What computer to handle D7000 RAW files?

[HarryPot]

I'm currently in a MacBook CD 2.0 Ghz with 2GB RAM (max RAM possible). I have Aperture 3 and I can handle D40x files (10 MP), slowly but bearable.

I will eventually upgrade my mac. Waiting to see if a new design comes next year. But I would hate buying a camera and not being able to edit photos because of my Mac.

So, anyone here with a similar Mac to mine and a D7000?

 

[sapporobaby]

I'm currently in a MacBook CD 2.0 Ghz with 2GB RAM (max RAM possible). I have Aperture 3 and I can handle D40x files (10 MP), slowly but bearable.

I will eventually upgrade my mac. Waiting to see if a new design comes next year. But I would hate buying a camera and not being able to edit photos because of my Mac.

So, anyone here with a similar Mac to mine and a D7000?

Any computer can handle RAW files per se. You need to make sure you have the right software. Lightroom can as well as Aperture ( I use Aperture on my MBP i7, with Thunderbolt, 8 gigs of ram, 120 SSD + 250 SSD). I shoot 95% RAW with a Nikon D3S and have had no problems with RAW what so ever. Also, Apple and Adobe update their apps regularly to support new cameras. You'll be just fine dude.

 

[GoCubsGo]

I have this Mac Mini with an upgraded HDD (7200 rpm) and 4 gigs of ram and it handled Aperture and RAW files fine from a D300.

 

[HarryPot]

Any computer can handle RAW files per se. You need to make sure you have the right software. Lightroom can as well as Aperture ( I use Aperture on my MBP i7, with Thunderbolt, 8 gigs of ram, 120 SSD + 250 SSD). I shoot 95% RAW with a Nikon D3S and have had no problems with RAW what so ever. Also, Apple and Adobe update their apps regularly to support new cameras. You'll be just fine dude.

I have Aperture 3. But the difference is that your Mac is at least 10x faster than mine.

I know I'll be able to import the photos and view them, but I'm not sure it will be a pleasant experience in my old Mac.

I have this Mac Mini with an upgraded HDD (7200 rpm) and 4 gigs of ram and it handled Aperture and RAW files fine from a D300.

This is more like my Mac. Except for the 4GB of RAM.

 

[sapporobaby]

I have Aperture 3. But the difference is that your Mac is at least 10x faster than mine.

I know I'll be able to import the photos and view them, but I'm not sure it will be a pleasant experience in my old Mac.



This is more like my Mac. Except for the 4GB of RAM.

If you change to an SSD, I am sure you will start loving your Mac again. They truly make a difference. You can get what is called an Optibay (I have this). It allows you to have a boot SSD, while removing the optical drive and replacing it with either another SSD, or HDD of your choosing. Go to: http://www.mcetech.com/optibay/ for a quick look see. The price for the Optibay setup is cheap.

 

[pna]

I'm currently in a MacBook CD 2.0 Ghz with 2GB RAM (max RAM possible). I have Aperture 3 and I can handle D40x files (10 MP), slowly but bearable.

I will eventually upgrade my mac. Waiting to see if a new design comes next year. But I would hate buying a camera and not being able to edit photos because of my Mac.

So, anyone here with a similar Mac to mine and a D7000?

I had pretty much the exact mac you are working with (CD MBP maxed out at 2 GB of ram), and found Aperture 3 to be just as you've found it -- very slow. I was part of a fairly extensive thread about it at the time, which I'm sure you can find if you search. The upshot, though, was that it seemed clear that there was nothing that I could do within those ram limitations that would really make a big impact to solve it. Lightroom was a bit better, if I recall.

I now use a 2011 mbp quad core i7 with an SSD. It's definitely fine with raw files from a D7000, as that's what I shoot as well. I suspect that even without the SSD it would be worlds better, as sometimes I'm pulling raw files off of the 5400 rpm drive I have in an optibay and performance is still acceptable. I'm guessing that any of the macs in the current lineup, with the possible exception of the base Air if you're doing a lot of photo work, will be fine for your purposes. Just throw a lot of ram in there, and if you can spring for an SSD by all means do so.

 

[sapporobaby]

I had pretty much the exact mac you are working with (CD MBP maxed out at 2 GB of ram), and found Aperture 3 to be just as you've found it -- very slow. I was part of a fairly extensive thread about it at the time, which I'm sure you can find if you search. The upshot, though, was that it seemed clear that there was nothing that I could do within those ram limitations that would really make a big impact to solve it. Lightroom was a bit better, if I recall.

I now use a 2011 mbp quad core i7 with an SSD. It's definitely fine with raw files from a D7000, as that's what I shoot as well. I suspect that even without the SSD it would be worlds better, as sometimes I'm pulling raw files off of the 5400 rpm drive I have in an optibay and performance is still acceptable. I'm guessing that any of the macs in the current lineup, with the possible exception of the base Air if you're doing a lot of photo work, will be fine for your purposes. Just throw a lot of ram in there, and if you can spring for an SSD by all means do so.

That pretty much sums it up. The ram is the key. As much as possible and the SSD can't hurt. My current Aperture lib is about 100 gigs. With the 250 gig SSD, I have plenty of room let. My MAIN-UBER-APERTURE-LIBRARY is around 250 gigs but I have this on another drive that I can connect via FW. So I travel with a working Aperture lib of around 100 gig. Something to think about if you go the dual SSD route. I would never go back to an HDD as a primary or secondary drive.