iMac vs. Mac mini

I am looking to upgrade computers specifically for photo editing and I think I have it narrowed down. I am wanting to spend around $1500 and am going with Mac due to a preference for the OS and it will work well with my many apple devices. (To be used with LR5)

Option 1:
iMac 21.5" late 2013
2.7 Ghz i5
Iris Pro Graphics
16gb Ram upgrade
256 gb SSD
_______________
$1699

Option 2:
Mac Mini late 2012
2.6 Ghz i7
Intel hd4000 integrated graphics
256gb SSD upgrade
16gb crucial Ram
Dell u2410 monitor (used)
_______________
$1587

The iMac has the advantage of being "all in one" and the mini would have a larger monitor and I can have a matte rather than glossy display.

What would everyone choose and why?

I run a Mac Mini at work and at home. i7 with 16GB RAM in both. The one at work is hooked to a Thunderbolt screen. The one at home is hooked to 2 older Dell 21" screens, although an upgrade to a 27" IPS is in the works. Both work very well for editing, although the Thunderbolt I feel has truer whites. Maybe the IPS I'll be getting soon will also show whites better. Both are fast to bring up RAW files in ACR and PS. The Thunderbolt screen, like the iMac, will be vicious with reflections, so keep that in mind when planning where to set up your system. Windows behind you will make editing a pain. My office windows are offset from my desk, so I get little reflection. But my wife has a 21" iMac and windows right behind her. She hates the thing and wants her old matte screen back.

Given your choices, I'd go with the Mac Mini for the better processor and more screen options.

Regarding the glossy screen, it depends on the room the computer is going to be in, like Mark said if the windows are offset from your screen (mine are 90º left of my desk), then even a super glossy screen like my 2010 iMac are going to look fine.

Note that the iMac comes bundled with a mouse & keyboard and has built-in speakers and webcam, if you don't have these already, it'll add up if you choose to get em later.

And this may or not matter to you since LR5 doesn't use the GPU, but Iris Pro has at least 2x the performance of the mini's hd4000 across the board, keep it in mind if there are other applications that you use that are GPU accelerated.

My desk isn't near any windows, so reflection aren't really an issue. Cost wise I won't really save anything by the time I get a mouse and keyboard.

iMac's display doesn't reach sRGB gamut. I also went with a Mini/HD4000. I put in 16 gb of OWC RAM, and installed a 240 gb SSD and 1.5 TB HD and initialized it as a 1.7 TB Fusion drive. You can't really do much to upgrade a 21" iMac.

Tony-S wrote in post #16777150
iMac's display doesn't reach sRGB gamut. I also went with a Mini/HD4000. I put in 16 gb of OWC RAM, and installed a 240 gb SSD and 1.5 TB HD and initialized it as a 1.7 TB Fusion drive. You can't really do much to upgrade a 21" iMac.

What display did you go with?

I have an HP 24" IPS with CFL backlights.

I don't know how to ready your post, but it sounds like the two machines are not new.. as you are putting the year after them.

But an iMac without icare.. I would worry as if the screen blows, your whole system goes along with it. a mac mini is at least very modular that you can pull pieces and replace the unit even if re-buying down the road. the iMac is more a throw-away once its done proposal.

It's a tough call IMHO. The 21.5 inch iMac has the most up to date hardware, but that particular model is not upgradeable (the 27 inch model is, however). You will have to purchase that machine with future capabilities in mind. The Mac Mini, on the other hand, has the oldest hardware and, rumor has it, will be updated in the next several months. However, it is less expensive and you can choose whatever monitor you want.

If it was me making this purchase, I would try to stretch and get the 27 inch iMac. It's upgradeable, has the most up to date hardware, and a larger screen (when I was deciding, the 21.5 was nice but the 27 is better, especially for photo work!)

But the 27" iMac doesn't reach sRGB. For most photographers, I suspect that makes is a no-deal.

I went with a macMini 2.6GHz Intel Core i7 and added ram to 16GB (crucial brand). I have two Dell U2713HM screens running at 2560x1440 resolution. Note that the MacMini does not support this high resolution on two screens unless you have two thunderbolt screens that can be daisy chained. I got a little "external video card" from Startech, which changes a USB3 port into a video out at full resolution. Not expensive (cheaper on amazon than from them) and works very well. I can run a full screen video on each with no problem.

