27

You are asking two very different questions, because Adobe Photoshop Lightroom and Adobe Photoshop of course do not have the same system requirements or use the same system resources. Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 Graphics Card: Lightroom does not currently utilize the GPU for performance improvements. It is outlined in the Lightroom documentation here. ...


19

DXOMark primary "scores" are utterly useless. IGNORE THEM. It is a futile effort to try and reduce a complex entity such as a DSLR to a single, scalar number that tells you everything about it. It's a fallacy. There are too many factors to consider, and which factors are most important for a given photographer differ. A single score entirely defeats the ...


12

Overall Score I generally ignore the Overall Score, as it's way too general if you understand any of the individual scores. The Overall Score is a function of a variety of (fairly) deterministic tests, each of which is quite informative, and most (if not all?) have clear units of measurement. But then they generate a "score" that combines these ...


11

Full frame and APS-H cameras For general information and APS-C cameras, see the answer above. Canon EOS 6D All points function to f/5.6. The center point is cross-type, and all other points are single-line. The center point is high-precision cross-type with f/2.8 or faster lenses (but is not dual cross-type as it does not have diagonal-line sensors). ...


10

I have actually tested this by separating some of my photos (around 1200) in to another catalogue as I was worried about putting all my eggs in one basked (incase of a failure). I found that there was very little performance increase by doing this, at least, that I could see or measure. My catalogue was ~3100 images in size prior to this. One option I can ...


10

In this very specific case: I found an article on tests of GPU acceleration in Photoshop CS6 from Puget Systems -- a small retailer I'd never heard of, but their methodology seems sound. They actually test with the two video cards you're considering, so this is a very good data source. (The GT610 model they use isn't the mobile version, but reportedly there'...


10

My simplified diagram of camera I/O: |―――――――\ ] \ /----> | CARD 1 | |――――――――――| |―――――――――――――――| |――――――――――――――| | | | | | | ...


8

I would recommend the higher CPU in this case. GPU acceleration in Photoshop itself can make a sizable difference, but only with a good GPU. The 610 is a bare bones "desktop" card that isn't really any better than the 4000. The only advantage it offers is the dedicated video memory, but that's going to have minimal impact when working with most gpu ...


8

This kind of fast then slow performance (as you correctly guessed) will be because of the image buffer filling up. Using a faster card will help until you reach the limit of the camera's circuitry - you may have reached this limit. Even if your camera's performance is faster than the SD card. It's quite possible that some of the card's 'bandwidth' is taken ...


8

Two batteries in parallel at the same voltage can supply more current than one of them alone can. If we were talking about car or truck engines we would say we have twice as much torque (current) at the same RPM (voltage). Therefore the same load will not cause the same drop in voltage when two of the same batteries are in parallel. This also means a greater ...


7

Consider this: If your camera had twice as much buffer memory it would be able to take roughly twice as many photos before running out of memory, but it would also then take roughly twice as long for the buffer to clear. So after the initial extra 5-10 shots twice a deeper buffer would allow, you would then still be limited to the exact same frame rate you ...


5

There are two main things I can think of, the first is the autofocus. On a DSLR, the mirror reflects light on to a Phase Detect Auto Focus sensor while you are looking in the view finder. While PDAF isn't as accurate as contrast based detection (which can be done with a standard CMOS sensor) it is much faster. Since mirrorless lack the mirror, they ...


5

My answer: disk! Just some real world observation: I am a user of both Lightroom and Photoshop and recently upgraded from a 4 year old high-end Acer desktop to now a massive Alienware desktop with the ultra powerful GTX960 video card. Note that I do not have this high-end desktop for Photoshop, but still, there is no visible performance improvement in ...


4

Tim Grey, whom I would consider a reliable source, once stated in his newsletter: Adobe indicates there is no practical limit to catalog size from a performance perspective, and I can tell you from experience that even with 283,669 in a catalog, performance remains good. This was a little more than one year ago and he referred to recent versions of ...


4

Are you wondering about the distinct list of keywords in an entire catalog or are you wondering about the number of keywords for a single image? I am doubtful that there is any practical limit to the number of keywords allowed in a Lightroom catalog. It wouldn't make sense to have an artificial limit in the software itself but it is possible. Lightroom is ...


