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.
Why Mac instead of PC for Photography??
- Thread starter mavericks7913
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Does it ever go away!Really!? Are we going there again this evening?
In all seriousness computers and cameras are just tools.
Just pick what you need and use it.
Really!? Are we going there again this evening?
nah, we don't have to go there we already know what's the best!
I've heard that Canons are like Macs and Nikons are like Windows machines. Since I rarely use Windows, and have a Nikon DSLR, not a Canon, I don't really understand the analogy.Pro's use Macs and Nikons.
Maybe it has to do with Nikon maintaining lens compatibility back to the dark ages, and Canon using the (slightly) newer EOS mount.
Funny, I'm fluent in Mac, Windows, and Linux, during the day I work as a server admin and by the time I get home I'm so tired of updates that I prefer Mac just because I know that all that was taken care of for me during the day. Less hassel, less headache, no driver issues, just go time.
[doublepost=1462825689][/doublepost]
Yes also Nikon's El Capitan support is deplorable, love their cameras, but please Nikon, fix your software please!
Super patch Tuesday and a 10,000 server estate... Yeah talk about purgatory eh?!
For just photography? depends on what you choose for software, in part. But lotsa stuff is multi platform.
I say Mac first just because of the retina iMac. It's a better value over the Windows options for 5k. And I think display trumps other stuff, like speed, but that depends on what you need to do.
But without taking into account the 5k, what I like about Windows (or Linux) is the ability to build a photo crunching box from scratch. I've done that with a hackintosh too, but it's more work.
If I was just running Ps and Lr all day it would be a tough choice between the customization of the PC options vs that 5k iMac, but I'd still go retina. And besides I need coffee breaks while that beachball is spinning.
I say Mac first just because of the retina iMac. It's a better value over the Windows options for 5k. And I think display trumps other stuff, like speed, but that depends on what you need to do.
But without taking into account the 5k, what I like about Windows (or Linux) is the ability to build a photo crunching box from scratch. I've done that with a hackintosh too, but it's more work.
If I was just running Ps and Lr all day it would be a tough choice between the customization of the PC options vs that 5k iMac, but I'd still go retina. And besides I need coffee breaks while that beachball is spinning.
Pro's use Macs and Nikons.
Oh please get real. Real pros use Nikons and get someone else to use the Mac for them. (grin).
No, that's not correct. The two kernels of Linux and OS X aren't even related, the Mach kernel was built as a micro kernel while the Linux kernel is monolithic (the distinction is for the most part obsolete these days). Have a look here: Linux has been created independently of the “proper” unix operating systems. But it is not a branch of the original unix like OS X is.
The Linux kernel also doesn't have a relation to the many BSDs that are currently in development (e. g. FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and smaller projects such as Dragonfly BSD), it a from-scratch implementation of many of the ideas of Unix. The reason is very simple: at the time, the BSD projects were in legal hot water, and because Linux was implemented from the ground up, it was not involved in the legal skirmishes. There is also a second huge reason why Linux and BSD kernels are not related: the licenses are mutually incompatible.
That's why some old-timers (like myself) write *nix, unixoid or somesuch to be extra precise about the differences. What is nevertheless correct is that all of these OSes implement a common philosophy (with differences in the details, of course), and if you get non-GUI code to run on, say, FreeBSD, it's easy to make it work on OS X and Linux as well. If that's what you meant with your initial comment, I'm with you.
The history of NT is quite complicated. The underlying OS architecture isn't all that bad actually, especially when it was introduced, it was really a milestone. The problem is everything that is on top of the kernel such as the APIs and the criminally ugly UI. Of course, there were some problematic decisions that were rectified in part later (e. g. the “window server”, GDI, was moved into the NT kernel for a while for performance reasons).
Last edited:
In my younger days (Apple ][+), I was an Apple evangelist - I bled 6 colors and put down everything non-Apple. I am still a strong Apple user on a personal level - I use Windows at work because that is what is required.
I owned Canon film cameras, so when they went digital, I had no compelling reason to start over with Nikon, so I stayed and have been quite happy. Could I get the same images with Nikon? Of course!
My bottom line to computer and camera choice? Why reinvent the wheel? Assuming equal performance/cost (NOT a fair assumption - see below regarding stability, security, etc.), a computer and camera are a TOOL for my work. Tools work for me, I don't work for them.
Now that I am a 50 year old guy, I recognize that all the more. I am comfortable with my Apple and Canon ecosystems and see no compelling reason to change them. I don't want to learn how to manage a windows system or new control layouts on a Nikon body. Our house has multiple wired base stations that seamlessly broadcast our wireless network, multiple AppleTV's stream media all over as well, our myriad computers, iPads, iPhones, and MacBooks all JUST WORK and I've grown quite comfortable trouble-shooting. I would dread having to learn all those pearls and tricks if I had to go Windows. But if Apple disappeared tomorrow, that's just what I would do.
So short answer to long answer - stick with what you are comfortable with and can afford. If something new and shiny comes along, ask yourself if it is worth learning over what you already have.
Definitely agree with this. Been using Nikon and Windows and never ever had an urge to switch.
This is your answer. I can use my iPhone, My cheap point and shoot or my canon rebel to take the same picture. Sometimes it depends on what is needed, and the lighting or angle. When I shoot I usually bring all three.
When I need to work on pictures some time a basic edit in PowerPoint or snag it is adequate while othe time Photoshop is needed.
Believe it or not some of the apps for the iPad are phenomenal in pictures e editing.
