D7100 computer requirements

M

madmardle

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,056
Name
Ken
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been thinking about upgrading my D90 to a D7100, the main reason being the low-pass filter issue, however I have just read an old AP article about Raw versus Jpeg which warns about upgrading from an older model, like the D5000 to the D7100, which might result in needing to upgrade the computer too. As my D90 is even older, I'm left wondering if I might face this problem as my PC is quite ancient, although I do realise this would only be the case if I was shooting raw, which I don't do very often, ( I know I should) but when I have, my PC is not able to read the raw files so I have to use my laptop to process the files, but as my printer is linked to the PC that isn't much use.
I have just read on this forum about the difference between the D800 and the D800E and I'm starting to wonder if I should just stick with the D90.
 
The nikon D7100 manual says RAW 12 bit lossless compressed files are 22.7MB (24MP), whereas the files are 15.5MB on a D7000 (16MP). I'm guessing your D90 would give files of roughly 12MB for a 12MB camera. From real world experience I find the average file size Nikon quote is about right, my files range from 22MB to 27MB depending on detail. I use Lightroom 4 to process RAW files and I find it fine as long as you meet its minimum computer requirements. I couldn't recommend Lightroom more, I don't know why I waited until January 2012 to start using it, I don't think I will change from it now. I did change to a mac last year, not for processing power but because my computer was so slow to copy/transfer files from the memory card the hard drive. Waiting up to an hour for 2-4GB of data to transfer was way too long for me. If the D7100 files are too large then what about the D7000, its a great camera and will save a little for a nice lens.

What is your D90 not doing that you think a D7100 will do? Regarding the low pass filter removal good lenses do help to get the detail you want to achieve.
 
Thanks Guys,
My pc spec is very basic, I recently upgraded the RAM to it's maximum of 2GB, the operating system is XP which I know is now no longer supported, but as I use the PC mainly for my photography I was hoping I wouldn't have to buy a new one anytime soon.
I use a Nikkor 16-85 lens on the D90, which I assume is as good as it gets for a zoom, and regarding what did I think the D7100 would do that the D90 doesn't, probably not a lot for the type of images I take, it's just that I fancied one. I don't do the D90 justice, so I know a D7100 would be overkill for me, but as this would probably be the last time I would be able to upgrade due to advancing years, I thought why not, then when I read that in the AP I started to think again as being able to afford a new computer as well is out of the question. It's not like the "old" days when you bought the best you could afford and didn't have anything else to worry about. I just don't want to be in a position where I have spent all I have and am not able to produce prints.
Would I be safe in assuming that if I only shot jpeg none of this would be a problem?
Thanks for your replies.
Ken
 
The D7100 14bit lossless files come out between 28-33mb, they take a bit of handling! The JPG fine files are much more manageable file size wise... About 7-8mb but you're loosing all the information. It seems that camera manufacturers have progressed with sensors faster than everyman computer manufacturers have been able to spec their machines.

Personally if it were me and I was limited by my computer I would stick with the D90, its a fantastic camera! If your just busting to spend money on camera gear I'd invest in glass... Or possibly a MacBook Pro :)

Thanks
Andy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top