Need recommendation on Mac computer for Canon 5D II?

<p>I will be purchasing a 5D II and have decided to upgrade my computer as recommended by some on this forum, since my current PC is 6 yrs old. I have decided to switch from a PC to a Mac. What preferable features should I actually get, i.e. speed of the processor, memory capacity, size of screen, etc.? I want to do it right. </p>

<p>Almost any modern Mac will work fine as far as CPU power, HD size and RAM. The most critical component is probably the monitor. If you want the easy road, buy the 24 inch iMac: the screen is amazing and any of the Core Duo 2 speeds from 2.66GHz to 3.06 are fine. If you wanna go ala carte and have a thick wallet the Mac Pro tower in Quad or Eight-core offers the ultimate in speed and expansion. Of course you'll need to pair it with a good monitor like the 24 or 30 inch Cinema Display.</p>

<p>To give you an idea of the difference in RAW conversion speed, A 15.1MP EOS 50D raw file (28MB) takes 3 to 4 seconds to convert to TIFF in DPP 3.6 (1 second in Aperture!) in my 2.66GHz 8GB RAM Quad-Core Mac Pro. The same takes about 15 seconds in my MacBook Pro (2.2GHz Core Duo 2 & 4GB RAM) and a numbing 45 to 50 seconds in my G4 MDD (1.25 GHz Duo G4 CPU & 2GB RAM). I actually have a 2.66GHz iMac in the house (my wife's) but I haven't tried ant RAW conversions but I'me sure it will be a notch faster than my MacBook Pro.</p>

<p>Incidentally, I really hate the small screen on the MacBook Pro for photo editing. A real eye squinter. It's really only good for travel and casual use.</p>

<p>Budget is critical - how much can you spend? If you can afford high end get the top spec MacPro, but then you need to budget for the appropriate screen to suit - lots of choices at all prices, but your bottom line price for all this is going to be quite high.</p>

<p>At a more reasonable price level are the iMac all-in-one machines - best value currently according to various reviews is the 24 inch 2.66 processor machine. Nice big screen, good graphics performance, and a very compelling all-rounder performance wise. The glossy screen finish is hated by some, loved by others, but can be toned down with a removable film to remove glare.</p>

<p>If you're intending serious video editing with the machine using Final Cut Express, and have or are building a huge collection of RAW images to be converted and managed using Aperture or Lightroom - then budget for those programmes too, and perhaps look at the top spec iMacs.</p>

<p>Lots of reviews of the iMacs about - google <strong>'imac 24 inch 2009 review'</strong> and you'll pick some up.</p>

<p>The top end "tower" Mac Pro with lots of memory (32 GB anyone?) and a huge, professional-grade monitor is a machine of awesome power. Hardly anyone who isn't doing professional video work actually needs this much power. If that is the direction you're going however, this machine and Final Cut Studio (née Pro) are right up there with the capabilities of the movie makers in Hollywood. $15K should do nicely, which is a real bargain compared to what professional movie stuff used to cost. ;)<br /> But the incredible thing is that even the puny little Mac mini with 2GB for around $800 (and whatever a decent monitor costs, probably you can use the one you've already got) will run Photoshop and all the rest of really high powered software. A friend who is a professional using the full version of Final Cut, has a mini as a portable machine to run in the field, so to speak.<br /> Laptops are not really as useful for photoediting except in a rough sort of way, because of the monitor problem, but lots of people do somehow get along with them.<br /> I don't think that there's much doubt that the iMacs represent the sweet spot in the Mac lineup in terms of capability and cost as Puppy Face and John say.</p>

<p>Disclaimer: I bought a Macintosh (serial # 4111WN) in 1984, so am a certified and card-carrying Mac mujihadi. However, I worked on Windows machines for a very long 5 years, and my first computing experience was with version II of Fortran on an IBM mainframe in the autumn of 1959. I remember the much greater user friendliness of a "glass TTY" as terminals were first called. I was also a fairly early Apple ][ user in 1978, when I paid over $7K for a completely outfitted 64K Apple with 80-column card, software, printer (Epson), graphics tablet, and two (count them) 140K floppy drives.</p>

