Mac Mini or Mac Studio for Photo Editing

[tim618]

Hi, I am thinking to replace my mid-2010 27" iMac (i7 with 32GB memory and 1TB SSD). The machine is mainly for photo editing using Photoshop and Nikon Capture NX-D (a software for processing raw files by Nikon cameras). And I also use the machine for web browsing, word and excel processing.

While a Mac Studio with 32GB memory can certainly replace my iMac, I researched that the M1 Mac Mini is also a good machine and begin to wonder if it would be a more preferred choice for me given the great price difference between the two. I concern most with the memory size since Mac Mini has only 16GB memory which is half of what I am now using, and the tasks may not fully utilize the power of Studio. Any thoughts and advice?

 

[MajorFubar]

I suspect the Mini will be perfectly good enough. There's nothing in Photoshop that will make a Mac Mini sweat let alone a Studio. Not unless you're merging multiple photos into some mile wide gigapixel mammoth.

Best check first that the Nikon software you seem to rely on will work on an M1 system. Everyone makes out that Rosetta 2 makes all Intel apps work seamlessly, but there are apps (few though they are) that simply do not work properly.

 

[ruka.snow]

A Nikon shooter myself. The base studio is a big upgrade to the mini for photo editing though the NX studio is Intel only still so I would recommend editing on Capture One which is fully native though lacks HE support for the Z9. The extra TB4 ports are invaluable for your card reader as is the 10 Gbps Ethernet for connecting to your storage server unless just have a external drive…in which case back to those TB4 ports.

The mini is by no means a slouch I should add. I would happily use a Mini but have become rather accustomed to the extra power in the Studio.

I’ll also give a honourable mention to the 12 inch iPad Pro. I was able to edit 6500 45 MP RAW files on it over the weekend with a upcoming program that worked just as well as using a Mac mini.

 

[tim618]

I suspect the Mini will be perfectly good enough. There's nothing in Photoshop that will make a Mac Mini sweat let alone a Studio. Not unless you're merging multiple photos into some mile wide gigapixel mammoth.

Best check first that the Nikon software you seem to rely on will work on an M1 system. Everyone makes out that Rosetta 2 makes all Intel apps work seamlessly, but there are apps (few though they are) that simply do not work properly.

Thanks and the Nikon software can run on M1 system with the Rosetta 2 so it won't be a great concern. Just worry if the 16GB memory would be an issue for photo editing task.

 

[tim618]

A Nikon shooter myself. The base studio is a big upgrade to the mini for photo editing though the NX studio is Intel only still so I would recommend editing on Capture One which is fully native though lacks HE support for the Z9. The extra TB4 ports are invaluable for your card reader as is the 10 Gbps Ethernet for connecting to your storage server unless just have a external drive…in which case back to those TB4 ports.

The mini is by no means a slouch I should add. I would happily use a Mini but have become rather accustomed to the extra power in the Studio.

I’ll also give a honourable mention to the 12 inch iPad Pro. I was able to edit 6500 45 MP RAW files on it over the weekend with a upcoming program that worked just as well as using a Mac mini.

Thanks and would like to know if the 16GB memory had caused any issues when using the Capture One?

 

[MajorFubar]

IMO 16GB memory will be more than enough for the average non power user (spend your days editing UHD video etc). Have a look at how big the files are you want to edit.

 

[ruka.snow]

Thanks and would like to know if the 16GB memory had caused any issues when using the Capture One?

I’ve tried the 8 and 16 GB minis and the 32 and 128 GB Mac Studios. The main benefit of more RAM isn’t in individual image editing, it’s in bulk mail where you want to apply a preset to a few thousand images at once or during the initial import. All machines seem about the same when working on one 45 MP image at a time.

 

[tim618]

I’ve tried the 8 and 16 GB minis and the 32 and 128 GB Mac Studios. The main benefit of more RAM isn’t in individual image editing, it’s in bulk mail where you want to apply a preset to a few thousand images at once or during the initial import. All machines seem about the same when working on one 45 MP image at a time.

Glad to hear this as I am not that professional who need apply a preset to few thousand images at once. Thanks for your advice and will go straight for a Mini without second thought.

 

[rumbobmac]

I just moved from 16GB 5yr old PC to MAC Studio Max. I went with 64GB RAM even though I think 32GB would be enough. I am just a hobbyist. Cameras MP are increasing. I went from 24MP to 50MP to 100MP in the last few years. I can use my current PC for 100MP files using C1 but it takes time. Now with Studio Max, it is a breeze. I am talking single image editing. I will go for 32GM at least if the budget allows.