I looked at the imacs but Idon't like the shiny screens at all and read it's hard to calibrate. My Dell look great out of the box. I went with the hybrid drive Apple offers, have all photos on external drives anyway. I had speakers and wireless mouse/keyboard already. Really happy with my setup. I had hoped they upgrade the hardware last year, but could not wait any longer. If they upgrade it significantly I might get a 2nd one, give this one to the kids, but so far I see no problems and have no need for anything, this little machine should work well for years. Replaced my 6 year old Macbook Pro, which started to limp with the huge files from the 5D3

Tony-S wrote in post #16782394
But the 27" iMac doesn't reach sRGB. For most photographers, I suspect that makes is a no-deal.

"Most" photographers? I don't think so.

If you're a pro doing expensive commercial shoots or extremely color-critical work, you might be correct, but those guys would be using Mac Pros and high-end calibrated monitors anyway. For the hobbyist or amateur or even an independent commercial photographer, I think the 27 inch is a fine choice, even with a slightly limited color gamut. The other features of the machine are very compelling, so I don't think a limited color gamut would be a deal-breaker in many situations. I know my photos look great on mine and I've never had any complaints or issues. In fact, I didn't know mine had a limited gamut until I read your post, so thanks for that.

That said, I wonder if Apple's Thunderbolt Display has the full gamut? I may upgrade my setup to a Mac Mini + 2 TB Displays in the near future.

I've been debating nearly the exact same thing as you but with the iMac 27 vs Mac Mini. I'm going with the Mini for one main reason: Cheaper in the long run without much sacrifice to performance. Yes, you'll pay about the same to start but that includes a monitor for your Mini, which you can keep come upgrade time.

Also, there's a lot of talk that a new Mac Mini is coming soon and, possibly, with Haswell and Iris Pro graphics so, if you can wait, it may be wise to see what happens in the next few weeks/months.

tgara wrote in post #16782756
"Most" photographers? I don't think so.

If you're a pro doing expensive commercial shoots or extremely color-critical work, you might be correct, but those guys would be using Mac Pros and high-end calibrated monitors anyway. For the hobbyist or amateur or even an independent commercial photographer, I think the 27 inch is a fine choice, even with a slightly limited color gamut. The other features of the machine are very compelling, so I don't think a limited color gamut would be a deal-breaker in many situations. I know my photos look great on mine and I've never had any complaints or issues. In fact, I didn't know mine had a limited gamut until I read your post, so thanks for that.

That said, I wonder if Apple's Thunderbolt Display has the full gamut? I may upgrade my setup to a Mac Mini + 2 TB Displays in the near future.

I'm personally surprised that there are S-IPS monitors in 2013/14 that don't cover 100% sRGB, I think Tony may have meant adobe RGB? I know for sure that the 27" iMac display only does 80% aRGB.

As for the Thunderbolt Display... I think it's still kind of a niche product, which might make more sense to own if you have a MacBook Pro, but if you really have a grand to spend on a desktop monitor, the NEC PA272W is a significantly better choice:
- anti-glare screen vs glossy
- latest AH-IPS and GB-R display/backlight tech
- 6ms vs 12ms response time
- 100% sRGB and 99.3% adobe
- fully adjustable stand with portrait orientation vs just tilt

It's a top notch graphics monitor, and only a step below the Spectraview, the difference being hardware calibration and an adjustable hood. Conversely, the thing that worries me about Apple displays is how little information is disclosed about their performance and technical details, I couldn't even find a review online that measured an iMac's deltaE, let alone compared to other screens.

dandingo wrote in post #16784156
Cheaper in the long run without much sacrifice to performance. Yes, you'll pay about the same to start but that includes a monitor for your Mini, which you can keep come upgrade time.

Also, there's a lot of talk that a new Mac Mini is coming soon and, possibly, with Haswell and Iris Pro graphics so, if you can wait, it may be wise to see what happens in the next few weeks/months.

Both are good points. I may wait until august to purchase, so hopefully there is an update soon.