imac, mac pro, or macbook pro???

I'm switching to MAC. Does anyone have a preference between an imac with the 24 inch screen, the mac pro (desktop), and the macbook pro? Which do you like better for a main editing system and why?

What sort of camera do you have, how intensive is post processing work flow, and how many photos do you have, and are likely to add in the next 3 years?

All 3 will work for photo editing, but only the Mac Pro will do it with compromising on performance (but you do compromise on cost).
It is also the only option that will let you have more than 1 internal HDD, important if you have lots of photos, and you want to run an internal back up.
It also lets you choose your own monitor.

Performance wise the iMac and Macbook will be similar, but the Macbook has the advantage of being portable.
However, being dual core, and with limited capacity for RAM, and HDD space niether are ideal as high usage work stations if your shooting on a regular basis and processing lots of photos at once.


Why the desire to try a Mac?

I'm tired of pc and I have been thinking of switching for a couple of years. I've finally had it with this computer so I figured it was time to look into a mac. I have cut back on my weddings lately but have been processing a lot of portrait sessions so I still need something that can handle large files of photos without having a seizure on me. I store most of my images on an external hd but I would like something that can process multiple tasks at the same time. I hear that macs are great for photogs....

elysium78 wrote in post #7853579
I hear that macs are great for photogs....

They are no different to any other computer of similar spec. Apple don't add a magic "photographer" chip to them.


If your shooting proffesionaly then you need a decent system with some flexiablity and back up options.
It sounds like your current system is simply old and out dated, or is having some problems.
Replacing it is an easy way to move forward, but it is important to replace it with a new system that meets your needs. That might, or might not be an Apple.
If your current system is a new one, then let us know what it is, and we maybe able to help you make it run as it should.


If you can give is some more details about you need to do we can help a lot more.

Some questions I asked before, but also what software do you use, and what is your budget?

I'm not for or against Apple on this topic. This topic is something that I absolutely hate ignorance in, the fact that people will buy a Mac and expect them to be a better designer/photographer/​editor is complete BS as Moppie said, there is not a magic "photographer" chip.

Number 1. How much will those Mac's range in price? $1700-$2500 - Okay, you can get some for cheaper, but the lower end models worth it? 2 GB or RAM? Not so good.
Number 2. You will then need to buy additional software. Photoshop CS4 FULL VERSION (because what you've got won't work on a Mac- Correct me if I'm wrong), an extra $600 or so.
Number 3. Are you looking for a specific feature in the operating system that will do something different for your photos than what Windows will? I use both operating systems, and so far I can still do the same thing in both... sure the Mac is pretty slick in quite a few areas, but others I find Windows an easier experience.

Now a little comparison.
You can buy a pretty tricked out PC for $1200 Such as this Dell 16" XPS, or you could get a REALLY nice desktop Like this HP. The processor will either be a Quad Core (if you're looking at the desktop) or a Core 2 Duo.
Then if you're looking at software, you will find that there is some more money available to you. I even found a computer that is for $550 that seemed pretty decent in specs, and it still had a quad core processor.

Like I said, I am not Anti-Mac or Pro-Mac. I like to look at it from the money side, the guts can be the same thing in both computers, but Mac will be more money. And you can edit photos just fine on both platforms. You can still design web pages with the same Adobe Suite.

*steps down from soapbox*

Aeth wrote in post #7853803
I like to look at it from the money side, the guts can be the same thing in both computers, but Mac will be more money.

Macs have come down a lot in price recently.
In terms of real hardware and price differences, they no longer exist.
To build a server grade quad core work station to similar spec as a Mac Pro will cost roughly the same amount, same with buying a high end Laptop or match something the Macbook range. (infact some of really high end stuff from Dell, HP and Lenvo is more expensive).
Bewary of cheap computers, generally they are cheap for a reason, and use substand parts or make compromised on quality and performance.


What is lacking from the Mac range however is a decent Quad Core work station using something like an Intel Q8200 or an i7 920 which make an ideal base for a high end photography work station.
This leaves a huge hole in the line up right where the ideal photography work station sits.
You either have to compromise on performance and get an iMac, or compromise on price and get a Mac Pro, which has way more performance than is needed.

MacBook Pro here.

I have PC and Mac. The PC is a pure gaming machine (I know, I'm a big geek). The Mac is for work (Mac Pro).

Mac is a LOT more stable IMHE (In My Humble EXPERIENCE).

You also get the choice of using the awesome Final Cut Studio (I'm primarily a video pro) which is good for me.

In terms of programs for a photographer, you can use iphone (iphone 09 has a very good slideshow function, much better than 08) and aperture (I prefer Lightroom anyway).

The PC can use the adobe suite fine too, so the software isn't really the issue. It's more a stability/interface advantage IMHO.

Windows 7 may change things, I don't know.


To answer your question:
Mac Pro = Best speed (but you'll need to get/have a monitor/keyboard/mouse​. It is also the LEAST portable and MOST expensive).
iMac is a good all in one, but replace the STUPID mighty mouse ASAP.
Macbook Pro is pretty awesome (portable if you need it) but the screen can not be the best for photo stuff (I don't like glossy screens and it's a bit too small).

I am a heavy computer user--- I spend most of my day on one. I never thought I would move to the "girly"" Apple side. I personally had nothing but problems with my Vista machine and moved over a year ago on a whim to Mac.........I wished I would have done this a long time ago.
I picked up through the Apple store a refurbished iMac -- 24inch- upgraded the ram, crucial, and added parallels to run my windows only programs-- In my opinion my Mac runs windows better than my PC's.
I love the Apple service also-- I had a problem with my "superdrive" - dvd burner-- and Apple has been extremely accomodating.
I am going to pick up a Macbook - to have when I travel -- I find the iMac fantastic for editing and have never regreted the move.

elysium78 wrote in post #7853446
I'm switching to MAC. Does anyone have a preference between an imac with the 24 inch screen, the mac pro (desktop), and the macbook pro? Which do you like better for a main editing system and why?

