iMac or Mac Pro

[cocker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you all for your very helpful comments. I decided in the end to go for the iMac (24 inch 3.06 and 4GB memory) I am extremely pleased so far. I'm waiting for Adobe to send me my cross-grade CS3 but working with Lightroom is much more fun already.

[JHAG]

I went for the same after my G5 2x2,5GHz fused last saturday.

I must say that Apple have been very gracious : despite the G5

being out of Apple Care since 4 months, they take up

repair cost in its totality.

 

Having recently invested in a Z3100 large printer, I couldn't justify to buy a MacPro

now. It seems the iMac will perfectly fit the bill — especially after

selling my G5 refurbished free by Apple.

 

The iMac definitely supports 2 screens.

 

Long live, Mr. Jobs.

 

PS : Another interesting piece about the horrible M$oft policies after Katrina and in countries like Peru.

After reading that, I loathe Mr. Gates all the more. For those who believe that M$oft former chairman

has turned philanthropist with his so-called foundation. Disgusting…

 

Obama’s Apple, McCain’s Microsoft: the Politics of Tech — RoughlyDrafted Magazine

 

We're very far from the Leica Freedom Train of Ernst Leitz II…

[cbretteville]

Thank you all for your very helpful comments. I decided in the end to go for the iMac (24 inch 3.06 and 4GB memory) I am extremely pleased so far. I'm waiting for Adobe to send me my cross-grade CS3 but working with Lightroom is much more fun already.

 

Good to hear! I'll be doing the same exercise a little later this summer and believe we'll have the same setup after that.

 

Enjoy your new toy!

- Carl

[topoxforddoc]

Some useful information here thankyou for enlightening me.

 

My 1.25GHz G4 has just ceased working (suspect power supply). I have 2.16 Macbook Pro, but no idea how quick the new Mac Pros are in relation to this. People seem happy with the 2.8, but what extra bang does the 3.0 GHz bring. Is it better RAMming it up so to speak, with the slower clock speed model?

 

Cannot see my file sizes increasing, but the G4 definitely struggled with 1GB+ files.... Hence due to the size of the highest res 5x4 pictures, storage is an issue (volume of digital pix from M8 and D300 is eating space up too), thus ruled out the iMac (plus have SCSI scanner for LF work so may need to fit PCI SCSI card). eSATA sounds good, think I have this on a couple of LaCie external drives.

 

Advice on waiting to June is helpful, may be able to hang on with old HDs in enclosures to access data.

 

 

Baxter,

 

I still have my 1.25GHz DP G4, but also run an original 2.66 Quad Xeon Mac Pro. My wife has a 2.2 Macbook Pro and my son a 2.16 Macbook. The Mac Pro was a revelation compared to the G4 and is significantly faster in real world tasks on Lightroom and PS than the Mac Book Pro.

 

The newer Mac Pros have a faster bus as well as processors, but they have changed the memory specs ie more expensive!! I'm delighted with my Mac pro. When the G4 dies, I'll get another one.

 

Charlie

[dickgrafixstop]

I replaced a MacPro with the 27" iMac and have no problems with the screen, the external firewire disk or the wireless keyboard or the relocated scanner. The MacPro is relagated to server functions with it's four terrabyte drives. A second iMac (24") serves admin functions nicely and all three function well with the networked printers. I'm thinking of adding a second monitor to the 27" but so far haven't run out of "screen space". While I occasionally render

30-50 meg images, I don't lack for performance with the iMac and I'm more concerned with "working smarter" than I am with "working faster".

[hamey]

It's Mac,Mac,Mac......for me.

 

Just Love my Mac.

 

Ken.

[dhsimmonds]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I replaced a MacPro with the 27" iMac and have no problems with the screen, the external firewire disk or the wireless keyboard or the relocated scanner. The MacPro is relagated to server functions with it's four terrabyte drives. A second iMac (24") serves admin functions nicely and all three function well with the networked printers. I'm thinking of adding a second monitor to the 27" but so far haven't run out of "screen space". While I occasionally render

30-50 meg images, I don't lack for performance with the iMac and I'm more concerned with "working smarter" than I am with "working faster".

