| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Is the new iMac fast enough for photo work?
Steve Puppe, Photographer
 |
Mission | KS | USA | Posted: 9:10 PM on 09.12.06 |
| ->> I've been looking at either the 20" or 24" iMac. Configured with 2gb of Ram, 500gb hd and upgraded graphics card both machines are at least $500 less than the MacPro. I know Photoshop runs slow on all of the new Intel machines but C1 does raw conversions really fast even on my Macbook. Are the new iMacs fast enough for general photo work and would you prefer having the extra screen over the MacPro? I already have a 24" monitor but two 24" monitors wouldn't be that bad. The price on the memory for the new Macs is over the top for anything beyond 2gb so either machine I got would probably be at 2gbs right now. As with most people I would upgrade every 3-4 years so a great deal of expansion isn't necessary. Thanks for the input. |
|
Steven Mullensky, Photographer
|
Port Townsend | WA. | USA | Posted: 10:34 PM on 09.12.06 |
->> As a Mac user since '84, I'd say that the new iMac should exceed your expectations.
Steve |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 11:31 PM on 09.12.06 |
->> I agree with Steve.
I use a 500Mhz G4 PB tied to a Sony 19" LCD monitor as my "desktop" Mac ('cause the hinges gave up the ghost a couple years ago). It still works very nicely - it's not as fast as a new machine, but it's fast enough that I rarely feel like it's slowing me down - it's even acting as a print and file server for our other Macs as I do my Photoshop and Photo Mechanic work. |
|
Michael Burns, Photographer
|
San Mateo | Ca | USA | Posted: 12:15 AM on 09.13.06 |
| ->> go to a local Apple Retail and check and play with the iMac to see if it meets or exceeds your expectations. You can ask if they can install some specific softwares they might have available to try it out. |
|
Kevin Sanders, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Des Moines | IA | USA | Posted: 12:44 AM on 09.13.06 |
->> I'm currently running Mac OS X on an Intel iMac... 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo with 2 GB DDR2 SDRAM. I usually have tons of programs open while I'm editing: Mail, Safari, iCal, Transmit, Photoshop, Photo Mechanic, iTunes, instant messaging software (Adium) and can't forget the countless widgets and things that I also have on the menu bar up on top.
Even if I have a couple dozen or so photos and all those mentioned above opened up, it exceeds my needs. If you're on a budget, the iMac is the way to go, but if you can afford the extra change I'd move up to a Mac Pro... those are ultra-fast and sturdy, but the iMac is good enough to do the job for me. |
|
Peter Quinn, Photographer
|
Fort Worth | TX | USA | Posted: 12:47 AM on 09.13.06 |
->> I recently came into a new MacBook as a replacement for my Powerbook. I am using it as my travel laptop and at home I have a Mac G5 set-up. I had been looking at the MacBook Pro but I was able to trade for a lens I wasn't using so it was a good deal to me. I know it's not quite Apples to Apples, but the MacBook and iMac are along the same lines. Ok, anyway...I was initially a bit disappointed until I upped the RAM to 2GB. Once I did that I was pleased with the performance I got from the MacBook. I typically use Bridge and CS2 and even processing D2X RAW files it does a pretty decent job. Granted I'm not processing hundreds of RAW's at a whack. Standard jpg workflow for me is fine. Other than just planning on putting in more RAM I think that you would be happy with the iMac for most applications.
Of course the disclaimer is.... How will you be using this? |
|
Kirby Yau, Photographer, Assistant
|
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 1:02 AM on 09.13.06 |
| ->> Steve, I think you answered your own question, if you think your MacBook is sufficient doing the things your do, then the iMac should blow it out of the water, with a faster HD, possibility of 3gb of RAM, and a dedicated video card there is no doubt its fast enough for photo work. |
|
Aaron Vogel, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Ventura | CA | USA | Posted: 1:22 AM on 09.13.06 |
->> Hey, I just ordered that exact configuration: 20" iMac, 2GB mem., 500GB HD, and upgraded graphics card. I'm mating it w/ my 20" cinema display.
I'll tell you how it is when it gets here on the 27th..
But from playing around with the previous generation of Intel iMacs, and comparing them (in store) with a dual-G5 tower, I can say that the Intel chips kick butt. |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 2:03 AM on 09.13.06 |
->> Here are a couple question for you: What are your data storage plans? What is your preferred connection: USB, FireWire, SATA? Are you sure expansion isn't necessary?
Like most photographers I can only assume you'll eventually outgrow the iMac's internal storage, especially if you shoot RAW. At some point you will need to migrate your archive to external drives. If you prefer USB or FireWire, then the iMac will be OK. But if you're moving around a lot of data I think you would be happier with a more robust SATA solution. Unfortunately, the iMac doesn't offer any SATA. With the Pro, not only can you easily add drives to its internal SATA storage bays, but as you know, you can add expansion cards for additional SATA, including RAID solutions, etc.
