New Mac for Photoshop

[aethelwulf]

So my girlfriend is going to be buying a new mac for her photography business soon. She currently has an iMac G5 17". She is looking to spend ~2500-3000. What are her best options? This price includes everything (peripherals, monitor, etc.). She doesn't want a laptop. It seemed to me that it was a better value to go with another iMac over the Mac Pro, but what I really think would be best for her is something more in between the two. It would be nice to have a tower, but the Mac Pro and a nice flat panel get really pricey really quick. Thoughts?

 

[revo2001]

So my girlfriend is going to be buying a new mac for her photography business soon. She currently has an iMac G5 17". She is looking to spend ~2500-3000. What are her best options? This price includes everything (peripherals, monitor, etc.). She doesn't want a laptop. It seemed to me that it was a better value to go with another iMac over the Mac Pro, but what I really think would be best for her is something more in between the two. It would be nice to have a tower, but the Mac Pro and a nice flat panel get really pricey really quick. Thoughts?

A majority of my time in this world is spent designing and my preferred platform is the 24" iMac. It RULES.

Just grab an iMac with as little memory as possible and then grab two 2GB sticks from Newegg.com to get up to 4GB of RAM.

Mac Pro's are an entirely unnecessary expense for any type of design or photography work.

Really, what do you need a tower for these days? Even at that, if you're asking this question for her, she obviously isn't (too big of) a computer geek.

To add to that, you could grab a refurb, the extra memory, and another 24" monitor and you'd still probably be spending less than $3000.

 

[santaliqueur]

Really, what do you need a tower for these days?

Do you not understand that some people do not want to be tied to one monitor? What if I wanted a 30" screen? 4 TB internal space? I don't think the iMac can do any of that. Oh yeah, my Mac Pro is able to support up to eight 30" displays. Not possible with other platforms. Obviously this is quite expensive, but if I had the cash, I'd get two 30" displays right now.

I understand why people want the iMac too, but your attitude of "What I have makes sense to me, so why would anyone consider something else" makes no sense, and is too common. To each his own.

 

[aethelwulf]

A majority of my time in this world is spent designing and my preferred platform is the 24" iMac. It RULES.

Just grab an iMac with as little memory as possible and then grab two 2GB sticks from Newegg.com to get up to 4GB of RAM.

Mac Pro's are an entirely unnecessary expense for any type of design or photography work.

Really, what do you need a tower for these days? Even at that, if you're asking this question for her, she obviously isn't (too big of) a computer geek.

To add to that, you could grab a refurb, the extra memory, and another 24" monitor and you'd still probably be spending less than $3000.

That's pretty much the plan that I was steering her toward. The main reason she wanted a tower is that she wanted to get a 30" display. It also would have been nice to get a quad core. I think she'll be ok with 24" and the specs on a iMac, but I figured I would ask the mac experts over here, since I'm more of a PC guy myself.

 

[bryanwesoce]

I would highly recommend getting the top of the line iMac with the lowest amount of RAM from apple. Newegg can hook you up with 4 GB of ram for less than $100. You can also buy a mini-DVI to DVI or VGA for $20 from Apple and any monitor you want for multiscreen goodness.

You may, however have to run this. I know for a fact screen spanning, NOT screen mirroring, works on my Intel Core Duo MacBook with integrated graphics. I can mirror OR span. I'm not sure if the newest iMacs come with this capability or not. It doesn't seem too hard to change though.

So, for well under $3000 you can have 1 24" display, 4 GB of RAM, OS X and 500 GB of HDD space. I'm sure you could squeeze another 24" display and another 500GB of storage for right around $3k if she wants/needs it.

Edit: iMac extremes are on Apple Refurb Store for $1950. They have 2 GB of RAM, 500GB HDD space and a 2.8GHz Core2Extreme Proc. I say its pretty hard to pass this deal up. They also have Refurb'd 30" displays for $1500. That breaks the budget a bit, but you get LOTS of screen real estate.

Edit2: They also have dual xenon MacPros starting at $2100. You might consider going that route with a Apple 23" cinema display, or go all out and get the 30".

 

[curtcheese64]

I would not recommend buying one of the new Aluminum iMacs. Apple switched to cheap glossy TN LCD panels on these machines. The new screens are terrible for accurate color reproduction and have varying contrast levels depending on your viewing angle. See if you can pick up one of the last generation white bezel C2D iMacs on Apple's refurb store. These still used a higher quality LCD panel.

 

[revo2001]

Do you not understand that some people do not want to be tied to one monitor? What if I wanted a 30" screen? 4 TB internal space? I don't think the iMac can do any of that. Oh yeah, my Mac Pro is able to support up to eight 30" displays. Not possible with other platforms. Obviously this is quite expensive, but if I had the cash, I'd get two 30" displays right now.

