Best computer for digital photography?
May 7, 2012 17:04:38 #
I recently fried the hard drive on my eight year old Apple PowerPC G5 tower - the one I use as the primary graphic engine for my commercial photography business. Although most of the best images and biggest jobs were backed up elsewhere, the incident illustrated to me how slovenly I've been about backing up and cataloging my imagery, and keeping up with the newest technologies. So I'm buying a new computer for my photography business. I'm a committed Mac person, and I've had my eye on the 27" model of the newest version of the iMac. I would be running Photoshop 6 and Aperture 3.0. I have a lot of questions:
*Is the 3.1GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 REALLY much faster that the
2.7GHz version?
*The Intel Core i7 chip is advertised as optimizing gaming, 3D
rendering, etc. Does it improve Photoshop CS 5 or 6 performance?
*Is the upgrade to the AMD Radeon 6970M video card beneficial to
Photoshop performance?
*Is the high-gloss screen a problem when viewing photographs?
I work primarily with still photography and print in large format. I don't currently do video capture, but may start as the system grows. Any thoughts from iMac users?
*Is the 3.1GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 REALLY much faster that the
2.7GHz version?
*The Intel Core i7 chip is advertised as optimizing gaming, 3D
rendering, etc. Does it improve Photoshop CS 5 or 6 performance?
*Is the upgrade to the AMD Radeon 6970M video card beneficial to
Photoshop performance?
*Is the high-gloss screen a problem when viewing photographs?
I work primarily with still photography and print in large format. I don't currently do video capture, but may start as the system grows. Any thoughts from iMac users?
May 7, 2012 21:49:38 #
iMacs are so powerful these days, however, I prefer to use my MacBook Pro 15" 2.7 i7, since I can do the work anywhere. This thing absolutely screams, of course the 8GB of ram helps a ton. Oh, as for high-gloss, NO THANK YOU. They give me a headache after about 30 minutes of work. I run a dual display too.
May 7, 2012 21:53:24 #
Cdouthitt wrote:
iMacs are so powerful these days, however, I prefer to use my MacBook Pro 15" 2.7 i7, since I can do the work anywhere. This thing absolutely screams, of course the 8GB of ram helps a ton. Oh, as for high-gloss, NO THANK YOU. They give me a headache after about 30 minutes of work. I run a dual display too.
Macbook Pro is the best answer I can come up with using Aperture for photo management.
May 8, 2012 08:46:19 #
I have both mac and pc but prefer the mac for speed and graphics both on video and photoshop
May 8, 2012 09:35:17 #
Hi , I do think mac's are a tad better for graphics , but a PC with the right processor and memory can be very good also. the i7 core is a killer for speed, can chew up photoshop , but only if the motherboard and memory are able to support it. 8 GB of memory is good and a fast processor and you will not believe how fast you can work in the most demanding graphics programs. --of course the cost can also be demanding so you have to decide whether or not you are putting that much time into it to get your moneys worth. the i5 core is not to shabby and next to a good memory supply you should do very well.
May 8, 2012 09:51:45 #
Many of us ( G5 ) are hoping for a long over-due MacPro -thunderbolt,latest software upgrades,etc. Besides expandability, the MacPro would allow you to upgrade to a "professional " monitor if you desired.
May 8, 2012 09:59:26 #
I just checked the prices of the 27 iMac...I would definitely go the 15" Macbook Pro route with a second screen.
Excuse the messy desk...
Excuse the messy desk...
May 8, 2012 14:58:01 #
StonyClove.
I can only speak to your first question; is 3.1Ghz faster than 2.7Ghz. Yes it is - but if you can tell the difference in .4Ghz in one second, that is if you yourself can perceive the time lag in something moving that bloody fast, my hat's off to you. The only thing that cares about that speed difference is your processor. In other words, it doesn't matter to YOU, it's only something that matters internally. Personally, I'm still working on what happened this morning, not what happened four 100,000ths of a second ago.
All the other stuff you mentioned seem, to me, to be matters of perception and how much bang you want for your buck. There's not much that can't be solved or made better by throwing money at it. All depends on what you think the results are worth. You'll make the right call. Good luck.
I can only speak to your first question; is 3.1Ghz faster than 2.7Ghz. Yes it is - but if you can tell the difference in .4Ghz in one second, that is if you yourself can perceive the time lag in something moving that bloody fast, my hat's off to you. The only thing that cares about that speed difference is your processor. In other words, it doesn't matter to YOU, it's only something that matters internally. Personally, I'm still working on what happened this morning, not what happened four 100,000ths of a second ago.
All the other stuff you mentioned seem, to me, to be matters of perception and how much bang you want for your buck. There's not much that can't be solved or made better by throwing money at it. All depends on what you think the results are worth. You'll make the right call. Good luck.
May 8, 2012 17:43:21 #
Mac 27 inch with a 17 or 20 inch 2nd screen for menus. But... CDOUTHHITT makes a good argument for the laptop plus 2nd screen. As a graphic designer the 27 inch iMac is wonderful. Just load it up with ram--- it's very cheap!
May 8, 2012 19:38:23 #
I am a PC person and primarily it is because of price, RAID 5 (backup and speed) and still cheaper than a Mac. Does Mac have the capability to build RAID arrays? I am obsessed with backup because I have a computer and photography business. RAID 5 insures me I will never have total failure or lose anything. And my PC runs Adobe CS5 like a dream with a AMD quad core processor, 6 gigabytes of RAM and a Sapphire Radeon 6850 video card with HDMI on a 25' Hanns G HD monitor and over 2 Terabytes worth of hard drives. But of course I built it myself.
May 8, 2012 20:48:44 #
The only raid I know about is on a crack house! I backup to a Seagate drive and an Omega drive. Had a backup drive fail on me a while ago, so I backup to 2 drives... and save the really good stuff to CD. You sound like you know a bunch more than I do!!! Anyone knows more than me.
May 8, 2012 21:00:56 #
hedyd4me wrote:
Does Mac have the capability to build RAID arrays?
I think the only Mac big enough to hold multiple HD is still the Mac Pro desktop (4 drives), maybe the iMac (2 drives) but less space. You can load up to 32GB of RAM and drives of just about any "flavor" of sizes, SSD's and any kind of RAID.
On my MacBook Pro I use external RAID 5, 7,000 rpm drives for multiple backup's.
Alan
May 8, 2012 23:50:46 #
johnr9999
Loc: Carlton, OR
cheineck wrote:
Mac 27 inch with a 17 or 20 inch 2nd screen for menus. But... CDOUTHHITT makes a good argument for the laptop plus 2nd screen. As a graphic designer the 27 inch iMac is wonderful. Just load it up with ram--- it's very cheap!
Buy your RAM quickly. The recent bankruptcy of a large RAM manufacturer in Japan has cause other RAM makers to try to take advantage of the vacuum and increase prices.
May 9, 2012 00:00:58 #
Just read an article in Shutterbug at the shop ( I think it was Shutterbug ). Q and A section. The iMac is not a good choice for photography, the Mac Pro is. The reason is, the screen is backlit, not good if you need accurate colors on the screen. Too bad I read this, I have an iMac and love it.
May 9, 2012 05:23:35 #
I switched to the new 27" iMac a year ago. The best move I ever made! Fast and more reliable then the pc. I love Aperture and I also use PSE9. I just truly love this machine!!!!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.