Computer system to go with M9

[Joachim123]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently purchased an M9 however, my computer does not seem to do justice to the capabilities of the M9. It has quite a low screen resolution. The computer is more that 4 years old so I am looking to upgrade. Can anyone recommend a good laptop or desktop either Mac or PC? to use with the M9?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[k-hawinkler]

I recently purchased an M9 however, my computer does not seem to do justice to the capabilities of the M9. It has quite a low screen resolution. The computer is more that 4 years old so I am looking to upgrade. Can anyone recommend a good laptop either Mac or PC? to use with the M9?

 

 

I would like to suggest a MacBook Pro with Thunderbolt and USB3, maxed out with memory, and the largest SSD possible instead of a hard disk.

 

Reason for largest SSD: the newest retina display MacBook Pros have the SSD flash memory hard wired in and cannot be upgraded, I read somewhere. Also, SSDs are faster than hard disks and run a lot cooler.

 

Max memory: to avoid swapping in and out of memory.

[Paul J]

I would really recommend and personally look no further than the Retina Macbook Pro. I just bought one and was speechless the first time I cast eyes on the display. Come to think of it I still am. It's like looking through a window rather than at a computer. I got the 2.7 16GB Ram model and it keeps up nicely with my Mac Pro for all but the most demanding jobs. You just need to weigh up in your mind of the fixed RAM and Battery is something you can live with.

 

I think the display and also SSD's are probably the greatest leap in technology since computers themselves. Jaw on the floor good.

[iedei]

like others are saying----no question get a Mac.

 

whether you need a laptop or a desktop is up to you, but IF you want the finest computer display, it will have to be the Apple Cinema Display Monitors.......no other affordable monitors available with such great resolution. My wife has one (she's a web developer) and i'm always blown away by the screen.

 

for me.....my Macbook Pro and Macbook Air are both great.....when i look at the same photos on my Dell at my work office, i can appreciate just how good Apple displays are.

[tobey bilek]

I have an iMac 27, i7 processor, 16gb ram. 18 Mb uncompressed raw M9 does not phase it. I made a panorama with three M 8 files to simulate what a D800 Nikon would be like. That seems to run fine.

 

Beautiful screen, but it does have some limits. In a bright room, the glass screen is not good. But I work in a semi almost dark room and it makes no difference to the matt screen iMac right next to it.

 

Next problem is unsolvable. To get the very best calibration, you need to be able to adjust contrast. All Mac provides is back light illumination. Also no mac has on screen controls for RGB.

 

All that said, mine is calibrated as well as possible and my files go to a pro lab that uses an Eizo screen. I send files and request NO CORRECTION and I apply his soft proof profile. The prints come back PERFECT. So it must be good enough. The labs owner is MR. Perfection with a passion for getting things right. AiPro Lab if you want to know and they do mail order.

 

To do again, I would get a similar spec tower and EIZO screen. Why not, as a Leica user you have so much invested already? I would probably go for ssd also.

 

In general, laptops do not calibrate well. I would not consider them except for travel and I have a small Macbook for that.

 

Whatever you get, stuff it full with ram. If computational requirements exceed available ram, the processor sends data to HD and that then retrieves it. This takes time and slows operation.

 

Ram for iMac and all but newest laptops can be had for 50% off Apple price. I use OWC computing and it arrives the next day. It is a 15 minute installation the first time. 7 min the second time. #2 phillips is all you need.

Laptops are a little more tricky, but doable. The newest retina screens are basically all glued together and I doubt Apple can even repair them. They are like anything made today, great when they work, big trouble if not.

Suggest long Apple Care if you buy one. I understand the owner can not even replace the battery.

[Paul J]

In general, laptops do not calibrate well. I would not consider them except for travel and I have a small Macbook for that.

 

I plug my NEC Spectraview into my Macbook Pro if I want perfect colour from that machine.

[businessasusual]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mac with 27" Display (mine is last version of MacBook Pro 17" which is now discontinued).

Mac Mini's have always fared me well - if price is issue. And, software with Mac for photography....awesome!!! (coming from a 2003 PC convert!)

[IWC Doppel]

Outside of the very expensive professional monitors a 27" iMAC is the best solution.

 

I have an i7 with 16GB of ram (Crucial Memory helps with price) and processing and loading M9 files is quick, I usually have heaps of applications open and the apple doesn't blink. I ran Aperture and Lightroom at the same time for a while, no bother at all.

[almoore]

Another vote for the 27 inch iMac. The monitor isn't the best on the market, but to get something significantly better you'd need to shell out for an Eizo ColorEdge, and that would be more expensive than the iMac even before you factor in the cost of the computer.

[Paul J]

I would chose an NEC Spectraview over Eizo. Same colour accuracy without the inflated price tag. They are both hardware calibrated meaning the monitor has it's own graphics card that is calibrated rather than the computers. There is plenty of reading material on the net comparing the two.

 

I would avoid the Apples if you are chasing colour accuracy and ability to calibrate. The Apples are nice looking screen (the actual monitor and the picture) but the colour space is limited, they tend to be over saturated and don't calibrate so well. They don't have hardware calibration. They are consumer monitors intended to make pictures look nice, but they are not as accurate as others.

 

You can pick up an NEC LCD2690 with spectraview very cheaply now, it's an older model but it has very accurate colour and covers 96% Adobe 98. Or the 3090 covers 98% is a bit more expensive.

[DaveO]

You could just upgrade your monitor with a high end one like NEC or higher and invest in the spyder? system to adjust your colors till they are right.

This option may even be cheaper than changing computers.

[sanyasi]

Mac Mini, Eizo monitor. Others have disagreed and they may be right, but I never could calibrate my iMac. Compared to the Eizo, it was too bright and over saturated--none of which could be reproduced accurately.

 

I'd also look at an external RAID system. I use the Drobo system, which some people hate because of its proprietary file system. That has not been a problem and I don't foresee it being one.

 

Based on earlier comments, next time I need a monitor, I'll look at the NEC Spectra.

[JeTexas]

I have a Dell XPS 15 notebook with the 2GB Nvidia graphics card, 12 GB RAM and the Sandy Bridge Core i7 processor. Handles both huge graphics files and HD video with ease.

 

Of course, if your machine is handling the files ok, you can always just upgrade your monitor or add an external monitor ... way cheaper than buying a new machine.

[pierovitch]

You could wait for windows 8 surface and have greasy finger prints on your photos

[robert blu]

Interesting discussion, I'm facing a similar problem. Thinking of i-mac 27 but some doubts about the screen (I have an old i-mac 24 with the matt screen which is reasonably ok). I usually work in a shadowed room not really dark but not direct light on the screen) so maybe it works well enough. But calibration could be a problem because not many controls on the screen. Just curious if anyone use an external monitor (EIZO or NEC) connected to the i-mac. I know, expensive. Or should I go to the Mac Pro ? But this seem me an "older" machine compared to the new i-mac. And even more expensive.

robert

[DaveO]

I believe the NEC's are about half the price of the Eizo and pretty comparable in quality. Make sure you get a calibration tool though, like the Spyder.

[Paul J]

Interesting discussion, I'm facing a similar problem. Thinking of i-mac 27 but some doubts about the screen (I have an old i-mac 24 with the matt screen which is reasonably ok). I usually work in a shadowed room not really dark but not direct light on the screen) so maybe it works well enough. But calibration could be a problem because not many controls on the screen. Just curious if anyone use an external monitor (EIZO or NEC) connected to the i-mac. I know, expensive. Or should I go to the Mac Pro ? But this seem me an "older" machine compared to the new i-mac. And even more expensive.

robert

 

Personally for a desktop, I see the benefit of a Mac Pro outweighing an iMac times over.

 

A Mac Pro is completely upgradable. You can upgrade the processor, the RAM, you can add an accurate monitor etc. An iMac is a closed system. Great if you can live within its boundaries for it's lifespan, but with a Mac Pro you can increase it's lifespan with upgrades. Also you have the ability to add more RAM, in a way far greater than an imac can. Photoshop responds exceptionally well to more RAM. It's the best thing you can give it.