I understand why people want the iMac too, but your attitude of "What I have makes sense to me, so why would anyone consider something else" makes no sense, and is too common. To each his own.

And you totally ignored the last paragraph of my post and seemingly the OP because what you said really holds no bearing on what the computer will be used for and who will be using it.

BTW, iMacs can support 2 monitors just fine.

 

[revo2001]

I would not recommend buying one of the new Aluminum iMacs. Apple switched to cheap glossy TN LCD panels on these machines. The new screens are terrible for accurate color reproduction and have varying contrast levels depending on your viewing angle. See if you can pick up one of the last generation white bezel C2D iMacs on Apple's refurb store. These still used a higher quality LCD panel.

Mine works fine although I'm not huge into print work.

A quick search on Google brings this up from here:

# On the current range of Aluminium iMacs:20" - TN - viewing angle 160˚
# 24" - S-IPS - viewing angle 178˚.

 

[revo2001]

That's pretty much the plan that I was steering her toward. The main reason she wanted a tower is that she wanted to get a 30" display. It also would have been nice to get a quad core. I think she'll be ok with 24" and the specs on a iMac, but I figured I would ask the mac experts over here, since I'm more of a PC guy myself.

I'm surprised at the amount of people that want monitors at such a large size. I'm still amazed at the size of my 24" iMac.

Though, I will admit I am considering another 24" monitor to go with it. In my opinion it's better to go that path with any design type work as it allows for you to easily manage your workspace. Again, my opinion of course.

 

[bahula03]

Mine works fine although I'm not huge into print work.

A quick search on Google brings this up from here:

# On the current range of Aluminium iMacs:20" - TN - viewing angle 160˚
# 24" - S-IPS - viewing angle 178˚.

QFT- the 20" uses a cheap-o panel, while the 24" still uses a good quality panel

To the OP- she could either get a loaded 24" iMac or an "entry level" Mac Pro w/ a single quad core processor. She should be happy for a few years either way.

 

[Coruscater]

As others have stated, a Mac Pro is extreme overkill for photography. However, it seems a big part of why a new computer is so expensive for her now is that her last computer had a monitor built in so she can't replace the computer without also replacing the monitor. Getting another iMac means that she is stuck in the same situation next time too. My advice: get a fully loaded Mac mini for around $1200 or so, and get a big monitor. A monitor from Apple is fine, but there are lots of other brands, many of which have very good price-performance. A Mac mini will vastly outperform the old G5, and the big monitor will probably be useful long after the current mini is obsolete.

 

[taylorwilsdon]

The 20'' iMac uses a cheap-o screen. The 24'' uses an amazingly high quality H-IPS panel, which only is used in a few $1000+ NEC 24's. Its very high quality. YOU CAN PLUG A 30'' DISPLAY INTO A 24'' IMAC. How hard is that to get? You can go dual monitor, you can get your 30 etc.

iMac is good in this situation because she can't really afford a mac pro.

 

[Black Morty Rackham]

I would avoid the Mac mini. Photoshop may not be GPU-accelerated, but Aperture and (I think) Lightroom sure are. If you want to do image editing, I would recommend getting a machine with a video card.

24" iMac with an external Firewire hard drive solution sounds good. Or a low-end Mac Pro would work as well. If you really want good performance in Photoshop, the key is not a fast CPU or anything like that: the key is having a good and fast hard drive, or better yet, a RAID. Speeding up Photoshop's swap drive will do much more for performance than getting a faster CPU or even more memory.

 

[supergper]

For as cheap (relatively speaking) as the Mac Pros are any more for what you get you'd be crazy to consider anything else. I'll tell you this, in my company where we have about 500 mac users, we are a Design/Marketing/Print/Photo Studio/Multimedia business (so no, I'm not talking out my ass about this) and the only ones that get iMacs are our business users. If they are doing any kind of Design work they get a Mac Pro. The difference is night and day. Can an iMac work, sure...but like I said, the difference is night and day. If she is serious about her photography, do yourselves a favor and pay a few bucks extra and get the Mac Pro. You can get into the base model (mind you, this is still an 8-core machine) for $2800 (maybe even less if you shop around or buy from the refurb store). Skip the Apple displays and get her a nice monitor. You can get a nice monitor for $300-$400. The thing that's very nice about the Mac Pro is the fact that you can grow into it but won't outgrow it. I will promise you, she will outgrow the iMac.

