Possibly purchasing an imac, confused over specs, do you use an Imac?

[Rachel B]

After having many problems with my HP (it was top of the line brand new 2.5 years ago) after having several people look at it, take it to pieces, reinstall, uninstall, reinstall with and without updates, replacing hardware and a bunch of other technical stuff. There are a couple of other things we may or may not try and replace on the HP - just depends on cost, and since there is no guarantee replacing bits will keep it working we are considering a new computer.

Since the HP has been out of action I am using an old (maybe 8 years old) Gateway windows 98 pc, which works just fine, but the memory is so small most of my pictures are on external hard drives and LR is slowish.

So we are contemplating upgrading to an Imac. It seems like its probably the best choice for people who spend alot of time editing and taking many pictures.

There are lots of options with the Imacs, and I had a few questions for those of you who own them...

When it comes to editing is there much difference between the 3.20GHz Intel Core i3 and the 3.60GHz Intel Core i5? Im trying to figure out if I need the i5, apple site says photo editing benefits from the faster processor, but Im wondering if the i3 is fast enough...its not like Im shooting weddings every weekend and have thousands of photos to batch edit. the most I seem to do are small portrait sessions with around 100 shots or landscapes (my real love) anyone use i3 and find it fast enough?

There are also different memory options:
# 4GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
# 8GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 4x2GB [Add $200.00]
the 4gb is standard, but is it going to be a noticable difference to add the 4x2gb?

There are different graphics card options too:
# ATI Radeon HD 5670 512MB GDDR3 SDRAM
# ATI Radeon HD 5750 1GB GDDR5 SDRAM
I would love to hear real views on if I need the better one...

And silly question but Aperture 3 is like LR right? so since I have LR that can be loaded on mac I dont need aperture?

Not sure if I am going to go the mac route, but if I do, I want to know what I need.

Thanks

[Tony-S]

I have a 27" i7 iMac and it's been a great machine. Things to consider if you want one:

1. The display is very nice (H-IPS), but the glass has real reflection issues. Not a problem if you're in a controlled environment.
2. The i3 is a dual core processor, the i5 is a quad core processor and the i7 is a quad core processor with hyperthreading (30% boost to apps that use hyperthreading, such as Aperture, but not Photoshop).
3. Buy the minimum ram from Apple and upgrade elsewhere, such as Other World Computing.
4. The graphics card is most important if you use Aperture or Pixelmator. Not so much for Adobe products but that is changing.
5. Yes, Aperture is like LR. I prefer Aperture for its speed since it uses hyperthreading of the i7 cpu and the gpu cores of the graphics card. But you should try both to see which suits your flow.

[Titus213]

I have a 27" i7 2.8 and love it. The 2.8 model has the ATI Radeon HD 4850 with 512 Meg. I just made the move to Mac a couple of months ago. I bought a refurb from the Apple store online. No issues, full warranty with the ability to add extended warranty coverage thru Apple. They basically treat the refurbs like new machines.

I didn't have an option on the memory - refurbs are not modifiable from Apple - but have been in the process of upgrading to 12 Gig of memory through Other World Computing. The first set of chips they sent had one good one, one bad one so they have been sent back. Upgrade cost will be $120 with the price evidently dropping. Installation was literally a snap and Other World Computing was easy and helpful to work with.

I use Photoshop and purchased the iMac when I decided to upgrade to CS5 so it was a simple upgrade cost. I've had to replace some other software but it hasn't amounted to $100.

My biggest problem? Apple does not have a decent, affordable, home finance package that will replace Quicken on the PC. I settled on a package called iBank and have been satisfied so far.

[r31ncarnat3d]

Originally Posted by Tony-S

I have a 27" i7 iMac and it's been a great machine. Things to consider if you want one:

2. The i3 is a dual core processor, the i5 is a quad core processor and the i7 is a quad core processor with hyperthreading (30% boost to apps that use hyperthreading, such as Aperture, but not Photoshop).

To clarify, the i5 upgrade from the i3 on the first three configurations is still a dual core. Only the i5 and i7 on the last configuration labeled "Quad Core" is a quad core.

They make both dual and quad core i5s, so it does get a bit confusing.

[toxic]

Yeah, most options are dual-core, only the most expensive model offer quad core i5/i7.

I recommend buying the dual core i5 (3.6GHz), but if money is an issue the 3.2 i3 will still perform admirably. RAM upgrades can be done easily for a lot less money than Apple asks for, so the only option you might consider having them install is the hard drive, since getting to it is a bit involved.

Also, I don't recommend buying any "Mac-specific" memory or whatever, like from OWC. More often than not it's just normal memory (or any part) with a price markup. Any 204pin DDR3 1333 RAM will work.

[Sp1207]

I would never spend the money to move from an i3 to the i5. 13% faster and 50% more expensive.

[Tony-S]

Originally Posted by Sp1207

I would never spend the money to move from an i3 to the i5. 13% faster and 50% more expensive.

