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.
EBH
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!)
Mar 24, 2026 at 08:43 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #17008880 « Help on which is better computer set up »
and people sometimes don't value them enough.