 

[phide]

I'm going to echo the other suggestions for the 24" iMac. It isn't that the iMac is the perfect workhorse photo editing machine, because it isn't, but there's a limited budget. One can rave all day long about the Mac Pro and how it's better suited to the demanding tasks of production (which it is), but if it doesn't fit in the budget, it doesn't fit in the budget.

The 24", 2.8 GHz Core 2 Extreme iMac seems like the obvious choice here, though I wouldn't hesitate to drop down to the default 2.4 GHz configuration and save $500 that might be better spent toward additional display(s) and storage.

 

[supergper]

YOU CAN PLUG A 30'' DISPLAY INTO A 24'' IMAC. How hard is that to get? You can go dual monitor, you can get your 30 etc.

Dual monitor yes, but 30" no. Right from Apple's website

Support for external display with digital resolution up to 1920 x 1200, analog resolution up to 2048 x 1536

Unless you plan to cripple your 30" display I'd say that's a no go. Not to mention it requires a dual link dvi card.

You can pick-up an eight core (Dual Quad Core) Mac Pro from the refurb store for $2499, that leaves $500 for a monitor and some extra memory. Or you can go Quad Core (dual dual core) 3.0Ghz for $2299, which leaves even more for monitor(s) and memory. It can be done within the budget and you'd have a far superior machine that you will not outgrow.


Don't get me wrong, the iMac (especially the 24") is an amazing machine for the price. I just strongly believe it's very limiting and not the right machine for this type of work. If it wasn't for a business need, just a personal photography hobby, I'd definitely say go with the iMac. But when it comes down to it, time is money and the more time you have to spend processing pictures and such is money you are potentially loosing.

 

[santaliqueur]

BTW, iMacs can support 2 monitors just fine.

I think we all know that. However, the Mac Pro does not come bundled with a display, unlike the iMac. I'm sure the iMac is a great machine, I've seen them in Apple retail stores and they're beautiful. However, they are not for everyone, as some people need flexibility with display options and expandability. That's fine if you don't, but you need to realize that what you need is not necessarily what everyone needs.

 

[revo2001]

That's fine if you don't, but you need to realize that what you need is not necessarily what everyone needs.

You keep saying that as if a recommendation means I'm not taking that into account.

Obviously if you read the OP's posts since the first one, you'll notice that I must of been taking that in to account pretty well because that's where he seems to be heading.

Use your head. Geesh.

 

[aethelwulf]

Dual monitor yes, but 30" no. Right from Apple's website


Unless you plan to cripple your 30" display I'd say that's a no go. Not to mention it requires a dual link dvi card.

You can pick-up an eight core (Dual Quad Core) Mac Pro from the refurb store for $2499, that leaves $500 for a monitor and some extra memory. Or you can go Quad Core (dual dual core) 3.0Ghz for $2299, which leaves even more for monitor(s) and memory. It can be done within the budget and you'd have a far superior machine that you will not outgrow.


Don't get me wrong, the iMac (especially the 24") is an amazing machine for the price. I just strongly believe it's very limiting and not the right machine for this type of work. If it wasn't for a business need, just a personal photography hobby, I'd definitely say go with the iMac. But when it comes down to it, time is money and the more time you have to spend processing pictures and such is money you are potentially loosing.

Well, to everyone that's talking about iMacs and dual displays... IF she buy an iMac, she won't get a 30" in addition to it. She would probably just get a 24" and be happy with it (or upgrade to 2x24 at a later date). Also, Mac Mini is definitely out because of the lack of GPU power that she needs for aperture.

You're absolutely right about time is money. She is wasting a lot of time right now on her iMac waiting for it to chug through stuff. If it's going to be a significant difference in speed to get the Mac Pro, then it'll would be worth it to get it. It seems like the refurbs really aren't that great of a value, compared to just buying a new one (she can get an educational discount). She also wants apple care, so that brings up the price a bit. Though, I configured a Mac Pro with Quad core to a little under 2500, which isn't too bad.

Lots of good information in here! Thanks for the advice everyone!

 

[revo2001]

For as cheap (relatively speaking) as the Mac Pros are any more for what you get you'd be crazy to consider anything else. I'll tell you this, in my company where we have about 500 mac users, we are a Design/Marketing/Print/Photo Studio/Multimedia business (so no, I'm not talking out my ass about this) and the only ones that get iMacs are our business users. If they are doing any kind of Design work they get a Mac Pro. The difference is night and day. Can an iMac work, sure...but like I said, the difference is night and day. If she is serious about her photography, do yourselves a favor and pay a few bucks extra and get the Mac Pro. You can get into the base model (mind you, this is still an 8-core machine) for $2800 (maybe even less if you shop around or buy from the refurb store). Skip the Apple displays and get her a nice monitor. You can get a nice monitor for $300-$400. The thing that's very nice about the Mac Pro is the fact that you can grow into it but won't outgrow it. I will promise you, she will outgrow the iMac.

