How do you 5DII owners deal with the size

JohnBiggs · June 10, 2009

Seriously, I mean, you can always buy bigger cards, but Lightroom seems slow with just 12mp images....

How is it going for you?

ziggy53 · June 10, 2009

JohnBiggs wrote:

Seriously, I mean, you can always buy bigger cards, but Lightroom seems slow with just 12mp images....

How is it going for you?

I do my sorting using software that looks at the embedded JPG so that speed it little changed. If I know I don't need all of the resolution then I will set ACR to deliver a smaller resolution image.

If I had to work everything in the largest files with 14 bit color information, I would feel compelled to upgrade my computer to be sure. As it is, I view the largest resolutions as "options", which are nice to have.

It does take longer to transfer files into the computer and it does require more space initially, so I am looking at additional hard drives. (I use 2 - 500GB drives for data space now.)

rwells · June 10, 2009

When I started using my 5D2 instead of my 5D, my processing time probably went up 40%. Definitely longer on some plug-in processes.

I'm not extremely worried about storage space. After I had a 500Gb WD-HD crash, I purchased two Buffalo TerraStations for a total of 3TB's of storage just between these two units.

I guess I could try the RAW2 setting, but it just seems strange to have all this resolution, then throttle it back.

To me, the 5D2 was a significant enough jump up from the 5D that it's all worth it

YMMV

studio1972 · June 10, 2009

JohnBiggs wrote:

Seriously, I mean, you can always buy bigger cards, but Lightroom seems slow with just 12mp images....

How is it going for you?

Hmm, ever tried video? try 200+ GB per wedding!

cdub · June 10, 2009

ditto on the previous comments. Yes, it's added significantly to my processing time... It makes my 3 year old iMac chug like a freshman, but the resultant resolution and imminent options that resolution offers is well worth the sacrifice.

Now, I'm saying this considering I have photos from February which still aren't processed, sitting in my "import pre-sort" folder...

On-camera, though, two 8gb UDMA cards make me forget I am taking such enormous pictures.

keithinmelbourne · June 11, 2009

Doesn't seem to be a problem
I shot a wedding reception using a 5D2 for the first time last weekend, and I've been processing the RAW files using CS4 on a 2YO MacBook. The MacBook is a little slower than with my normal 1D3 files (@ 10mp), but not by much. On the desktop Mac, which is a lot faster, there seems to be barely any difference in file handling.

Scott_Quier · June 11, 2009

With just the jump from 30D (~8MB per CR2) to the 50D (~20MB - 27MB, yes, I have RAW files that come off the card at 27MB), my old AMD processor had some real issues. So, I built myself a new computer. You can see what I did in this thread. Now, processing those huge 50D CR2 files is not a major issue!

Moogle Pepper · June 11, 2009

I pretty much use my MBP for all my processing, as my PC is still down.. , and it runs smooth till I get to a middle of a batch and it slows down a bit. I don't mind the time, I try to be patient and if it slows down I am surfing the web. Which is why I might be found a little more active on facebook..

hgernhardtjr · June 11, 2009

I've noticed no real increase in processing time on my homebuilt computer ... for stills, JPG or RAW ... although there is the occasional action that might be a bit slower.

However, video — that's another story in itself. My Windows machine chugs, grunts, stutters, and passes gas on the 1080p HD files. But stick the same file into a friend's iMac, and li'l ol' iMovie runs and works like a charm. I still have not decided between a Windows 12gb core i7 self-build, or just biting the bullet and getting an iMac.

Man that iMac is nice!

tijoseph · June 11, 2009

My quad core rips thru them in lightroom. Video however, ESP in after effects, is nearly impossible. I'm saving for an iMac for video

ian408 · June 11, 2009

What Ziggy said.

Nikolai · June 11, 2009

The funny thing is, 5D2 sizes actually made me rethink my workflow. Now I spend less (*much* less) time with my raw plunder even though my primary PC is still 4 years old (yes I recently got a quad core laptop with 8gb of RAM, but it's not my workhorse yet, more like location/experimenting platform).
The key points of my new strategy: shooting RAW + small coarse jpegs, S*E (duh) and a little app I wrote which can make one type tp "follow" another. And of course, a delayed printing, an awesome SM feature.