I think the iMac will meet your needs, but the Mac Pro will offer more flexibility down the road. Better RAM options, for one, ease of adding additional drives is another... What happens if the display on the iMac fails? You have to give up your entire computer to have it serviced - not so with the Pro. Two 24" screens would definitely be nice... but I would prefer the Pro. Your iMac configuration is already at the price of the base configuration for the mid-range Pro, which offers faster processors and a total of four cores. Sure you'll have to spend some cash on that expensive RAM... but you can save some of that later when adding storage by only having to buy bare drives rather than drives in external housings that clutter up the space saved by the iMac's slim profile. |
|
Kevin M. Cox, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Round Rock (Austin) | TX | US | Posted: 5:01 PM on 09.13.06 |
| ->> If speed is the only issue I agree that you've answered your own question. Macworld tested (http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/imacbench/index.php) and concluded that the new iMacs are 10% faster then the models they replace (which use the same chips as your MacBook). This said, a new iMac would be roughly about 10% faster then your MacBook, so I'd say if you think it is fine for photo work the new iMac would be no problem. |
|
Larry W. Smith, Photographer
|
Valley Center | KS | USA | Posted: 5:40 PM on 09.13.06 |
->> You might want to check on the old iMac when you hooked up an external monitor it only mirrored what was on the original, unlike with a tower you can have two seperate monitors running at once. That might not be an issue and it might it was for me and that is why I went with a tower instead of the iMac so I could run two seperate monitors.
Larry |
|
Kevin M. Cox, Photographer, Assistant
|
Round Rock (Austin) | TX | US | Posted: 6:47 PM on 09.13.06 |
->> Good item to check on Larry, but the new iMacs do support "Extended Desktop" and are not limited to simple "mirroring."
http://www.apple.com/imac/graphics.html |
|
Kirby Yau, Photographer, Assistant
|
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 7:18 PM on 09.13.06 |
| ->> The new iMacs support "extended desktop" or spanning. |
|
Gene Boyars, Photographer
|
Matawan | NJ | United States | Posted: 8:53 PM on 09.13.06 |
| ->> I want to second Michael Burns' suggestion. That was what I did last year when I was in my final decision making process. The folks at the apple store were most helpful and spending an hour there really helped see the difference between the machines I was considering. This was before the intel machines were out and while I found the G5 iMac to be fine for my needs, I could really see the difference in a G5 dual 2.0 so that was the choice I made and I don't regret it. |
|
Barry Curtis, Photographer
|
Laguna Beach | Ca | | Posted: 12:25 AM on 09.14.06 |
->> I found out the hard way that the flat screen IMAC was NOT
what I needed. I would download photos into it thru the iphoto program which is the computer default program using the Canon MK II. The computer, brand new would run so slow.
I went to the genuis bar at the APPLE store 5 times during the first 60 days and they scrathced their heads not knowing why it was running so SLOW. They would say " dont use iphoto"
( what am I suppose to use then?) or they would say
" this computer is for consumer level photographers"
I said to them that the Rebel is a 8megapixel camera just like the MKII so whats the differance.
In my opinion, the only hope is the new intel chips
cause it can not hang unless you have lots and lots of time
on your hands. (waiting for the computer to do something)
Thats my experience from buying the IMAC G5
1gb ram 160gbHD all the bells and whistles
I dont need a whistle
You cant convince a hard core mac user
but I have used both and for photography I can download, and edit 500 photos in about 20 minutes on a PC and about
2 hours on my MAC |
|
Steve Puppe, Photographer
|
Nick Doan, Photographer
|
Scottsdale Phoenix Tempe | AZ | USA | Posted: 10:49 PM on 09.14.06 |
->> I am not sure what issues that Mr. Curtis has run into. Perhaps it was the fact that iPhoto is about as worthless a program for a professional photogrpaher as Microsoft Works was for anybody needing a word processor.
I use an iMac G5 20" 1.83MHz processor with 1GB of RAM, and I have never had an issue running Photo Mechanic, Phototshop CS and CS2, Microsoft Office, iView Media Pro, Toast, Transmit, CuteFTP, iChat, iTunes, iMail, Safari and Firefox. Most of them at the same time.
I understand that the newer iMacs run even faster, I can't attest to that, but the new MacBook running Photo Mechanic runs faster than my powerbook 12" and as fast (if not faster) than my imac G5. Photoshop CS2 also ran as well as on my desktop. THough I am willing to open 40 JPEGs at once on my iMac, I only tried opening 25 at a time on the MacBook.
I am not sure what you need this for Steve, but I can shoot an entire football game, dump my cards (via card reader) to the desktop, open 1500 images in Photo Mechanic, do my edit, open 25-50 photos in Photoshop, edit them, then caption everything in PhotoMechanic, and upload. And, it takes me about an hour from the initial dump. (The longest part is writing the captions...)
If I can do this on my old iMac 20", I am more than sure you'll be fine with the new faster ones. |
|
Gene Boyars, Photographer
|
Matawan | NJ | United States | Posted: 11:33 PM on 09.14.06 |
| ->> I have to agree with Nick. iphoto is not for professional use. Disable it, uninstall it or just ignore it. Use PS, use Photo Mechanic or use anything else but iPhoto. |
|
Jon Ramirez, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Red Bank | NJ | | Posted: 1:24 AM on 09.15.06 |
| ->> I Agree with Gene..........Unload Iphoto. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|