 

[tim618]

I just moved from 16GB 5yr old PC to MAC Studio Max. I went with 64GB RAM even though I think 32GB would be enough. I am just a hobbyist. Cameras MP are increasing. I went from 24MP to 50MP to 100MP in the last few years. I can use my current PC for 100MP files using C1 but it takes time. Now with Studio Max, it is a breeze. I am talking single image editing. I will go for 32GM at least if the budget allows.

Agree but the Mac Mini's maximum is 16GB sadly. Anyone knows if any chance of having 32GB for the next M2 model?

 

[rumbobmac]

Agree but the Mac Mini's maximum is 16GB sadly. Anyone knows if any chance of having 32GB for the next M2 model?

That's why I didn't consider it. And I would need to spend couple of hundred for a nice doc to use with the Mini. Studio MAX has enough ports for my needs.

 

[wilberforce]

The machine is mainly for photo editing using Photoshop

This can cover a huge range. I have an MBP M1 Pro with 16GB, and it is fine for doing typical clean up edits to typical DSLR files (45MP) in Photoshop.
It is when you start to work on stitched panoramas, 200MP files, compositing, hundreds of layers and masks, that you will benefit from more memory.
You say you now use 32GB RAM: I suspect that is how much RAM you have installed, not how much you actually use when running PS. I suggest check Activity Monitor. If you currently regularly use more than 16GB, then 16GB may not be the best choice. Note that PS actually uses more RAM on M1 than it does on Intel - on the other hand RAM is used more efficiently on M1 and the swap is very fast.

 

[phrehdd]

I can only speak from an experience that may simply raise questions. I have an M1 Mini with 512/16 configuration.

I find that having multiple applications open, and especially browsers, seems to consume a lot of memory. So much so that I sometimes get small pauses while using some apps or the browsers themselves.

My efforts remain with mostly using Affinity Photo. I absolutely at times have issues with memory. I use software the memory diag software to help flush the memory.

For me, I wish that Apple did something about the runaway memory but until then, if the Mini came with 32 or even 64 gigs of RAM, I would not bother with 16 gigs and exploit the extra RAM.

 

[Fishrrman]

My opinion only, but...
...if you can afford it, the "base model" Mac Studio should be "enough" to handle almost anyone's "still photo processing needs" for several years to come.

Perhaps more disk storage space if you need it (I believe base model is 512gb).

 

[Maryarena]

Hi, I just upgraded to Studio Max from an iMac 2009! When I bought it, I bought all that my budget could buy. It surely was worth it. It was i7, 16 ram, latest graphics, etc. At that time, it was more than I needed, but over the years, I updated camera, programs became heavier, but my iMac was still running fine. As expected, wow, 2009, for the last years it got slow, RAM was not enough, if I had my regular programs open (Firefox, Photoshop, Lightroom, Facebook, Messages, more or less). Presets, like Topaz would really be slow and I would have to close programs. Apple would not support it anymore either, so I decided to upgrade. I did it thinking, of the megapixels the new cameras have and that definitely, programs will be more demanding and I want a faster computer for the most time possible. Macs are great computers and last a long time! I am sooooooo happy when I open Photoshop and use Topaz DeNoise and it takes no time whatsoever! Photo previews show up so fast. I know I paid a lot, overkilled by buying 64 RAM, but I think in the long run, it will hopefully, be worth it! Nevertheless, I always say, that the best camera, computer, whatever, is the one that you can buy responsibly. Good luck!

 

[rumbobmac]

I did some quick testing and clicking to view 100% using CaptureOne still takes 2 seconds. This with 64GB RAM. I don't think RAM is the bottleneck maybe it is C1 not optimized yet. The files were on internal SSD and 100MB. Export of 500MB+ pano are like 15-20 seconds. Same with making the pano, it still takes 20 seconds. I wish I had the budget to splurge on the Ultra.

 

[lcubed]

as the owner of both a 16 GB mac mini and a 64 GB studio ultra,
i'd recommend going with the ultra.

this assumes you're running adobe software which has notoriously bad
memory management.

or you could wait and find out what apple announces for new hardware in a week.

 

[blacksurfer]

If you can afford it go with the base Mac Studio...It's a beast and will last for years!