No, it's not.

[Titus213]

Actually it's the typical $200 bump from an i3 to an i5.

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by Rachel B

It seems like its probably the best choice for people who spend alot of time editing and taking many pictures.

Its the best choice of Mac for people who can't afford a Mac Pro, but there are plenty of better work station options out there.

The iMac, like all other all in ones, is designed for consumers who want something well built, good looking, with a small foot print.
It was never designed to be used as a serious work station, and like all other all in ones, lacks the versatility of a proper desk top box.
It's by far and away the best all in one on the market, but I would not even consider it as an option for someone who who spends alot of time editing and taking many pictures.


If your serious about doing lots of photography, or even doing it professionally, then consider having a machine custom built for you, either do it yourself, or have a local shop build one for you.
There are lots of good threads here regarding possible options and it means you can get a machine that does exactly what you need.



If you still want an iMac however, then consider the following:

The i3 would be absolute minimum spec for your 30D and 40D files.
The i5 quad would be a better choice.
But, if you plan to upgrade your cameras in the future then the i5 quad becomes minimum spec for handling large numbers of files from the current high MP cameras.
The i7 would be a far better choice.

Get the biggest HDD you can afford, replacing it is not something you can do easily yourself.

Ram you can easily upgrade yourself, and at much less cost than buying from Apple.
4GB is ample for the 30D and 40D files, but you will need 8GB if you upgrade to a current generation camera.

And don't get too attached to it. In 2-3 years when the rest of the technology has moved on, and it's time for a new system, then you have to throw everything away, screen, the whole lot, and start again.
Cost of ownership then becomes what ever you can get for it second hand, ok for a consumer, but not a smart way to run a business.

[DunnoWhen]

Originally Posted by Titus213

My biggest problem? Apple does not have a decent, affordable, home finance package that will replace Quicken on the PC.

Dave, have you had a look at Moneydance?

[Titus213]

Originally Posted by DunnoWhen

Dave, have you had a look at Moneydance?

I read the reviews on Moneydance and saw some problems but I did not download a trial. It seems they had a 100 transaction limit on their free trial, an issue that stopped me from buying MoneyWell too.

I'll revisit Moneydance and see how it compares to iBank.

Thanks for the suggestion.

[NGordon]

I have a 27" i7 Imac, and I'm curious as to what you guys are doing that don't consider this to be a capable workstation

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by NGordon

I have a 27" i7 Imac, and I'm curious as to what you guys are doing that don't consider this to be a capable workstation

Running multiple internal HDD's, replacing HDDs every 12-18 months as capacity increases, running identical dual monitors, upgrading monitors independently of the hardware, quite system even when running at 100%, back ups through e-SATA, internal CF card reader.
I'm sure theres lots of other things

[MaxxuM]

Originally Posted by NGordon

I have a 27" i7 Imac, and I'm curious as to what you guys are doing that don't consider this to be a capable workstation

I think it's more of a wording issue. There's 'capable', there's 'optimal' and finally, 'desirable'. They all could mean different things. Moppie makes some valid points, but I think most of those are desirable. Most people don't upgrade their CPU's, HDD's or even add internal HDD's - but many will add external drives. Most PC's offer at least the space/connections for an extra drive and the option for upgrading a GPU. You'd be surprised the limitations on OEM computers though. Many are hardwired to only accept certain CPU's and small form factor PC's are a PITA to upgrade anything in because there's so little room.

The iMac line is very capable. In fact, it's far more capable than the lion share of complete systems in the PC world which come with gaming monitors and limited video, photo and audio editing software. The Mac Pro would be desirable and perhaps optimal, but it's not exactly in most people's budget.

When it comes down to it, the iMac has one significant drawback though. If the HDD fails, it will take an Apple (certified) technician to replace it. With Dell or other PC makers, you just need to send the drive back or replace it yourself (hope you bought the recovery disks ). I personally close my Aperture library's each year and move them over to a Drobo. If I need to go look at them for some reason, I just open up the library from the Drobo and scan through them. I thought it would be slower, but it's actually not bad - though I wouldn't want to edit hundreds of photos that way. I have four library's archived and another sitting on my laptop which is backed up onto a FW800 drive in case I need to move it to my Mac Pro for some reason. If Apple just placed a bay on the back to replace HDD's I would consider it the best all around editing station.

[Moppie]

The limitations certainly are not limited to just the iMac.
I've seen plenty of brand name desk tops that were just as, or even more limited.
And yes, for the "average user" the iMac can be a great computer.

But, what is the "average user"?

Given that this is a photography forum, everything relates back to photography.
So the average user is going to be a photographer.
Every photographer is different, but we have an obligation to provide the best information and advice.
Sometimes that means pointing out flaws in a product that people might not be aware of by breaking down mis-conceptions, and there are plenty of mis-conceptions around computers and their use in photography.