Back in the day when Apple still made towers that weren't just severely high end machines I'd easily recommend a tower based machine. These days though, there's just no way in hell that somebody doing photography is really taking advantage of the processing power of the Mac Pro.. unless you're working with incredibly high resolution files. I'm not even sure that programs like Photoshop and perhaps Aperture truly take advantage of the quad core and now 8 core systems. Anybody have any documentation of that? Even with that in mind, I remember using a G3 with maybe 512MB of RAM to work with 400MB PSD's and they were just high resolution photos. Not multi-layer PSD's.

I use my iMac with Dreamweaver, Illustrator, Photoshop, Firefox, Parallels (with IE open), iChat, Mail, Colloquy, and other apps open almost 24/7 and I've yet to hit a point where I go "Why is this taking so long?" It's all smooth.

I also know plenty of graphic designers which own an iMac (just in case the image that it's not a graphic design machine is creeping through your head) which is part of the reason I bought mine myself. I had the same impression at first. I'm so thankful that I changed my mind.

The 24" iMac's have awesome monitor quality in my opinion (and many others). Add another 24" and you have more working resolution than 1 30" monitor for probably less money.

 

[revo2001]

Found some benchmarks myself: http://www.barefeats.com/imacal4.html

 

[santaliqueur]

I'm not even sure that programs like Photoshop and perhaps Aperture truly take advantage of the quad core and now 8 core systems

Photoshop is multithreaded, and will use all 8 cores. Whether or not the particular task gets accomplished quicker because of 8 cores could vary, but Photoshop certainly utilizes all 8. It seems that your argument is "nobody needs that much power". The OP might not, but professionals who use Photoshop, Illustrator, Lightroom...daily, could benefit from having significantly more processing power than the iMac is able to deliver. 2 RAM slots is also limiting for professionals.

It sounds like the OP would probably not benefit from a Mac Pro, and the new iMacs are such a huge step up from the G5 models.

 

[0ptional]

Refurb Mac Pro!

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APP...e.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=44BD9AA1&nclm=CertifiedMac

Refurbished Mac Pro Quad 2.66GHz Intel Xeon
Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon processors
1GB (2 x 512MB) memory (667MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC)
250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200 rpm hard drive
16x SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory
Learn More
• Save 21% off the original price
Original price: $2,499.00
Your price: $1,999.00

Estimated Ship:
1-3 business days
Free Shipping

____________________________________________________
Refurbished Mac Pro Quad 3.0GHz Intel Xeon
Two 3.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon processors
1GB (2 x 512MB) memory (667MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC)
250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive
16x SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory
Learn More
Price: $2,199.00

Estimated Ship:
1-3 business days
Free Shipping

____________________________________________________
Refurbished Mac Pro Quad 3.0GHz Intel Xeon
Two 3.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon processors
2GB (4 x 512MB) memory (667MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC)
250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200 rpm hard drive
16x SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
ATI Radeon X1900 XT with 512MB memory
Learn More
• Save 41% off the original price
Original price: $3,849.00
Your price: $2,299.00

Estimated Ship:
1-3 business days
Free Shipping

 

[revo2001]

Photoshop is multithreaded, and will use all 8 cores. Whether or not the particular task gets accomplished quicker because of 8 cores could vary, but Photoshop certainly utilizes all 8. It seems that your argument is "nobody needs that much power". The OP might not, but professionals who use Photoshop, Illustrator, Lightroom...daily, could benefit from having significantly more processing power than the iMac is able to deliver. 2 RAM slots is also limiting for professionals.

It sounds like the OP would probably not benefit from a Mac Pro, and the new iMacs are such a huge step up from the G5 models.

It sounds like you like telling people what they sound like a lot. Assumptions are not cool.

The OP is asking for recommendations from Mac users that hold a similar career (path) and/or hobby. I am one of those so of course I am basing my recommendation (this is not an argument) it on my now over 13 years of experience.

I am more than welcome to take part in a conversation that helps the OP make the best choice possible.

I do not understand why you keep trying to move in the direction of an argument based on what you believe is my belief that because I don't need it, nobody else does. Especially when in conclusion your recommendation was the same computer I've been recommending (with my experience in mind, and offering reasoning). I have never attempted to force the OP to purchase what I recommend, I again, merely stated my reasoning for why I recommend it based on my career which holds a high similarity (in fact I am a photographer, I just do more than that so I don't like to hold that title) to what the OP's girlfriend has chosen to pursue.

Chill dawg.