The Villages Loc: The Villages, Florida

As one who has a 12 MP DSLR, but is looking at newer models at higher MP levels (20-30+/-), my concern is the affect that such a move would have on my computer. Its not the latest model, but includes post processing software. None of this is the latest and greatest, but serves my purposes just fine.

I know that a higher MP count has its artistic advantages (and that it might require better glass for sharper pictures), but how would these added MP affect the computer's operation? At what MP level would there be a significant affect on the computer....at what point does it really matter? Not concerned about the time to download (have all the time in the world). Currently have plenty of storage space.

Thanking you in advance for your insight into the question.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I am not a computer expert but I do know that the larger the files the more work the computer has to do.
If you want to keep what you have and you change cameras it is very possible that more RAM will be necessary.
A computer technician can give you a solid answer.

sr71 Loc: In Col. Juan Seguin Land

A faster processor is always nice, however more internal ram is is needed, I had met with a sony rep that was at the Randolph afb exchange, he was budding professional photog, and he stated that he had one of the larger MP sony a9's and he moved back to the a6000. I asked why and he was tired of the larger file sizes taking a long time to deal with.

you can use 16mp very well and that is about all one needs, the higher mp's the overall advantage they give is more head room to crop if needed wihout throwing data away.

sr71 Loc: In Col. Juan Seguin Land

.. double post

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

Thank you for this question. My Sony a7s II mainly made for video but takes good stills with good lens
is 12MP. Their are experts online that don't shoot huge files. Recently I became interested in bigger prints.
Opinion from experience what size files have you used for larger prints and what file size.
Thanks Tom

The Villages Loc: The Villages, Florida

I guess your question was to me. Prior to my retirement I printed a lot, but never really big. Since then, the computer keeps those pics I want to remember.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

The only change I've seen is a bit longer to download or transfer files. My D800e produces, approx., 75mb files. I'm using PSCS6 for processing. I've not see a tremendous difference in actual processing time, only transfer between computers. I'm comparing transfer times with my D700.
--Bob

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

First off, if one needs to do some significant cropping, you have tons of pixels to crop and still get an exceptional photograph. As much as we want to get close to that eagle or grizzly bear, we can't or shouldn't. That's not artistic but reality.

Also note, on most of those cameras with hefty megapixels you can just like with jpg, select the size of your raw file. You donp't have to shoot raw and always go biggest. That's darn handy. How often have yo taken a shot and not had time or long enough MM lens and you get 1/4th of the screen with your capture. Flip to big raw and crop like hell.

Of course and no surprise if you opt for large raw files, you computer resources, RAM and Disk space will be pushed. Disk space is cheap but RAM can be expensive. Even with more memory CPU speed becomes factor.

BlackRipleyDog

When I bought my D800 I expected that I would need to enhance my post-processing capabilities with a beefier computer. So I purchased an off-lease Dell Precision work station on ebay. Dual Xeon processors, 36 gig of ram, Win7 Pro and speedier solid state drives. Got it for under $900. Going on three years with it now and regularly produce stitched tiff panos and hdrs from the camera with little lag time. The camera was also a refurb for $1700. I use a stable of af-d lenses I started accumulating from my earlier D-70s days;also a refurb.
I recently sold 4 large pieces to a collector; 2 of them from the D-70s and 2 from the D-800.
You can easily find what works and at good prices as well.
In full disclosure, I had to replace my 5 yr old NEC monitor recently. I bought a 26 inch Dell full-color space LED . paid full-boat for that one though. The sale to the collector more than covered the cost.

(Download)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I just processed a 150mp image (a stitched pano comprised of 15 images from a 36mp camera), and I did not need to use my First Alert fire extinguisher to knock down the anticipated flames coming out of my 5 yr old computer.

(Asus P8Z68-V Pro/Gen3 motherboard, i7-2600K clocked to 5 gHz), 32 gb ram, 1 TB SSD, 6 TB WD RE hard drives, NVidia Quadro K2000 graphics). Fast enough to deal with this size image without too much waiting time.

To answer your question - I don't really have an answer. When I hit the brick wall and the system freezes because of insufficient memory/processing power/storage, or the cpu gets fried, then I will have an answer for you.

(Download)

Rongnongno Loc: FL

High pixel is not equal to cropping. THAT is a misuse of a perfectly good pixel crop... (as harvest if some do not understand)

The limit in pixels density is not yet reached. Cameras with better sensors will still come out.

As Bob mentioned the file size in MB (not pixel) does not slow down a computer but it will slow the transfer from a camera to a computer or a camera card to a computer, regardless of brand. The size also does not seem to slow the camera anymore or so it appears considering the buffer new cameras have, the camera writes between burst if needed.

Now the MB size means larger memory cards and possibly larger storage media.

When it comes to post processing a larger size ultimately will create larger size as in PS CC format if you use masks ans the like. The way PS CC deals with edits prevents a slowdown at the processor level but you can be certain the scratch disk is pushed to its limits. This means that in the end you will need a dedicated HHD for that purpose. If you use another software I have no clue. Check the options in there to see how it deals with RAM and temp files.

By the way, this has nothing to do raw or JPG as once opened by any software both become pixels images and use the same RAM space regardless of quality.

The Villages Loc: The Villages, Florida

Thanks for responding.

For a simple guy like me that doesn't speak Computer, if I have no problem with my current set-up, at what point might I see (or feel) an impact......going from 12MP to 20MP? to 30MP? Maybe not at all?

Rongnongno Loc: FL

None unless you do heavy post processing using pixel layers or masks.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The problem is not so much the file size, which will slow down the transfer, opening and saving of the files, but the amount of memory you have in your computer.

If you have enough you will see a little difference in processing. If you don't and the computer has to use your hard drive for a swap file it will bog down.

Memory is cheap. If you can have more added it will help you with all of your work.

But if you have a 32-bit system you may be out of luck on memory - the limit is 4GB. With a 64-bit system, 16-32GB should be plenty.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

I did not notice any significant impairment in photo processing (speed or results) when I moved from 16MP to 24MP.
The only challenge I faced was finding editing software capable of opening and reading the file.