 

I'm also using a 27"iMac with 4Gb Ram, 1 Tb hard drive and D'Robo with 8Tb (4x2Tb) storage. I really enjoy using the iMac, preferring CS5 and Capture One Pro to Aperture.

The screen is great but I use the Datacolor Spyder Elite 4 (latest update) for calibration as it manages the Imac's brightness and contrast automatically without any manual intervention.

 

The iMac manages all this memory hungry software together with several 50-80Mb Tiff's open on the screen without any problems, still allowing me to use this web site and email program's without closing down the photo editing software or images.

 

I hope that this might help anyone else who may be weighing up the pro's and con's of a new computer for digital imaging.

[Nicoleica]

It's Mac,Mac,Mac......for me.

 

Just Love my Mac.

 

Ken.

 

I wholeheartedly agree. And any Mac is better than no Mac.

[enboe]

Hopefully this answer is not considered to be non-responsive.

 

I find the flexibility of a 15" MacBook Pro, LED Cinema Display, and wireless keyboard and magic pad to be an ideal setup. With 4GB of RAM, the speed is there to run any photo application, and when I need a computer on-location, it is the same computer I use at home.

 

Eric

[R9user]

I had an iMac that was stolen and I replaced with a Mac Pro - if you can afford it is is the way to go, if it is an issue the iMac is a great machine.

In the same sentence I had a Leica M8 that was stolen at the same break in and I replaced with a M9. Fortunately my upgrades were funded by my insurance.

 

In short you will not go wrong with Mac, and your finances should determine your decision. M8 is great, if you can afford an M9 get it. i Mac is great, if you can afford it Mac Pro is better. BMW 1 series is great, 7 Series is better.

 

You get more it costs more, you might get functionality you don't really need, but once you have it you wonder how you ever lived without it :-)

[haroldp]

I use a Mac Pro with 8 X 2.8 ghz cores and 12 gb RAM.

 

Its benefits over iMac are:

 

- 8 cores are really useful for raw processing, which can really eat your lunch as MP counts go up. They are even more important for the panorama processing that I do.

 

- I use a Raid 0 array of the internal drives for the system drive (swap files) and temp spaces, much faster writes. Be sure you have good regular backup as Raid 0 is non-redundant.

 

- MacPro has prodigious cooling capacity, leading to longer component (disk drive) lfe.

 

- SATA and eSATA is much faster than firewire for additional drives.

 

- Separate real graphics monitor ( I use Samsung XL 20, but there are many good ones ) which supports at least the full adobe RGB space is critical for proper editing.

 

- In winter I do not have to heat the room, MacPro does it for me.

 

- Absolutely buy upgrade memory and disk drives from other sources, Apple does not manufacture any of it and marks up the price unreasonably.

 

The iMac is also a fine machine but for my use, the MacPro advantages are important.

 

Regards ... Harold

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

[carylwithay]

I have both. I prefer my iMac for photowork. I use and Intuos stylus and pad attached to the iMac. I use my macBook Pro when I travel. The larger screen on the iMac is also a big consideration. Adding a monitor to a laptop does not seem as efficient to me and takes up more real estate at my work area.

Caryl

[adan]

30 months after the original question, and after a year with a 27" iMac - I have to say that next time I will spend the extra bucks for a Mac Pro "tower."

 

iMacs are designed along laptop principles - that is, the engineering choices are based on size rather than performance. That works for intermittent use limited by battery charge, but not for use 12 hours a day, 7 days a week.

 

My iMac runs very hot (too tightly packed with stuff, not enough fan capacity: 70° C or 160° F with any strenuous processing). And that's with just 2 cores.

 

The slot-load DVD drive scratches disks (and as with my Macbook, the drive is having more and more trouble mounting CD-DVDs after a year). A tray for CD/DVDs, next time.

 

The hard drive failed irretrievably after 3 months - such things happen, but in future I want multiple drives internally so that I can just swap boot drives and keep running after removing the failed drive for replacement. Without having the whole "box" in the shop for a week (and then having to spend 3 days reloading software and files onto the new drive).

 

I had a theory once that any computer has to be replaced every 3 years to maintain compatability with things like new OS, new connectivity, new software, etc. And thus it was better to replace an $1800 iMac than a $3500 Mac Pro. I also had a romantic attachment to the "one box to carry around" simplicity reminiscent of the original Mac. And my previous G5 iMac 20" actually had no problems.