4

As the camera theoretically has to make the double amount of writes, is there a performance impact? (especially whilst shooting RAW continuous and filling the buffer). There almost always is a performance penalty. How significant it is can vary widely from one camera model to the next. The only exception would be if both slots support the same type of card, ...


4

Bob Parent's first camera that he used in the jazz clubs of New York was a 4x5 Speed Graphic. It is also known that when he first started, he used a flash held in his left hand as far off camera as he could reach. Although most photographers who used flash with a Speed Graphic had it attached to the side of the camera, the flash was triggered by an external ...


3

Your question isn't correctly written. I'll try to untangle it, tough. You cannot say that till "n" keywords you won't get any performance degradation and from "n"+1 (ok, "n"+100 or whatever) you suddenly will feel it. The performance degradation is a quite incremental process. It is rather an oblique line and not a stair-like graph. Also, of course, it ...


3

This is not an answer, just a "comment" to the question about shot-to-shot cycle times when camera is set to single-shot mode. The claim made in the question is that even the slowest DSLRs are faster than the fastest mirrorless cameras in this single-shot mode. Here is some of those cycle times in a list for easy comparing, brought up from the review-site ...


3

I tried this experiment, and found that performance was effectively unchanged with two catalogs, where one was about 1/10 the size of the other. What really made me give the experiment up, though, was all the hidden costs to doing this: If you want to share keyword hierarchies between the libraries, now you have to spend time exporting and importing ...


3

Just wanted to point that the information about focus points in EOS 600D/550D/500D/450D might not be accurate. " Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi (400D), Rebel XSi (450D), Rebel T1i (500D), Rebel T2i (550D), Rebel T3i (600D), 30D The center point is high-precision cross-type only when the aperture is at least f/2.8. If below f/2.8 but at least f/5.6, all points ...


3

In my experience it doesn't make much difference. The time it takes your computer's CPU to render the image(s) will be much longer than the time it takes to read the file from either type of logical drive. I built my current editing machine about a year ago. It has an 8 core AMD FX-8370 running at 4Ghz, 16GB of DDR3 1600 memory, an AMD Radeon 7200 series ...


3

It can. As usual with computers, you get the most significant benefits by improving the slowest path. A modern SSD is considerably faster than rotating disk, so the potential for speed up is huge. I know this from personal experience, having a system with quite a few SSDs, plus several external ones. When not using full-previews, Lightroom needs the ...


3

For the amount of spot removals I did, I believe I should have used Photoshop instead: The Spot Removal Tool and Local Corrections Brush are not designed for hundreds to thousands of corrections. If your image contains many (hundreds) of localized adjustments, consider using a pixel-based editing application such as Photoshop for that level of correction. ...


2

The best way from my experience is to upgrade your memory. My iMac has almost the exact configuration as yours, except that I recently upgraded from 8GB to 32GB. The result is much more impressive than I could have imagined - navigating in Aperture is now instant. It seems as if the entire database is cached. I have also tested Aperture on an SSD-based Mac, ...


2

For your thumbnails/previews, an SSD is going to help a lot, so if you can install an SSD that will speed up the browsing/management side of things (though I'd max out your RAM first). If you can't afford an SSD of sufficient size, then you won't lose too much performance by having the Masters on an external Firewire/eSATA drive (in fact this may be faster ...


2

Lightroom does run somewhat faster with smaller catalogs. However unless each import you do is more than a few thousand photos, I'd argue you'll see no performance benefit. There are some good reasons for different catalogs (separating "work" and "play," for example), but I would argue that separate catalogs should not be used if performance is your only ...


2

Short answer: CPU more important than GPU, but disk and memory even more so The extent to which photo-editing software can utilise the GPU is limited. Most filters and processing steps aren't currently GPU-enabled, and many can't practically be GPU enabled. CPU is more important. On top of that, those features that do already utilise the GPU will ...


2

I imagine that a lot of this has to do with marketing as much as or more than technical limitations. If a consumer level camera could shoot with the speed and duration of a pro camera then it would limit the marketability of pro cameras. Most people buying consumer level cameras don't need to shoot long bursts so that's a feature they can pack into pro ...


2

I trust DXoMark about as far as I can throw them, and I'm not particularly good at shot put. They are an interesting source of information about lab conditions and can be occasionally useful when comparing cameras from the same manufacturer, but there are too many variables in there tests that depart from real world conditions to make them generally useful ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible