iMac or Mac Pro

[cocker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

At present I run my photographic software (CS3 etc) on my office Windows PC. I'm thinking of getting a Mac to use solely for photography. I'm inclined to go for an iMac (3.06GHz with 4GB Ram) but wonder whether I should also think about the Mac Pro. It's obviously a significantly higher cost and a larger footprint.

 

Apart from the ability to add discs etc into the bays of the MacPro would I really see a great advantage in performance from spending an extra £600-£800 after i have bought a monitor as well?

[jmr]

Keith,

 

I think the iMac would be the one to go for.

 

Here's an article on which Mac to choose.

[spylaw4]

Keith, I agree with jmr - go examine an iMac 24" - try looking at the options at the on-line Apple Store. Larger hard drive costs - 750Gb @+£60; 1Tb @+£150, but buy your extra 2Gb RAM from Crucial - much cheaper! It may also be worth getting Applecare, and you can get additional software (e.g. Aperture) pre-loaded.

[andybarton]

Don't forget that Adobe will sell you a cross-grade licence for your Photoshop

 

And, I second Crucial for your RAM - don't even think about buying it from Apple.

 

And, I also second the iMac solution. Just make sure you are happy with the glossy screen...

[lemalk]

iMac.

No doubt about it.

At this point.

 

Keep in mind - the WWDC is in June (Apple Developer Connection - Worldwide Developers Conference 2008) and Apple usually unveils new high-end workstations like the MacPro at this event. Sometimes the upgrade is substantial, sometimes not so much.

 

But, if you're not in a hurry, I'd wait.

[cwf]

I also highly recommend the buying a Mac article in the current issue of MacWorld. Very informative and balanced, imho.

 

And it does confirm that iMacs are quite attractive if form factor or price is much of a consideration.

[topoxforddoc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Keith,

 

I like my Mac Pro. Having 4 swappable drive bays and loads of expansion is great. Photo files take up a huge amount fo room and a standard IMAC drive will fill up quickly.

 

Charlie

[Photon42]

if you want to save money, go for a 20" iMac with 2.66 GHz and upgrade RAM yourself, as spylaw4 suggests - easy. Difference in processor speed to the top end model is hardly sensible. I cannot comment on the probably much faster graphics card and its impact for photographers. For the difference, you can get yourself a nice external network drive, either hot pluggable or mirroring.

 

What you certainly will feel is the difference in speed between two cores (iMac) and eight cores (MacPro), if the software takes advantage of it (which PS3 does). If find the MacPro very cool with a great design, but I'd rather get be a very decent MF scanner than that.

 

Regards

Ivo

[Rolo]

Keith,

 

Mac Pro, if you have the space and are happy to spend the money.

 

iMac is a great product, but the glossy screen is an issue for many. iMac with a second 'flat surface' 24" screen (assuming that can be done) might be a good solution.

 

Rolo

[andybarton]

iMac with a second 'flat surface' 24" screen (assuming that can be done) might be a good solution.

 

Rolo

 

It can.

 

External storage is also cheap

[sreidvt]

Obviously, there are pros and cons either way but I would argue that the Mac Pro has these advantages:

 

1. Four accessible drive bays *and* the potential for 4 external E-SATA 3.0 ports (which is how I'm set up). E-SATA is much faster than USB 2.0 or Firewire 800. I'm using 8 SATA drives with my Mac Pro (4 internal and 4 external) and the speed advantage is very helpful to me.

 

2. Option to use up to 32 GB RAM. I'm using 6 now and will go to 8 later this year.

 

3. Option to use *exactly* the monitors one likes (primary and, if desired, secondary)

 

I'm sure the iMac has advantages as well.

 

I bought the 4-core 2.8 Mac Pro and it flies.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[rob_x2004]

If you are happy with the absoute BUCKET OF SHIT screen on the iMac when it comes to image editing then go for it. If you want a good play time machine for mail skype or managing your ipod...then go for it. The iMac is definitely garbage material for anything that requires your assessment on screen of changes you make.

[eurochez]

If you are happy with the absoute BUCKET OF SHIT screen on the iMac when it comes to image editing then go for it.

 

I'm not sure how such a patently inaccurate comment can be taken seriously but in order to present some facts for objective analysis, the current iMac line-up gives you 2 panel choices:

• The 20" iMac comes with a TN-film, 6-bit panel
  
• The 24" iMac comes with a S-IPS, 8-bit panel
  

 

Admittedly, TN 6-bit panels are not ideal for reviewing photographs (though certainly no worse than many consumer-grade panels) but I query whether anyone on this board can honestly tell the difference between properly calibrated panels using the software dithering required on a 6-bit panel and a true 8-bit panel!

 

regards

Rafael

[Overgaard]

The iMac series was just upgraded few weeks ago and will most likely not be upgraded more this year.

 

iMac is loads of value for the money - just stuff it with RAM which is the more important part than Mhz and all.

 

External drives is the way to go so you change computers but keep storage (just plug the firewire into the new computer or labtop).

 

The article is very true. In the old days one had to go for the optimum speed machines with max ram. Today one can do with the smallest models with max of ram, at least for any normal PS works and other work like text, e-mail, etc.

[stevelap]

I use a Mac Pro, it's got far greater expansion potential of course (and you get to choose the size of your monitor) but if you don't need that capability (or have the space for the tower) then the imac is a fine machine at a useful cost saving.

 

I second those who recommend Crucial by the way. Their RAM modules have a good reputation, cost much less and I've never had any problems with them.

[stunsworth]

Mac Pro. If you already have monitors you can use - since you already have a PC I assume that you do - then for the short term at least you can use those and then there isn't _that_ much difference in cost.

 

That's my medium term plan at least.

[cocker]

I'm off tomorrow to have a look at them in the Manchester Mac Store - much better informed thanks to the very useful comments.

[cbretteville]

Great input, thanks! I'm pondering the same. Have decided to go Mac, but which one to choose.

- Carl

[gwelland]

MacPro - a lot more flexibility to select exactly what you need and chose whatever screen you'd like.

 

In either case I would definitely go with AppleCare, particularly if you go with an all in one unit.

 

Another vote also for getting your memory from just about anywhere other than the Apple Store.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[kbingman]

I just sold my white iMac 24" and got a Mac Pro. I am very happy with it. The iMac was nice, but I quite ran out of space and external hard drives can be a pain. Plus that model was limited to 3 GB of RAM, which with Aperture and Photoshop slows it down a bit.

 

I have a 2.8 Mac Pro now and it flies.