iMac for Photography?

[Nathan]

There's an older thread here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=369523) advising not to buy an iMac for Photography. Is this still the general consensus?

Also, I saw once a link on here to a 3rd party authorized retailer that sells previous generation Macs. Any idea what that site might be?

[rikaro]

Yes it's still somewhat true. The screens are too bright to calibrate :(

Every iMac photographer is waiting for a firmware update.

[siuleung]

Computers should not be used for photography. They don't have neck straps, or camera luxuries such as image sensors and lenses. And if you took pictures with an Apple, your pictures would come out very pretentious and trendy. Horrible idea.

[Moppie]

There's an older thread here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=369523) advising not to buy an iMac for Photography. Is this still the general consensus?

Also, I saw once a link on here to a 3rd party authorized retailer that sells previous generation Macs. Any idea what that site might be?



Lots of reason not to use an iMac for photography:

Laptop based dual core processor is now a bit slow for processing images from new cameras. Ok if your working on a few images at a time, or shoot JPEG only, and occasionaly.

Limited RAM capacity limits ablity to handle large files in photoshop. Important if your working with lots of layers, large panoramas etc.

Single Harddisk has so many limitations I don't think I can list them all. It is also NOT user upgradable, so when you run out of space you limited to using external units.
It means no internal back up of photos.
No seperate scratch disk.
Limited space.
Effect access times when multi tasking.

Screen on the new 24inch ones is quite nice, looks pretty good for an LCD.
But, its fixed to the rest of the hardware, so you can't change it if you want to.
I wouldn't worry about the concerns over calibration.


The thing to remember is the iMac is meant to be a consumer computer. They are designed for general home use, surfing the net, watching movies, playing with the family snapshots from a little compact etc.
The laptop based processor, limited RAM and single hard disk means they are not well suited to multi-tasking, running multiple applications at once, or handling large, high resolution files from a high end digital camera.

If your really serious about your photography and post processing, then a proper quad core with mulitple hard disks is far better suited.

[Tony-S]

They don't have neck straps, or camera luxuries such as image sensors and lenses.

iMacs have both. ;)

[In2Photos]

iMacs have both. ;)
Tony, I think you just gave me another reason not to buy one! :p

[Tony-S]

Yeah, I wouldn't buy an iMac for photography ATM. Well, perhaps if I were still shooting my PowerShot A70...

[Nathan]

Thanks, Moppie. Now what if my budget is limited to about $2000?

[nphsbuckeye]

Thanks, Moppie. Now what if my budget is limited to about $2000?
Build your own pc would be the most affordable for those with a budget.

[plumers]

or Dell XPS is actually quite nice and very affordable, i got mine for less than 1300. although if you're looking to upgrade stuff (graphic cards, etc) in the future, it's better to build your own pc... if you REALLY loves mac, get a used Mac Pro or Macbook Pro (I prefer the previous generation for its matte screen, have it, love it) is also a good option.

[Nathan]

I've been with Apple since 1998... I prefer the system over PC. Most of my software is Mac, as well.

[Kronie]

build a hackintosh?

[Tony-S]

There's an older thread here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=369523) advising not to buy an iMac for Photography. Is this still the general consensus?

OK, I think the display is manageable. There's a third-party app, Shades, that allows tuning down the brightness, and the new colorimeters are much better with glossy displays. However, the biggest problem with your 50D is its 15 mpx, 14 bit color depth. If you shoot a lot of raw, almost any Core 2 Duo computer will be sluggish. My iMac (2.16 ghz/2 gb) and my MacBook Pro (2.4 ghz/4 gb) really struggle with my 5Dii raw files. I pretty much use my MBP as an off-loading device for my 5Dii. I don't even think about RAW image manipulation with it. I wait until I get the files onto my 3 ghz quad-core hackintosh for RAW image processing.

Of course, the 3 ghz iMac may be able to pull it off, but I suspect not as well as a quad core.

So, there you go. My personal experience.

[kini]

Lots of reason not to use an iMac for photography:

Laptop based dual core processor is now a bit slow for processing images from new cameras. Ok if your working on a few images at a time, or shoot JPEG only, and occasionaly.

Limited RAM capacity limits ablity to handle large files in photoshop. Important if your working with lots of layers, large panoramas etc.

Single Harddisk has so many limitations I don't think I can list them all. It is also NOT user upgradable, so when you run out of space you limited to using external units.
It means no internal back up of photos.
No seperate scratch disk.
Limited space.
Effect access times when multi tasking.