Frankly I'd say your real starting point is the iMac. If you need to go portable, then the MacBook Pro is probably what you want. If you need what amounts to a compute server, then go with the Mac Pro.

I'm a programmer among other things, and use compute servers at work regularly. The Mac Pro is really a professional level machine designed for running lots of large jobs simultaneously. Some might think of it as the big, beautiful Apple. To me it's a multiprocessor number cruncher, generally the equivalent to any compute server you might buy from Dell or Sun. If a PC has mostly worked for you, then the Mac Pro is probably overkill. If you've found yourself frustrated that the PC is taking hours to process your daily photo load, or if you are a professional photographer who can benefit from what a Mac Pro can do and can both justify and afford that level of machine, then go for it.

It's true you can install more than one hard drive on the Mac Pro, but you can easily connect externals to both the iMac and the MacBook Pro via Firewire or USB. Ha! At the moment I'm doing this on my MacBook and am wirelessly connected to my iMac upstairs.

In the end, it's all about doing the things you need to do and running the programs you need to run. I like my Macs. I moved to Mac a couple years ago from Linux and Windows. As long as Apple keeps doing the right things, I'll stay with them. When the time comes that someone is better, I'll go.

Moppie wrote in post #7853693
They are no different to any other computer of similar spec. Apple don't add a magic "photographer" chip to them.

Actually, there isn't a magic chip - it's the magic OS

Seriously though, it's been argued that the primary reason Mac's are perfected by artists is due to Apple getting rid of the 'fat' in OS X. Here are some examples:

1.) Fewer games. Video games are a huge time sink. With fewer to chose on OS X Mac users are more apt not to play them as much.

2.) OS X is streamlined. Windows has thousands upon thousands of easily accessible settings that are often the reason for performance issues, BSoD and increased time 'configuring'. If it wasn't absolutely necessary, Apple either hid it or got rid of it completely so the user would not have to worry about 'one-more-thing'. Common sense dictates that the less complex a system is the less likely it is to fail.

3.) OS X is virtually free of malware/spyware/viruse​s/trojans and by default there is no/little time waisted in fixing them due to these reasons. PC's are simply targeted more (94% more). Even if absolutely everything is done to protect them there is still a considerable chance they may be compromised.

4.) Stability. OS X has gained a reputation for stability since it is based on UNIX - a very time tested OS. According to Consumer Reports Mac's have the best 'up time' among leading PC companies.

5.) Better support when things do go bad. Though more rare than PC's, Mac's do from time to time go bad and Apple currently has the best customer support as well as customer satisfaction among PC builders (Consumer Reports).

6.) No lack of artistic support. Unlike the 'tech' world where Mac's have to suffer from a lack of hardware choices - in the art field there is no lack of love. In fact, most artistic 'how-to' books are written from the Mac perspective with captions assisting PC users.

7.) Simple as a toaster. Many Mac users say their computers are like toasters. They do one thing very well, much like appliances. Whereas PC's try to 'do-it-all' by adding enough options, buttons and lights to kill a cow! Children not familiar to computers tend to pick up Mac's running while on PC's there seems to be a larger learning curve.

There are of course counter points to most of these things, but over all, none are subjective nor speculative save for #7. And yes, I know, you never ever have problems with your PC's nor anyone you ever knew, yet, the numbers speak for themselves. Of course this excludes avid PC users who know how to operate PCs. It also excludes disgruntled Mac users whom for some strange reason Apple computers seem to hate. And lastly, this excludes trolls, argumentative people and those that simply hate PC's or Mac's or both.

To me it seems that there is a gap in Apple's line-up between the iMac and the Mac Pro. If you're a serious photographer who wants to have some flexibility in terms of multiple internal HDD, memory extensions, etc., then the iMac is not flexible enough.
On the other hand, I agree that the Mac Pro is an overkill for 99% of photographers, especially if you don't edit 1080p videos either.

For me the PC alternative to a Mac Pro would be a Core i7-based system (quad core, but not the expensive server grade Xeon), as this is more than enough for heavy picture processing. So the PC alternative would turn out less expensive.

Krapo wrote in post #7855579
To me it seems that there is a gap in Apple's line-up between the iMac and the Mac Pro. If you're a serious photographer who wants to have some flexibility in terms of multiple internal HDD, memory extensions, etc., then the iMac is not flexible enough.
On the other hand, I agree that the Mac Pro is an overkill for 99% of photographers, especially if you don't edit 1080p videos either.

For me the PC alternative to a Mac Pro would be a Core i7-based system (quad core, but not the expensive server grade Xeon), as this is more than enough for heavy picture processing. So the PC alternative would turn out less expensive.

As a video pro who works in SD (none of my clients want or need HD) I can tell you that a mac pro is certainly not overkill even for SD video. Also with large file siZes these days I feel there is no such thing as "overkill". Maybe I am just too impatient.

I have a MacBook Pro that I run with the lid closed and use a 22" Dell Monitor. That way if I'm at home I can use it just like a desktop but if I need to go somewhere I can just take the laptop. Best of both worlds.

I dont see why people make a big deal over the internal space issues. "Dont buy an iMac cause it only has one drive, etc." My old G4 had room for 4 drives and that wasnt enough... What did I do? I built a server...something every serious photographer should have. It has space for 10 drives, runs WHS on a cheap platform. Take that old PC you have, turn it into a server and get that imac, you wont be disappointed. If you want the cheaper route, get the mini, use your existing monitors and be done with it.

Another option is to buy the largest drive you can, put it in an external enclosure and use that for external storage.