Thoughts on Imacs for photo editing appreciated!

Short story: Looking at getting new computer and the Imac 24" 2.8ghz/4G RAM looks pretty appealing. Does anyone have one or have thoughts on this model, particularly how good the screen is for photo work?

Long story (prices are Australian):

I'm using a 5-year old PC at the moment that I was going to replace everything with and make myself a nice dual- or quad-core system at a cost of $800 or so, not including a new screen, which I really quite want - while this one's nice 17" just isn't what it used to be, y'know? Add a nice screen onto that and I was looking at around, what, $1500.


Basically what I'm looking for is something with a good screen for photos and that'll run a RAW processor and Photoshop much faster than what my old machine can do (single 3.0 processor) as things are a little laboured at times with multiple photos open at once and with me getting a new camera in the near future with larger files... well, I don't see it ending well.

All I use the computer for is PS (soon to be CS3), notepad for webpages and web browsing/MSN so I figure learning a new OS can't be too hard when I'm not going to be using particularly much of it

ANY thoughts appreciated.

I would recommend that you stick with getting a PC. The iMac will cost you more money and get you less processing power.

I'm not a fan of the glossy screens for any sort of actual image work. There's nothing specifically wrong with the iMac otherwise, although I'm not a fan of integrated computer/monitor systems that aren't laptops.

Just an example - (US prices)

24", 2.8GHz iMac: $1799

PC:

2.5GHz Quad-Core (newest 45nm chip), 4GB RAM, Dual 500GB HD's (for RAID backup), DVD-RW w/ lightscribe, 8800GT 512MB Video Card, case, power supply, Dell 24" Widescreen LCD

$1599

Its a great machine and the 24" screen will do wonders... Personally I dont like all in one machines as they are not really upgradable. For that price though, I would get the Macbook Pro and buy two cheaper 22" monitors and run them side by side. That way you have mobility and enough power to run it as a desktop machine too...

Oh and the processing power isnt the whole answer to speed... My old G4 runs CS3 and LR just fine...with two 22"inch monitors...

cory1848 wrote in post #5731222
Oh and the processing power isnt the whole answer to speed... My old G4 runs CS3 and LR just fine...with two 22"inch monitors...

You and I may have different definitions of just fine

emorphien wrote in post #5731240
You and I may have different definitions of just fine

Well, elaborate? I use mine for a lot of intensive book production using InDesign, PS, IA CS3 and it runs good... Its not the sports car model, but it gets the job done...LR is really good with it...and I am constantly opening up 100meg files in PS3...

My machine is the G4 dual 867 with 2 gigs of ram and 800 gigs of drive space...6 years old... If my machine is going along smoothly, I can just imagine what the imac g5 2.8 machine will do...

That's all I mean. I've recently gone to a overweight system to give me greater multitasking capability: quad core with 8GB RAM (home built, not Mac but they all use the same hardware now). I have used plenty of G4s and I just find them to be a terribly frustrating experience, particularly towards the end of their life and especially compared against what came after them.

emorphien wrote in post #5731562
That's all I mean. I've recently gone to a overweight system to give me greater multitasking capability: quad core with 8GB RAM (home built, not Mac but they all use the same hardware now). I have used plenty of G4s and I just find them to be a terribly frustrating experience, particularly towards the end of their life and especially compared against what came after them.

Well everything gets outdated and newer and faster things come along everyday... I guess mine hasnt come to the end of its life yet... It is due for a replacement soon though...

There's something to be said for that though. If you can continue happily using an older & slower system, no reason not to! Some of us just want more performance than that though and we're the ones that wind up upgrading more often. I expect 2, maybe 3 years out of my current system before I'll look to do any major upgrades.

I may upgrade the video card this fall depending on whether I'll get any advantages out of that in PS CS4 when it ships with GPU processing support. My video card is older spec, but I don't game on my desktop so I don't need the latest and greatest.

Hi all,,
I'm a mac user as well and I do have to agree about the imac screen. May be a bit tricky for photo editing and matching for printing. $1700 is a lot to pay for something that's not really upgradeable also.
Up until a week ago I was using an imac G3 with my D30. Worked great but now I have a 40D and no way it's useable. I was considering a mac mini for the sole purpose of photo editing to replace my G3 and hook to my external drives for storage.
Sorry, not trying to hijack the thread. Just thought a mini with a better monitor might be useable and cost less than half of the imac Jim was looking at. Kind of answer my own curiosity as well.
Sparky

A Mini is similarly difficult to upgrade, actually worse in my experience (I have one too). It's just a macbook crammed in a box without a screen though.

I really wish Apple would offer a straighforward desktop in the $900-1300 range.

I agree it's worse to upgrade but it doesn't cost $1700 either. I'm thinking like the OP that I would like a decent system for photo editing and a nice large monitor. The mini would put a lot of coin back in my pocket so I can splurge on the monitor. My main focus is video and I'm just starting to get serious about photography.
My scenario, macbookpro (have) with a good external for video (need), mini with same monitor for photography. Dual purpose for me, posibly cheaper approach for the OP.
Sorry if I sound rude, please I don't mean to, bad typer so bare with me. I would hate for the OP to shell out a lot of money to find he doesn't like macs and finds the screen unusable for him. A mini with the monitor he wants may be a better alternative if it will fill the bill for editing. At worse he will be stuck with the mini, which he can load his flavor of windows on and press on. Or he can sell it and upgrade to the system of his choice and already have the monitor which he wants. At best save a few hundred dollars either way.
Just looking to help save some cash as it is tight these days. My only question is if the mini is good enough?
Sparky