We can sit sit here and tell you one is better than the other. As a long time Windows user I am glad to have introduced myself to Mac and added to my toolbox. Both systems have their benefits.
As one colleague put it "sometimes you need a thumbtack while other times you need the nail gun".
Ive seen great work done on both systems.
Photographers and artists in general like to use the Mac because they aren't necessarily wireheads. They want to do their thing and get it into the digital lab for some finish work. With the Mac, the computer comes out of the box with an OS from the company that built (or at least designed) the hardware, so, as they say, It Just Works. With Windows, you generally buy hardware from Dell or HP with Windows installed. Since the hardware people can't just leave well enough alone they stuff it full of all this junk that messes up a perfectly good system. I'm ccurrently muddling along with an HP Pavilion laptop since my '08 MBPro bit the dust (video card). I swear the thing hates being hooked up to a Mac keyboard. I've tried to remove the "HP Assistant" (remove istant) but it keeps reinstalling itself. The only way to get an off the shelf PC to run in a straight line is to blank the drive and install a full price copy of Windows.
Kind of like buying a car and throwing out the engine. Wait...I did that...
And that's why photo folks use Macs...
Dale
Kind of like buying a car and throwing out the engine. Wait...I did that...
And that's why photo folks use Macs...
Dale
Photographers and artists in general like to use the Mac because they aren't necessarily wireheads. They want to do their thing and get it into the digital lab for some finish work. With the Mac, the computer comes out of the box with an OS from the company that built (or at least designed) the hardware, so, as they say, It Just Works. With Windows, you generally buy hardware from Dell or HP with Windows installed. Since the hardware people can't just leave well enough alone they stuff it full of all this junk that messes up a perfectly good system. I'm ccurrently muddling along with an HP Pavilion laptop since my '08 MBPro bit the dust (video card). I swear the thing hates being hooked up to a Mac keyboard. I've tried to remove the "HP Assistant" (remove istant) but it keeps reinstalling itself. The only way to get an off the shelf PC to run in a straight line is to blank the drive and install a full price copy of Windows.
Kind of like buying a car and throwing out the engine. Wait...I did that...
And that's why photo folks use Macs...
Dale
Interesting take on it Dale. I recall several years ago a friend of mine who was getting her doctorate had some challenges with her HP computer and remained only on her Mac. She asked me to take a look at it (the HP). I found her boot discs and asked her to put all the files she wanted on a thumb drive. I then proceeded to wipe the drive, and install just windows and the applications she needed. The little HP for the first time (her words) was fast. I agree that many companies throw so much crap on the system it creates more havoc than help. However, I'll stand by my original comment that a great deal of art/graphics folks remain with Mac because that is what they know and not because Macs (these days) are superior to PCs. What I can agree with is that the Mac experience is often far more pleasant than fuddling with Windows when people get their first computer.
You are jumbling your history up a bit here.
Are you referring to the SCO Unix legal skirmishes? As they were around use of proprietary code in the SVR4 based Linux distros and AIX, Solaris and HP-UX no?
Anyway, this is a photography forum not OS history... so let's stop getting pedantic and move on. My point was, Mac was closer to the systems I worked with at the time so was beneficial to my productivity.
Last edited:
Distro ≠ kernel.
And no, I was referring to the Bell Labs/USL lawsuit from the late 1980s/early 1990s.
Linux vs. SCO was a decade later. This lawsuit not only gave birth to FreeBSD (where the proprietary USL parts of 386BSD were replaced by homegrown code), but also motivated Linus Torvalds to start his own Unix clone project (because neither 386BSD nor the GNU kernel were freely available at the time). So historically, Linux is a Unix clone rather than a proper descendent of Unix.
Regarding SVR4, if memory serves the problem here was not that Linux was using code, but that it could run SVR4 binaries. SCO did allege that Linux was illegally using proprietary source code, but I don't think this was ever affirmed by a court.
Fair enough, I agree, and this was indeed one of the reasons why I fell in love with Mac OS X DP2. I can (and have) the command line open pretty much all the time, but at the same time I enjoy plug & play and a beautiful UX and UI. Best of both worlds really.
Distro ≠ kernel.
And no, I was referring to the Bell Labs/USL lawsuit from the late 1980s/early 1990s.
Linux vs. SCO was a decade later. This lawsuit not only gave birth to FreeBSD (where the proprietary USL parts of 386BSD were replaced by homegrown code), but also motivated Linus Torvalds to start his own Unix clone project (because neither 386BSD nor the GNU kernel were freely available at the time). So historically, Linux is a Unix clone rather than a proper descendent of Unix.
Regarding SVR4, if memory serves the problem here was not that Linux was using code, but that it could run SVR4 binaries. SCO did allege that Linux was illegally using proprietary source code, but I don't think this was ever affirmed by a court.
Fair enough, I agree, and this was indeed one of the reasons why I fell in love with Mac OS X DP2. I can (and have) the command line open pretty much all the time, but at the same time I enjoy plug & play and a beautiful UX and UI. Best of both worlds really.
I like a good debate... I have terminal open constantly too. I am trying to embrace python as a new way of working but I keep getting bored and defaulting to my usual weapons of choice - Korn shell, grep, sed, and awk...
Behind every great app on *nix, there is always a shell script in there somewhere!
Hey I didn't know what a rip was the other day (not the kind generally found in the back of my trousers!)
[doublepost=1462998441][/doublepost]
LOL. Today's version of that is getting a 1024 node high performance compute machine chewing through computational fluid dynamics for a formula 1 team who will remain nameless...