schlotz wrote:
M5, M5 Pro & M5 Max are already available. M6 is TBD, possibly later this year but even so my bet on the Pro & Max versions will be sometime next year.
I have not seen where I can get the M5 on a Mac Studio as of yet. Do you know of a source?
EB-1 wrote:
20,000 is not very much if you photograph active species with a modern camera. In some locations I assume 5,000-10,000 images per day in the field, so at least 4 copies at 130-140K. But I think this thread is for a desktop computer.
I most always suggest the latest generation of hardware if the user is planning to keep it for a while. The differences in speeds of SoC, SSDs, TB, etc. will matter more in the future and keep the system useful longer. Despite that everyone at FM is obsessed with the LR that is significantly parallel, many parts of applications in general are single threaded, don't use the GPU, and performance there usually increases each generation.
Ultimately the question is the value of dollars put towards computing compared to other things like lenses, camera bodies, photo trips, etc. I feel that computers are rather important and people sometimes don't value them enough.
I photograph birds, often for full days, and I’ve never come back with a many as 2000 from a day’s shoot. So, yes, 20k in a day IS “very much.”
(Over the course of a full 12-hour day, that would be a continuous rate of roughly one photograph every two seconds… not accounting for any pauses bathroom and eating beaks!)
And then… you’d have to view and select from those 20k images! 12 hours straight at 2 seconds per photo? ;-)
That aside, if one actually has to intake 20k photos every day and apply post-processing operations to all of them, that is the sort of thing that would warrant a higher spec machine that typical users would need.
OP stated 20K for an entire trip and I mentioned planning for 5-10K per day. Aren't you still using one of those old, slow DLSRs? The opportunities for flying BIFs of the faster species is so much greater than it ever was at 20/30/40 FPS.
EB-1 wrote:
OP stated 20K for an entire trip and I mentioned planning for 5-10K per day. Aren't you still using one of those old, slow DLSRs? The opportunities for flying BIFs of the faster species is so much greater than it ever was at 20/30/40 FPS.
EBH
I use an “old, slow DSLR” for landscape photography and a more modern mirrorless body for bird photography — though the DSLR comes out for the bird stuff, too, alongside the mirrorless. In all but a few truly exceptional cases, the super high frame rates (20 fps on my mirrorless) don’t offer much advantage over lower frame rates, and I typically choose to use a slower-than-max setting.
Regardless, as I edited above, for anyone who actually shoots 20k frames per day —or per trip (God help you!) on a regular basis, that would warrant a higher spec machine.
One more thing: Regarding the question of whether to buy a computer now or wait for a next generation with even more capable processors, there’s no one right answer. For my part, if I could wait and a newer processor (and perhaps other improvements) were coming in a new machine that is soon to be released, I would probably wait. If the wait would be a lot longer and/or the nature of the improvement were somewhat speculative or if I really needed something now, I’d go ahead and get an appropriately equipped current model.
Also, while computer manufacturers inevitably tout their latest machines and upgraded processors as being huge improvement over previous models, the reality tends to be a bit less revolutionary. Some people have a strategy of waiting for the new models… and then buying the previous models at reduced prices.
There are several ways to look at TCO and performance over time. I'm not going over that all right now.
As far as the number of images, I don't know how it relates to needing a different hardware configuration other than a larger NAS or whatever storage.
and people sometimes don't value them enough.