 

A base level 4 core Mac Pro, or even better a 6 core (the sweet spot for photoshop) is still a very good option for Photoshop. Piled with RAM and SSD drives it will scream.

 

Lastly. Having used iMacs for some years their monitors are really limited. Fine if you want something to view pictures on but not at all accurate if you want to print and rely on it at all professionally.

 

If you are more in the frame of mind for a Mac Pro and can wait 6-10 months, Apple announced last year they are launching a Mac Pro in 2013. Wether they do or not is another thing of corse. I'm using a 6 core now and I can't see myself needing anything else for quite some time.

[k-hawinkler]

Hi Paul,

 

I agree a Mac Pro - once Apple comes out with the next model with Thunderbolt and USB3 - should last a decade performance-wise if it doesn't break down beyond 5 years. Here in the US the Apple stores only have diagnostic equipment for items less than 5 years old.

 

I know Apple does offer different CPU versions when one purchases such a computer. Did you mean by upgrade that or did you mean that one can upgrade when the next generation of CPU chips comes along?

 

 

BTW I have an 8 year old dual G5 PPC 2.5 GHz, 8 GB Mac Pro. Several years ago I had to replace the graphics card that cost around $500 USD. A few months ago I had to replace the 1/2 AA battery made in Israel for $20. Luckily that battery could be easily replaced on the mother board's socket. The genius guy in the Apple store wouldn't even touch the machine and sent me straight to Radio Shack. They sell those batteries.

 

Of course, the latest OS software the PPC runs is Mac OS X Lion, 10.5.8 IIRC. So none of the latest image processing software runs on it. It doesn't even recognize RAW image formats from newer cameras such as a NEX-7 or a D800E. However, DNG images from my M9 are processed fine with PS3.

 

Why keep that machine alive? It still is a fabulous file server with the two Firmtek 4-port SATA cards installed that can access in principle up to 8*5=40 disk drives with the 5-disk port-multiplier enclosures I have, one SATA cable serving up to 5 drives. BTW those external SATA ports operate at 3 Gbit/s each. However, the internal SATA bus only runs at 1.5 Gb/s and is woefully slow to run the OS from. So, I don't use the internal SATA functionality at all.

 

Instead, I have attached an old 4-port non-port multiplier enclosure to one of the external SATA cards sitting in the 133 MHz slot. The other available slot, not used by the graphics card, runs only at 100 MHz.

 

In the 4-port enclosure I built a software RAID with 4 CRUCIAL 256 GB SSDs, resulting in a 1 TB partition that can boot the OS. The SSDs can perform at 6 Gb/s each and have a form factor of 2.5". However, an inexpensive adapter lets them fit into a 3.5" enclosure and operate at 3 Gb/s. So, all is well, rock solid and very fast, faster than the computer ever was.

 

First, the SSD RAID boots the OS extremely fast. Second, it sustains a data rate of up to 750 MByte/s for large data sets, like duplicating a 20 GByte file for example.

 

So, that leaves me with 4 SATA ports on the other card for a total of 20 drives for file server purposes. With the latest available and affordable 4 TB drives I could in principle support up to an 80 TB file server. At the moment I have a mixture of 1, 2, 3, and 4 TB drives for a total capacity of close to 40 TB.

 

Of course, I have multiple back ups for my data and I only need to power on the back up drives/enclosures when needed. That saves a lot of electricity and reduces the noise level.

 

Also, the latest 4 TB drives typically sustain up to 100-150 MB/s data rates that beautifully match the data rate of my 5th generation Airport wireless and gigabit Ethernet switch that sustains up to 110 MB/s from and to my 3-year old MacBook Pro that is equipped with a 512 GB CRUCIAL SSD and the maximum 8 GB of memory. So, one doesn't need to configure the newest SATA drives anymore into a RAID for increased performance and one gains additional robustness.