 

Now - I've just learned better. At least for heavy use. An M9 over the shoulder benefits from compactness and simplicity - but a computer sitting on the desk benefits more from robustness and modularity, even if it makes it more unwieldy.

[wparsonsgisnet]

In another post here, I read that the second screen on the iMac cannot be color calibrated separately.

 

I would be interested in the flexibility of the pro package vs the specific package that the iMac provides.

 

I have a 15" Mac Book Pro and need a color balanced screen in the worst way. I would echo the comment above denigrating the iMac screen -- a correctly balanced screen has turned out to be incredibly important to me. Give up something that you can upgrade later to get a good screen.

 

I'm putting pennies in the milk bottle for an Eizo 243.

[Nicoleica]

In another post here, I read that the second screen on the iMac cannot be color calibrated separately.

 

I have 2 monitors on my iMac, and each one can be calibrated individually. (In fact I have had to calibrate each one individually, as one is not an Apple monitor.)

[janki]

iMac or Mac Pro?

I have just received my new 2.8 quad cores Mac Pro and Apple’s new 27 " LED Cinema Display.

The time has come to give my old iMac a relief.

 

Partly because of limited space for my photography pursuits, I had actually decided to buy a new powerful 27 ", 2010 iMac, containing “everything ".

But;

I like to inform myself about products I'm considering buying.

I think this is particularly important the more expensive the item is.

 

In this case, there was no long distance over to Mac Rumors: Apple Mac Rumors and News You Care About.

The more I followed the threads on this forum, the more it became clear to me that the new iMac had serious display problems.

In particular, the phenomenon of "yellow tint" seemed to be more a rule than the exception with these screens.

 

Yes, I am very agreeing with you Andy, I think the new iMac runs too hot!

 

Some think that it is all these energy-consuming components located just behind the screen, which seems to cause a destructive color tint.

In particular, “yellow tint” seems to occur in the area where the video card is located.

 

 

As you already understand, I decided to skip that powerful iMac, and rather go for a Mac Pro at the lower end. This one can easily be extended later. Mac Pro is also equipped with plenty of both Fire Wire and USB ports for all my external devices.

 

 

The new "stand alone" 27 "LED screen seems to have a very consistent light from corner to corner, and no unsightly color shades. For me it's no problem that the screen is of the so-called glossy type.

I have turned down the brightness to about 60%, and I have no strong reflective light sources in the room where it is used.

The screen is a beautiful all-round display! It also looks like it might be an acceptable display to work with photography.

But anyway, with a Mac Pro as a starting point, it is not a problem to connect to a dedicated photo screen later.

 

I just read an article about the new self-calibrating EIZO Color Edge CG 245W, ................ but it will be another story, another time.

[ho_co]

Jan--thanks for the info.

 

I knew my iMac had a yellow screen problem, but hoped that might be a fluke. It's good(?) to know it's a continuing problem.

[dhsimmonds]

I have 2 monitors on my iMac, and each one can be calibrated individually. (In fact I have had to calibrate each one individually, as one is not an Apple monitor.)

 

Yes I can confirm that more than one monitor can be calibrated with a good colour screen calibration device. I use the latest Datacolor Spyder which gets into the iMac's system to sort out screen brightness and contrast without any manual intervention.

[jerryharwood]

Hi, I have both the Imac and the mac tower; the imac is Ok, but I prefer to use the tower, better accessibilty, far easier to upgrade, and you can use the screen of your choice. I use both for mainly photographic work, but also for illustrated articles; To my way of thinking, the mac Pro is a hands down winner- no matter what the size of the job is. !

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[eyejockey]

The biggest problem with all the Imacs is that it is impossible to calibrate their screens to accurately mimic printer colors. The latest models are powerful enough to run Photoshop CS5 etc but they are always too bright even at their lowest settings. I added an additional HP DreamColor monitor using the mini display port and used the Imac screen for menus and such. The outboard monitor became my color reference. Then I sold my Imac and bought a MacPro which is which is what I should have done in the first place,

Best,

Stephen