Screen on the new 24inch ones is quite nice, looks pretty good for an LCD.
But, its fixed to the rest of the hardware, so you can't change it if you want to.
I wouldn't worry about the concerns over calibration.


The thing to remember is the iMac is meant to be a consumer computer. They are designed for general home use, surfing the net, watching movies, playing with the family snapshots from a little compact etc.
The laptop based processor, limited RAM and single hard disk means they are not well suited to multi-tasking, running multiple applications at once, or handling large, high resolution files from a high end digital camera.

If your really serious about your photography and post processing, then a proper quad core with mulitple hard disks is far better suited.

Based on these assumptions and opinions everyone who owns a laptop need to immediately throw them in the garbage.

Seriously there are many, many photographers, professional and ameture using laptops as their main work machine and using calibrated external monitors- which of course you can do with an iMac as well.

As for building your own computer it's a niche "hobby". Buying a Dell entails its own set of issues, such as their customer "service" or lack there of, having to use Windows, at least at first, questionable QC, third rate components etc....

An iMac will work fine for 90% of photography. External storage is quick and convenient and something you'll likely end up with even with a tower case. NAS are cheap and easy.

If you plan on doing a lot of video then the iMac is not the best bet. Otherwise it makes a fine computer for nearly everything.

Gene

[Moppie]

Based on these assumptions and opinions everyone who owns a laptop need to immediately throw them in the garbage.

Seriously there are many, many photographers, professional and ameture using laptops as their main work machine and using calibrated external monitors- which of course you can do with an iMac as well.



I suggest you read Tony's post, an excellent first account of why dual core computers are no longer ideal for serious photographic post processing.

I've also used a dual core machine, and found it did not perform nearly as well as my quad core. And that was working on files from my 30D, which are a 1/3 to 1/2 the size of the files from a new 50D, and 1/4 the size of files from a 5D MKII.

The iMac, and with a few exceptions, all current laptops are dual core processors. So yes, they are not ideal.

Note that "not ideal" is not the same as "can not be used" or "will not work".
A dual core iMac or laptop with enough RAM is quite capable of editing photos, just don't expect to be editing more than a couple from a modern DSLR at a time, or working on large Tiff files with lots of layers, and deffnitly don't expect to be able to multi-task while doing it.

Yes, there are lots of people working happily on laptops and other dual core computers. Most of them are shooting with older, lower resolution cameras, or are here starting threads about upgrading because thier old computer is to slow, or they are compromising somewhere.



People need to get over the idea that building your own computer is a "niche hobby".
Only a short time ago people who wanted to process thier own photos had to build a dark room in thier house and learn how to use dangerous chemicals.
Learning how to click together a couple of parts is very simple in comparison.
If your serious about processing your own photos, then learning to how build your own PC is much simpler than having to build your own darkroom.


You can of course get a computer built for you.
People need to get over the idea that only Apple, Dell and HP make and sell computers. There are thousands and thousands of computer wholesalers all around the world who can build you virtually any machine you need.
The really good shops can advise you on the parts you need, and will offer excellent, and personal after sales support.

It is easy to get a list of parts from the advice on this forum, then get those parts assembled into a complete, reliable, stable and high end, system by one of these stores.

[Tony-S]

Based on these assumptions and opinions everyone who owns a laptop need to immediately throw them in the garbage.

No, I think you just have to understand that the 50D, 5Dii and 1D (and likely the new Rebel) really stress dual core computers, and that includes all but a few laptops (those now shipping with quad cores) if you process raw images. The other cameras will work fine with an iMac.

If you plan on doing a lot of video then the iMac is not the best bet. Otherwise it makes a fine computer for nearly everything.

I think iMacs are just fine for most video - 720p and 24 fps. Where it'll have problems is with 1080p 30 fps (i.e., 5Dii video).

[nphsbuckeye]

Based on these assumptions and opinions everyone who owns a laptop need to immediately throw them in the garbage.

Seriously there are many, many photographers, professional and ameture using laptops as their main work machine and using calibrated external monitors- which of course you can do with an iMac as well.

As for building your own computer it's a niche "hobby". Buying a Dell entails its own set of issues, such as their customer "service" or lack there of, having to use Windows, at least at first, questionable QC, third rate components etc....

An iMac will work fine for 90% of photography. External storage is quick and convenient and something you'll likely end up with even with a tower case. NAS are cheap and easy.

If you plan on doing a lot of video then the iMac is not the best bet. Otherwise it makes a fine computer for nearly everything.

Gene
Niche hobby or way to save thousands?