 

 

So, I can easily await the arrival next year or two of the anticipated Mac Pro so long as nothing further is failing in my setup.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[gshay]

A

[Paul J]

Hi Paul,

 

I agree a Mac Pro - once Apple comes out with the next model with Thunderbolt and USB3 - should last a decade performance-wise if it doesn't break down beyond 5 years. Here in the US the Apple stores only have diagnostic equipment for items less than 5 years old.

 

I know Apple does offer different CPU versions when one purchases such a computer. Did you mean by upgrade that or did you mean that one can upgrade when the next generation of CPU chips comes along?

 

 

BTW I have an 8 year old dual G5 PPC 2.5 GHz, 8 GB Mac Pro. Several years ago I had to replace the graphics card that cost around $500 USD. A few months ago I had to replace the 1/2 AA battery made in Israel for $20. Luckily that battery could be easily replaced on the mother board's socket. The genius guy in the Apple store wouldn't even touch the machine and sent me straight to Radio Shack. They sell those batteries.

 

Of course, the latest OS software the PPC runs is Mac OS X Lion, 10.5.8 IIRC. So none of the latest image processing software runs on it. It doesn't even recognize RAW image formats from newer cameras such as a NEX-7 or a D800E. However, DNG images from my M9 are processed fine with PS3.

 

Why keep that machine alive? It still is a fabulous file server with the two Firmtek 4-port SATA cards installed that can access in principle up to 8*5=40 disk drives with the 5-disk port-multiplier enclosures I have, one SATA cable serving up to 5 drives. BTW those external SATA ports operate at 3 Gbit/s each. However, the internal SATA bus only runs at 1.5 Gb/s and is woefully slow to run the OS from. So, I don't use the internal SATA functionality at all.

 

Instead, I have attached an old 4-port non-port multiplier enclosure to one of the external SATA cards sitting in the 133 MHz slot. The other available slot, not used by the graphics card, runs only at 100 MHz.

 

In the 4-port enclosure I built a software RAID with 4 CRUCIAL 256 GB SSDs, resulting in a 1 TB partition that can boot the OS. The SSDs can perform at 6 Gb/s each and have a form factor of 2.5". However, an inexpensive adapter lets them fit into a 3.5" enclosure and operate at 3 Gb/s. So, all is well, rock solid and very fast, faster than the computer ever was.

 

First, the SSD RAID boots the OS extremely fast. Second, it sustains a data rate of up to 750 MByte/s for large data sets, like duplicating a 20 GByte file for example.

 

So, that leaves me with 4 SATA ports on the other card for a total of 20 drives for file server purposes. With the latest available and affordable 4 TB drives I could in principle support up to an 80 TB file server. At the moment I have a mixture of 1, 2, 3, and 4 TB drives for a total capacity of close to 40 TB.

 

Of course, I have multiple back ups for my data and I only need to power on the back up drives/enclosures when needed. That saves a lot of electricity and reduces the noise level.

 

Also, the latest 4 TB drives typically sustain up to 100-150 MB/s data rates that beautifully match the data rate of my 5th generation Airport wireless and gigabit Ethernet switch that sustains up to 110 MB/s from and to my 3-year old MacBook Pro that is equipped with a 512 GB CRUCIAL SSD and the maximum 8 GB of memory. So, one doesn't need to configure the newest SATA drives anymore into a RAID for increased performance and one gains additional robustness.

 

 

So, I can easily await the arrival next year or two of the anticipated Mac Pro so long as nothing further is failing in my setup.

 

Hey K-H how goes it?

 

You can upgrade the processors by yourself. Take off the heat sinks and drop the new chip in (you can buy them online). There's more to it but there are plenty of how-to's on the net about it. You can upgrade an old dual 4 core to a dual 6 core etc.

 

Your system sounds excellent. I have a 6 core 3.3 and the 4 bays filled with 3tb drives in raid0. 12TB of super fast storage. 2 SSD's as a RAID0 Boot/scratch/cache/working project drive. All working really well. Astonishingly quick. I'm planning to drop in a PCi SSD Drive and also USB 3 card when I feel the need for it. I've updated the RAM from 24GB to 48GB.

 

I wouldn't hesitate to recommend a current iteration of Mac Pro for years of extended use.