

This is why pros use workstations with 8+ core Xeon processors and 64+ GB of memory...

02-20-2016, 08:55 PM   #429
Pentaxian
traderdrew's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 570
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
Why do you think its some kind of limit to how many Mp they can handle? Its all a matter of patience. 36 Mp would just take 50% longer to load, process and store. I presume most people use at least 10x more time to evaluate, select the right tools and buttons, take a step back, think out the next step and so on. That makes the whole process at most 5% longer compared to a 24 Mp image.
All I remember hearing is his computer couldn't process the larger images but I did fail to mention that he shoots in and stores RAW files. A lot of wildlife people shoot in RAW. I shoot in RAW so much that I forget many people stick with jpeg.
02-20-2016, 08:57 PM   #430
Loyal Site Supporter
bwDraco's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,007
QuoteOriginally posted by traderdrew Quote
A lot of wildlife people shoot in RAW.
I'm a sports photographer and I shoot RAW because it gives me far more latitude when performing noise reduction and exposure correction. Trust me, you need all the help you can get when you're shooting in a dimly-lit indoor arena. The buffer may be a lot shallower, but it's not exactly often that I fire more than even ten shots in one burst, let alone 23, before the buffer has a chance to clear.

(I actually do RAW+JPEG. The out-of-camera JPEG files are delivered to my employer immediately after the game for use on the website, which doesn't need the best possible image quality. I then post-process the RAWs and hand in the resulting JPEGs on a flash drive several days later so that they have better images to work with in more critical applications such as posters.)

Last edited by bwDraco; 02-20-2016 at 09:07 PM.
02-20-2016, 10:25 PM   #431
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,585
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
I'm using 16 GB currently and am eyeing another 16 GB.
Do you know how much of that RAM is used? I always keep an eye on RAM usage using Task Manager or Resource Monitor. It's surprising what a small proportion of my RAM ever gets used, even at peak. Most of the 8GB in my 2nd Windows 10 PC sits there being empty, even if I load up a 3GB Lightroom catalogue with a many thousands of images and start doing work (exports etc). I could add more RAM, but it doesn't look like it would do anything in my PC. For me, CPU seems the bottleneck for most imaging tasks (like pano stitching in Lightroom or ICE), not RAM.

---------- Post added 2016-02-21 at 04:32 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by bwDraco Quote
This is why pros use workstations with 8+ core Xeon processors and 64+ GB of memory...
Not always.

02-20-2016, 10:49 PM   #432
mee
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,253
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Do you know how much of that RAM is used? I always keep an eye on RAM usage using Task Manager or Resource Monitor. It's surprising what a small proportion of my RAM ever gets used, even at peak. Most of the 8GB in my 2nd Windows 10 PC sits there being empty, even if I load up a 3GB Lightroom catalogue with a many thousands of images and start doing work (exports etc). I could add more RAM, but it doesn't look like it would do anything in my PC. For me, CPU seems the bottleneck for most imaging tasks (like pano stitching in Lightroom or ICE), not RAM.

When I had just 8 GB? All of it. Well, if using AutoStich64 to generate a pano or working a lot in PSE. Otherwise a bit more than half I'd say but of course the usage is quite dynamic. For instance, I have a large history/buffer in Photoshop that eats memory like crazy. That is because I have so many steps in the undo buffer I can cycle through. Take even a 16MP TIFF, load it into photoshop, do a few corrections and alterations to the image, load a few plugins on it, before you know your PC is eating HD space for more virtual mem (or in the worst case crashing to desktop or giving you the blank, black screen if nothing is left to grab). But memory is rather cheap these days.. 40 bucks for 8GB of DDR3.


Just FYI but Process Explorer (https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/processexplorer) gives a more thorough look at the memory in use. That is how I see what processes are really eating the mem vs what is reported to task manager.


As an aside, it is amazing how much memory a browser can use with multiple tabs open. Specifically, I'm currently running Palemoon (x64 build, based on Firefox) with around 7 tabs open. Running an about:memory and hitting the measure button nets this:

QuoteQuote:
4,413.50 MB (100.0%) -- explicit
├──3,608.13 MB (81.75%) ── heap-unclassified
├────420.37 MB (09.52%) -- window-objects
That's over 4GB for a web browser session.

But Task Manager says its only using a bit over 2GB. Process Explorer shows a bit over 5 GB allocated! Crazy leaks. Thus why I close it (and Photoshop after saving state) from time to time to just free up the memory. Also good practice to close any other apps one doesn't have to be in while processing any large image files (or batches).
02-20-2016, 10:56 PM   #433
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,288
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Do you know how much of that RAM is used? I always keep an eye on RAM usage using Task Manager or Resource Monitor. It's surprising what a small proportion of my RAM ever gets used, even at peak. Most of the 8GB in my 2nd Windows 10 PC sits there being empty, even if I load up a 3GB Lightroom catalogue with a many thousands of images and start doing work (exports etc). I could add more RAM, but it doesn't look like it would do anything in my PC.
I ran 16gb in my machine since building it, but with LR 6 I have noticed it has been fully using all of that. I added an extra 16gb last month and it is using about half of that and sometimes all of it for short periods. I also run PS, and Firefox at the same though. It has made a noticeable difference in speed, my machine was slowing to a crawl on a regular basis.
02-20-2016, 11:09 PM   #434
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,585
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
Process Explorer
Yep, I use that too. All of Mark's utilities are good.

Sounds like your usage profile is different to mine. I don't use Photoshop, and the pano tools I use (Hugin, ICE, Lightroom) are pretty RAM friendly. I do use a SSD though, which helps handle some stuff that might normally go to HDD disk swap or RAM.

Web browsers are notorious RAM hogs. And getting worse all the time.
02-20-2016, 11:39 PM   #435
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,123
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
Let's not make this a Mac vs PC debate..
Well, I agree, but it wasn't even hinting at that (OK, one early comment), and I note that, Mac users having discussed the pros and cons of models and software, Windows users followed up with a similar discussion! All very civilised, as it should be. Not even a comment about cross-platform rivalry.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
auto, base, camera, company, compression, d810, design, dr, electrons, fa, hardware, iso, k-1, k-3, lenses, pentax, pentax body, pentax k-1, pentax news, pentax rumors, photos, pre-order, risk, sensor, specifications, timelapse, trip, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax K-3 II Officially Announced Adam Pentax News and Rumors 1015 07-03-2015 10:55 PM
Pentax K-S2 Officially Announced Adam Pentax K-S1 & K-S2 12 05-23-2015 06:49 AM
Pentax K-30 Officially Announced! Adam Pentax News and Rumors 245 09-12-2012 08:32 PM
Pentax K-5 Officially Announced Adam Pentax News and Rumors 533 03-06-2012 05:45 AM
K-5 Firmware 1.02 Officially Announced Ole Pentax K-5 50 01-20-2011 10:05 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:15 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top