Basic steps look like this:
1) images are transferred to PC (small jpegs add barely 5% to transfer time compared to RAW only)
2) raws and jpegs moved into two different folders
3) jpegs are culled to a first degree and split into folders.
4) one drag-and-drop operation makes S*E to create all the galleries and start upload
5) my little app moves raws next to jpegs where I want them to be (and clears those which were "culled out")
6) once the upload is finished (S*E's burst mode is a total killer, especially over 20/20mbps fiberoptics), all the draft jpegs are deleted

At a later time I finalize the selection to a very limited number of total winners and hand-process them. Since we're talking about a very small amount and initial rush is already off, it doesn't put as much pressure on me or on my PC.

Even if I decide to reprocess all the files later (and I may), S*E's mass replace feature makes it a child's play. Yet again, that can be done later, when there is no rush to get it up asap.

With this workflow, my files can be up just an hour or two after the end of the shoot. Well, maybe three, if I brought home 1,500 or more frames...

JohnBiggs · June 11, 2009

Thank you all for the great information. I have two terastations too, but the network speeds just slowed down lightroom too much. I have since moved all my pics onto a 2TB WD Studio II hooked via firewire and that has helped, but I think that firewire is still being a bottle neck.

I have an 8 core system, but lightroom is probably not taking advantage of it. The slowest part is when I go to a new image, it seems to take ages just to get the full size image to appear. Everything else in lightroom is fast enough. But then again thats with 12MP images.

Scott_Quier · June 12, 2009

JohnBiggs wrote:

I have an 8 core system, but lightroom is probably not taking advantage of it. The slowest part is when I go to a new image, it seems to take ages just to get the full size image to appear. Everything else in lightroom is fast enough. But then again thats with 12MP images.

With my i7 920 (in which each physical core is dual threaded resulting in windows thinks is 8 cores), tests have shown that LR 2.3 will take advantage of all the memory and processors that it needs and is made available to it. One test I did involved the export of 100 JPG images - while that was running, task manager showed all 8 cores running hard ... it was a pretty sight.

Nikolai · June 12, 2009

Scott_Quier wrote:

With my i7 920 (in which each physical core is dual threaded resulting in windows thinks is 8 cores),

i7 920... you dawg...

That's pretty sweet!

Why only 6Gb of RAM?

It's so cheap these days... I'm planning on at least 24 when I get mine (after Oct 22d)

Scott_Quier · June 12, 2009

Nikolai wrote:

i7 920... you dawg... That's pretty sweet!
Why only 6Gb of RAM? It's so cheap these days... I'm planning on at least 24 when I get mine (after Oct 22d)

Catch up with the times there Nik. Jeff and I (link) both have i7 machines - though he threw a bit more $$ at his and, thus, has a bit more grunt. And sweet? Oh, yes - very!

But, the decision for the 6BG was primarily driven by two considerations: (1) I only needed 6GB as that was 3x what I had on my replaced computer and (2) because I can always upgrade it to 12GB by simply buying and inserting 3 more sticks of memory.

To date, even when running Win7 Build 7201 (soon to be build 7229 as MS leaked build 7229 last night

see this link and this one if you are interested in some of the specifics - that first thread is 1,470 posts

) and with PS and LR running with my usual count of images loaded, I still don't get close to swapping stuff out to the page file(s).

Nikolai · June 12, 2009

Scott_Quier wrote:

Catch up with the times there Nik. Jeff and I (link) both have i7 machines - though he threw a bit more $$ at his and, thus, has a bit more grunt. And sweet? Oh, yes - very!

I currently have an intel duo quad 2.53 lappy with 8Gb of RAM and 1Gb video. IT's ok for casual work. I'm gonna build a i7 workhorse closer to xmas, after W7 is out.

To date, even when running Win7 Build 7201 (soon to be build 7229 as MS leaked build 7229 last night see this link and this one if you are interested in some of the specifics - that first thread is 1,470 posts ) and with PS and LR running with my usual count of images loaded, I still don't get close to swapping stuff out to the page file(s).

You're getting slow, my firend: 7231 has been leaked already:-)

And yes, severforums kick ass!

Scott_Quier · June 12, 2009

Nikolai wrote:

You're getting slow, my firend: 7231 has been leaked already:-)
And yes, severforums kick ass!

