I will be graduate after 2 years. I have Macbook pro 15 inch full upgraded version(2013). Well I start feeling that I need a desktop for working cause I need better performance, bigger display, and etc. I really need bigger display for editing photos and better performance to run photoshop, lightroom, and other apps faster. 16gb of ram is not enough I feel. Most graduated photographers seemed to have iMac for working. But I saw the thread that iMac is too expansive base on its performance. Mac pro might be better but I have to add 4~5k display. I do still question about iMac's price. On the other hand, Mac pro is quite expansive. Well maybe Apple gonna release new iMac soon I guess...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iMac or Mac Pro?
- Thread starter mavericks7913
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I run LR plus plugins (PS, Macphun, OnOne) all the time and never have a performance issue. I import to the Macbook SSD, edit the images there and when they are done I use LR to move them to external RAID library which is backed up via Time Machine. When in the field I use the native Macbook screen for basic culling only. Once I am back home I hook up the Macbook to my Dell UP2415Q 4K monitor that is calibrated and complete the work.
You can take a laptop into the field for multiple day/weeks trips and use it again with an external monitor (4K if a 2013 or later). With an iMac or Mac Pro you would still need a laptop for field work unless you plan to only write to SD cards and not do any culling, editing or backup in the field.
Suggestion: Wait for the Macs to be announced this spring. Likely all the models will get update to Skylake CPUs, USB-C ports, USB-3.1 transport, Thunderbolt 3 transport, and more powerful GPUs. That sets the stage for Apple to finally introduce an update Thunderbolt Display that would be 5K.
You can take a laptop into the field for multiple day/weeks trips and use it again with an external monitor (4K if a 2013 or later). With an iMac or Mac Pro you would still need a laptop for field work unless you plan to only write to SD cards and not do any culling, editing or backup in the field.
Suggestion: Wait for the Macs to be announced this spring. Likely all the models will get update to Skylake CPUs, USB-C ports, USB-3.1 transport, Thunderbolt 3 transport, and more powerful GPUs. That sets the stage for Apple to finally introduce an update Thunderbolt Display that would be 5K.
Attachments
Go with the advice from MCAsan. If you can, then wait until the new ones are launched.
If not, a laptop is good for most stuff. I ran off just a MBP (2011 8Gb Ram, PS & LR daily with 5D III RAW files) until just this last week. Now I have a Mac Pro (2009 custom build) and the only reason I have such is because I needed a desktop and wanted the best I could get. I still use the Macbook Pro for work in the field though.
The part of your original post that concerns me though is where you state that most graduated photographers have an iMac. Just because that's what most people do, doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. Analyse your needs, be realistic (don't buy on what you *might* be doing in 10 years time), invest your money in the best spec you can afford and go with that. No client cares what computer you have, they only care what the images look like.
I hope that helps you. I know how much of a decision it is to make trying to decide what to buy. I debated for weeks before buying my Mac Pro.
Look, you just want to get a new computer you do not need. Get an external monitor as MCAsan says. Everybody here does loads of heavy work in macs and the mac you have is just fine, you just do not know how to get the best out of it. I work with 24 Megapixels in my 15" Retina and I am just fine. I still editing HD in a 2008 Mac Pro as well. Learn to use your tools first, is called "experience". All the photographers I have do teh same thing... mac book connected to bigger screen, that is it.
I do need iMac or Mac pro later for editing because I need more ram at least 32gb. Also for the performance, photoshop doest't run that fast and it takes time. That bothered me a lot. I do multi tasking a lot with Safari and other apps for working. You can't just say don't use iMac.
Do not use Safari, use Chrome. I just installed a new system in a new drive and started to use Safari and it was slow, it needs to downloads plugins and some pages looked all scrambled literally, now I knew why people complains so much about Safari, is pretty close to Windows 95... half way developed. Get Chrome, it comes with all the plugins needed and less memory. Actually.... I remember one of my employees having problems editing and we realized he had Safari running in the background.
I have the late 2013 15" rMBP and run Lr, PS CC, FCPX and Motion without any issues. 16GB of RAM is more than ample to run Lr and PS CC. What specific issues are you seeing with Photoshop? i.e. is there a specific filter that's lagging when you run it, or????
A Mac Pro is simply overkill. Unless you're working daily in 3D or using FCXP regularly, it's a waste of money.
A Mac Pro is simply overkill. Unless you're working daily in 3D or using FCXP regularly, it's a waste of money.
Reasons to not buy a Mac until we know more about the new models and USB-C interface. Once the dust settles you can decide if you want to go for a good close-out deal (at somewhere like Adorama) or go for a new model.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/16...ok-lineup-upgrades-to-arrive-in-coming-months
http://appleinsider.com/articles/16...ok-lineup-upgrades-to-arrive-in-coming-months
I'm not sure the iMac is perfect for any photographer.
Glossy screen, sRGB Color space and no uniformity.
I should know as I have one. Of course for photo editing I use my connected matt screen, 99% Adobe colour space uniform NEC Spectraview.
To the OP it's unlikely you would see any difference between 16gb RAM and 32gb RAM in LR or PS even if you are multitasking. If you want a MacPro or iMac then do it, but don't be surprised if you don't see the step up in performance you were expecting.
Agreed. iMacs can have the resources (CPU, GPU, memory, fast boot/cache disk) to do the processing. The newer iMacs with 4K or 5K screens can show you the details of the image. So the question is if the sRGB screen is good enough or do you need a wide gamut Adobe RGB screen. Personally I like very much having an Adobe gamut screen to do editing for printing. If my only output is jpg files that go on the internet, then sRGB gamut monitor is just fine.
Hmmmm
A look at the P3 color gamut of the iMac display (Retina, Late 2015):
http://blog.conradchavez.com/2015/1...r-gamut-of-the-imac-display-retina-late-2015/
A look at the P3 color gamut of the iMac display (Retina, Late 2015):
http://blog.conradchavez.com/2015/1...r-gamut-of-the-imac-display-retina-late-2015/