iMac Retina and resolution of current cameras

Not sure what to think about the announcement from last night - iMac with a 5K resolution. I have to say that I never used a Mac, but over the last 2 years I was thinking that I will switch when I am going to see a compelling product and now it is.

5K resolution - what does it really mean for current Canon cameras? Will it change the workflow in Lightroom or Photoshop? It could be that files from D810 will look better than from 5D MKIII or 1Dx...right?

What do you think about it?

It means very little vs the current 4K monitors we've already had. It's just a little bit of a headline spec grab by apple. Besides, Dell beat them by a few weeks anyway:

http://www.pcworld.com …ixels-of-4k-displays.html

Although, it is pretty Amazing to think that a 14MP image on the new 27" imac would be displayed at 100% pixel view if displayed fullscreen. No more pixel peeping, it's already at full zoom!

EDIT: I just noticed Dell is charging $2500 for their 5K monitor. Apple is charging that for their 5K iMac with a decend computer built into the back of it. For once, nobody is going to be able to call Apple expensive.

I did not have a 4K Monitor....I still think Apple has a very unique product - a very slim design PC, all in one with 5K monitor....personally for me...AMAZING

tkbslc wrote in post #17217509
Although, it is pretty Amazing to think that a 14MP image on the new 27" imac would be displayed at 100% pixel view if displayed fullscreen. No more pixel peeping, it's already at full zoom!

i have a 2k iMac (1920x1080)
But yep i agree with this comment, 5k in screen resolution is around 5000 pixels wide !
Just for example a picture from a 7D is 5184x3456= +/-18MP, so this picture is 5186 pixels wide and it's almost as large as your 5k screen, if you need to remove some dust with the "clone" tool on the picture how you will zoom in enough to remove only the dusts without touching anything else ?
you might also see some flaws in the picture only after printing in a bigger size than your screen ...

Just a thought ...

Reservoir Dog wrote in post #17217548
i have a 2k iMac (1920x1080)
But yep i agree with this comment, 5k in screen resolution is around 5000 pixels wide !
Just for example a picture from a 7D is 5184x3456= +/-18MP, so this picture is 5186 pixels wide and it's almost as large as your 5k screen, if you need to remove some dust with the "clone" tool on the picture how you will zoom in enough to remove only the dusts without touching anything else ?
you might also see some flaws in the picture only after printing in a bigger size than your screen ...

Just a thought ...

Well I am still editing on an old 1280×1024 px monitor. When I am trying to do some very fine work, using a graphic tablet, I often end up zooming to two or three hundred percent to keep thing on the pixels that I want them to be. I would see no problem with doing the same on a 5K screen. What is the aspect ratio of these screens? 16:10 would be good as that is very close to the 3:2 of our DSLR's, so you would not lose too much off the vertical when displayed at 100%.

Alan

That's about a 1.78 aspect ratio, whereas a 16:10 is 1.6. It's actually handy to have that extra screen real estate, though; you can display a large image in the correct ratio and still have space on the screen for editing tools, etc. without having to obscure parts of the image.

I have owned either high resolution screens or multiple monitors since about 1989 - it's always been easy to do with a Mac, and definitely improves ease of use for me.

tkbslc wrote in post #17217509
Although, it is pretty Amazing to think that a 14MP image on the new 27" imac would be displayed at 100% pixel view if displayed fullscreen. No more pixel peeping, it's already at full zoom!

EDIT: I just noticed Dell is charging $2500 for their 5K monitor. Apple is charging that for their 5K iMac with a decend computer built into the back of it. For once, nobody is going to be able to call Apple expensive.

Agree. These really have me thinking hard about a new Mac for photo work.

Its main appeal will be allowing 4K video editing whilst still leaving room for tool bars and palletes

I edit on a 4K monitor right now and have been doing so for the last 4-5 months. Its has changed my work flow in the better! It does not affect images what so ever, all it affects is how you see the images. I can see way more detail and I dont have to spend so much time zooming in on pictures to confirm focus or in PS to zoom in to do brush work. It cuts down on culling time and post work very slightly. My 7yr old Mac Pro is starting to show its age so my next upgrade will be the 5K iMac. Very happy Apple announced it!

Reservoir Dog wrote in post #17217548
i have a 2k iMac (1920x1080)
But yep i agree with this comment, 5k in screen resolution is around 5000 pixels wide !
Just for example a picture from a 7D is 5184x3456= +/-18MP, so this picture is 5186 pixels wide and it's almost as large as your 5k screen, if you need to remove some dust with the "clone" tool on the picture how you will zoom in enough to remove only the dusts without touching anything else ?
you might also see some flaws in the picture only after printing in a bigger size than your screen ...

Just a thought ...

1920 x 1080 is FullHD, 1080p for example, that is not 2K.

5K. Must require a beast of a videocard.

xinvisionx wrote in post #17218250
5K. Must require a beast of a videocard.

Surprised it is a pretty much a standard one....

I am following the feedback of the 7DII very closely and the iMac 5k.

If both satisfy my desires in what I want in each product (which looks like they will) I will be purchasing them both before the end of the year.

I am an admitted Apple fanboy. No shame here.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #17218212
1920 x 1080 is FullHD, 1080p for example, that is not 2K.

3,840 x 2,160 (i.e., 2x HD) is referred to as "faux K" by some in the video world, while "real 4K" is 4,096 x 2,160.See for example Why Faux-K Is Going To Win Out Over Full 4K

Easy to see hay "QuadFullHD" QFHD could be understood as 4K, so FHD is 2K. Nomenclature hell - like unspecified 1080p - is that 1080p30 or 1080p60. The latter is better than 1080i60 but the former isn't really etc... Both Real 4K and FauxK can claim to be 2160p when HD is 1080p

Even if you are not wanting to use Apple OS, Windows runs terrific on Apple computers and is what I do on my 2 as I just feel more comfortable in the Windows 7 environment. Really tempted by this desktop for photo processing.