You have PM

jeffreaux2 · June 12, 2009

Scott_Quier wrote:

With just the jump from 30D (~8MB per CR2) to the 50D (~20MB - 27MB, yes, I have RAW files that come off the card at 27MB), my old AMD processor had some real issues. So, I built myself a new computer. You can see what I did in this thread. Now, processing those huge 50D CR2 files is not a major issue!

Scott and I built very simular systems and have seen remarkable imrovements with RAW editing in Lightroom.

My build is AT This Link!

...and Ditto to what Scott has said about the RAM. I have closely monitored my RAM usage during editing just to see what is being used. I have yet to see more than 4 gigs of my 12gigs available being used......and consider that I am now running Photoshop the way I used to with 4megapixel files....that is....I open ALL (Every Image) that I want to edit from a set and work through the stack in photoshop at the same time. This machine handles those files every bit as simply as my old Athlon 64 handled 4 megapixel files.

I overbuilt in two areas in my opinion.

1- The RAM as stated. 6gigs instead of 12 would have been plenty. I do have 12 gigs of matched (2 ea. 3x2GB) triple channel sets, so I dont have to worry about matching something up in a couple years.

2- Video/Graphics Card- I purchased a single graphics card with dual processors for $420. The first had issues, and so I had to RMA it back to NewEgg. It only had a single core working. Consequently it errored out on ANY 3D application.....BUT....it ran 2D apps (like Lightroom and Photoshop) every bit as smoothly as the new card with both processors properly functioning. While the RMA was in transit I borrowed an ATi X300 GPU card, which is not even supported with current ATi driver sets. THAT card also ran the apps I run just fine....though not quite as pretty as my broken card with its single core. The single core version of my graphics card sells for under $200.

Had I gone with a single core garphics card, and 6 gigs of RAM, the money saved could have set me up with an SSD hard drive....something I am still waiting to buy after Windows 7 is officially released.

Oh....and the Core i7 is very friendly when it comes to overclocking!:D

This is a screen shot captured shortly after a run on 3DMark06, a popular benchmarking program by Futuremark. Circled in red you can see that the CPU is overclocked to 4Ghz. The beauty of it is circled in green. CPU-Z shows that Intel's "speedstepping" technology has determined that the machine is not currently under a load (It was in fact idle.) and so it has cut the "multiplyer" back to 12 effectively cutting the core speed to 2.4Ghz. Normally the 920 i7 will run at a multiplyer of 20...and will step up to 21 at times allowing it to hit 4.2GHz at this same clock speed(200). The factory speeds are clock speed at 133 which when multiplied times the multiplyer of 20 equals the 2660Mhz (or 2.66 GHz) core speed.

Just be sure you keep the thing cool!

swintonphoto · June 13, 2009

Well, this is one reason I think the MP race is getting pretty lame. I still use a 12mp camera and I never feel limited by the resolution and I make a living doing this. Frankly, my old 8mp seemed sufficient. I don't want to start a discussion regarding the merits of more MP. I think there are a few that will need them for some very specific applications. But 99% of us honestly don't need it. I have 16x20's hanging on my studio wall made years ago with my old 6 mp fuji. Hence, I think Canon - if it really wanted more FF market share should make something like the Nikon D700 that has fewer MP. I imagine there are some that don't buy the 5DmkII because of the size issue. So, if you really need that much resolution (and I bet if most are really honest with themselves they will realize they probably don't), beef up your computer and buy some new fast hard drives. If you really want FF, stick with the original 5D or get yourself a D700.

cdub · June 13, 2009

swintonphoto wrote:

Well, this is one reason I think the MP race is getting pretty lame. I still use a 12mp camera and I never feel limited by the resolution and I make a living doing this. Frankly, my old 8mp seemed sufficient. I don't want to start a discussion regarding the merits of more MP. I think there are a few that will need them for some very specific applications. But 99% of us honestly don't need it. I have 16x20's hanging on my studio wall made years ago with my old 6 mp fuji. Hence, I think Canon - if it really wanted more FF market share should make something like the Nikon D700 that has fewer MP. I imagine there are some that don't buy the 5DmkII because of the size issue. So, if you really need that much resolution (and I bet if most are really honest with themselves they will realize they probably don't), beef up your computer and buy some new fast hard drives. If you really want FF, stick with the original 5D or get yourself a D700.

