Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dave_W" data-source="post: 58066" data-attributes="member: 9521">They're both awesome instruments and each have a fairly steep learning curve. I have both and love them each equally. However, you have to take into consideration more than just one body vs. the other. With the D800 you absolutely 100% need a modern computer with preferably a very fast chip (in my case I'm running a 3rd gen i7-3770), a full array of 16 gig DDR-3 @1600, a dedicated graphics card and a minimum 1TB HD (I'm running a 2TB @7200 rpm and a 32 gig SSD). You could in theory get away with a little less but if you're planning on running Photoshop, Lightroom and Nik/Topaz, you'll be glad you have all the above. However, with the D7000 you can still get away with a couple year old system provided you have at least 8 gig ram and a good processor. Certainly the above set up would work best with what was once considered a large image at 16 mp but 36 mp is more than just 2x 16 mp....if that makes any sense.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dave_W, post: 58066, member: 9521"] They're both awesome instruments and each have a fairly steep learning curve. I have both and love them each equally. However, you have to take into consideration more than just one body vs. the other. With the D800 you absolutely 100% need a modern computer with preferably a very fast chip (in my case I'm running a 3rd gen i7-3770), a full array of 16 gig DDR-3 @1600, a dedicated graphics card and a minimum 1TB HD (I'm running a 2TB @7200 rpm and a 32 gig SSD). You could in theory get away with a little less but if you're planning on running Photoshop, Lightroom and Nik/Topaz, you'll be glad you have all the above. However, with the D7000 you can still get away with a couple year old system provided you have at least 8 gig ram and a good processor. Certainly the above set up would work best with what was once considered a large image at 16 mp but 36 mp is more than just 2x 16 mp....if that makes any sense. [/QUOTE]

Verification