I think you're doing a disservice to those of us that bought 5D mark II's by suggesting that our decisions were solely resolution-related. Yes, I like the convenience of more mp's - on more than a few occasions I've cropped way in on a picture and had great results. And like you, I have stuff on my walls from an old 5mp Olympus point and shoot. But there are other luxuries as well - we're only just starting to figure out this hi-def video, and I'll be the first to say I vastly underestimated how spectacularly the high ISO capabilities has performed. The 3" screen size is nice too, not to mention live-view... etc... all for a few hundred less than the D700... But I digress. This is for another forum (about 5 months ago).

swintonphoto · June 13, 2009

cdub wrote:

I think you're doing a disservice to those of us that bought 5D mark II's by suggesting that our decisions were solely resolution-related. Yes, I like the convenience of more mp's - on more than a few occasions I've cropped way in on a picture and had great results. And like you, I have stuff on my walls from an old 5mp Olympus point and shoot. But there are other luxuries as well - we're only just starting to figure out this hi-def video, and I'll be the first to say I vastly underestimated how spectacularly the high ISO capabilities has performed. The 3" screen size is nice too, not to mention live-view... etc... all for a few hundred less than the D700... But I digress. This is for another forum (about 5 months ago).

Ya, sorry... I didn't mean to stir the pot. I know it is a fabulous camera. I know a few who have it and the results are quite stunning.

Manfr3d · June 13, 2009

JohnBiggs wrote:

Seriously, I mean, you can always buy bigger cards, but Lightroom seems slow with just 12mp images....

How is it going for you?

LR slows down horribly as the library grows. If you start a fresh one
every now and then (monthly?) performance will be increased.

swintonphoto · June 13, 2009

Manfr3d wrote:

LR slows down horribly as the library grows. If you start a fresh one
every now and then (monthly?) performance will be increased.

That is definitely true.

JohnBiggs · June 15, 2009

cdub wrote:

I think you're doing a disservice to those of us that bought 5D mark II's by suggesting that our decisions were solely resolution-related. Yes, I like the convenience of more mp's - on more than a few occasions I've cropped way in on a picture and had great results. And like you, I have stuff on my walls from an old 5mp Olympus point and shoot. But there are other luxuries as well - we're only just starting to figure out this hi-def video, and I'll be the first to say I vastly underestimated how spectacularly the high ISO capabilities has performed. The 3" screen size is nice too, not to mention live-view... etc... all for a few hundred less than the D700... But I digress. This is for another forum (about 5 months ago).

I didn't read his post that way. I read it as a rant on how Canon keeps shoving more megapixels onto the sensors. I'd love a 5D mk II with less megapixels.

For me, the megapixels are what keeps me away from the 5dII. However some of the other features are calling out to me.

JohnBiggs · June 15, 2009

Manfr3d wrote:

LR slows down horribly as the library grows. If you start a fresh one
every now and then (monthly?) performance will be increased.

Yep, I am doing this too. Maybe not monthly, but quarterly.

kdog · June 15, 2009

JohnBiggs wrote:

I'd love a 5D mk II with less megapixels.

That is precisely what sRAW1 and sRAW2 are for.

Nikolai · June 15, 2009

kdog wrote:

That is precisely what sRAW1 and sRAW2 are for.

+1

Manfr3d · June 15, 2009

Nikolai wrote:

+1

Altough I never had a problem with the large files it seems to
be a good option if you want to save disk space and processing time.

I shoot at full res exclusively. But it should be easy to just run a batch
job over those large files to create smaller raw files inside the computer
and continue to work with these. If you want to save to a smaller RAW
file it will probably end up being a DNG. Here is a list of tools some of
them support resizing.: http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products.htm#enduser

Nikolai · June 15, 2009

Manfr3d wrote:

Altough I never had a problem with the large files it seems to
be a good option if you want to save disk space and processing time.

I shoot at full res exclusively. But it should be easy to just run a batch
job over those large files to create smaller raw files inside the computer
and continue to work with these. If you want to save to a smaller RAW
file it will probably end up being a DNG. Here is a list of tools some of
them support resizing.: http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products.htm#enduser

Don't get me wrong, I don't use small raws

.
I was simply agreeing with Joel that if somebody wants all the 5D2 niceties, but is concerned about the file size, s/he has two smaller options...

Manfr3d · June 15, 2009

How do you 5DII owners deal with the size

Comments