<p>Sorry, just thinking about it makes me smile, and I could (and my friends tell me, often do) go on for hours in this vein.</p>

<p>I'm a little ashamed, but I still have a working Mac SE (looks like a bread machine). I has a 8MHz (!) processor and is older than some of the posters on this forum. </p>

<p>Puppy Face... Don't be ashamed. I still have mine. Find me a PC that's even worth turning on from the late 80's/early 90's! Plus, the industrial design is still so elegant... Most contemporary PCs still haven't caught up... Of course, I bleed 6-color blood, so you're getting an obviously biased response!</p>

<p>I agree with the majority that the iMac 24" is tough to beat for most users. But I go against the grain with the dismissal of laptops, if you don't need one then don't get one, but I use a 17" MBP for all my work now, it can connect to the dedicated monitor effortlessly. Yes that is an expensive option to be mobile but I am not the only one who has gone that route. One of the best photo editor/retouchers here on PhotoNet uses a 15" MBP and screen.</p>

<p>I agree with the recommendations for an iMac as being the most reasonably priced alternative in the Mac lineup. I would recommend getting more RAM if you can, but even aftermarket going up to 8GB of RAM is almost $500 and you have to install it yourself. That's better than the $1k Apple charges though.</p>

<p>Is your reason for choosing a Mac for the OS, simplicity of use, and design ethos? If so, great. No arguments there.</p>

<p>If you are just trying to get more computing horsepower to handle the larger files from the 5D II, you don't need to spend the almost $3k that a 3.06 8gb RAM imac will cost you. Literally spending half of that will buy you a desktop PC with a much faster processor and a better screen. Replicating my current quad core system (pre i7 processor) with a Dell 2408 widescreen monitor would only cost $1500. Outputting 120 megabyte 16 bit TIFF's from 1Ds Mark III RAW files out of Lightroom takes 2.8 seconds per image. Yes, that is faster than a Mac Pro, I've got a good friend with one. :-)</p>

<p>On being trouble free in day to day use? I put more effort into setting up the PC, but it's been trouble free since then. I've also got a new generation Mac Mini, and have been pulling my hair out with all the bugginess of the Snow Leopard upgrade.</p>

<p>Sheldon,</p>

<p>Whilst the PC/Apple argument can be drawn out again, not by me though, I feel I need to point out that you don't need a 3.06 processor or 8gb of RAM, my lowly 4GB of RAM handles 400-600 mb HDR files absolutely fine. 25mb RAW files (5D MkII and 1Ds MkIII) in LR are handled before the task bar can give you a timeline. 8GB of RAM can be bought for under $500 now too, you can even get money back for the memory you take out.</p>

<p>You do not need a new $3,000 computer, Mac or PC, to work with 5D MkII files. An $1,800 one will work perfectly, even the $1,500 one if money is tight, and many people use old stuff. I have an old G4 12" iBook that goes traveling and even it can work LR and my RAW files.</p>

<p>Very true Scott, if there isn't a burning need for the computer to be faster then the money doesn't necessarily need to be spent on a computer. I worked for years on an OLD, very slow desktop and I was working with 4x5 film scans of 1GB+ file sizes. It's only been recently that I've had a decent desktop PC. My definition of what was "fine" to handle my computing tasks certainly did change after the upgrade, though.</p>

<p>I'm just down on my Mac lately... hangs on shutdown, drops the network connection and server, ugh. Snow Leopard has not been all that was promised. With that mindset, it kills me to see people discussing this without acknowledging the drastic value proposition involved. That $1500 PC I referenced gets you a better screen than the 24" iMac and a computer that's on par with a $6k Mac Pro in terms of pure performance. For me, all the OS is is a front end for Adobe products (Lightroom & CS4) and a web browser, and the exterior design of the computer doesn't matter.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree with previous posters that $1500 to $1800 should buy you a computer that will leave nothing to be desired for photo applications. A Mac is rarely - if ever - the most economical way to go, but you seem determined to go that route, and there are many satisfied users. I started on PCs in the mid 90s and had to use Mac's for work for some time. I have no personal experience with the latest generation of Macintosh gear, but previous experiences for me have been such that I'd never buy one.</p>

<p>I will note that there is a posting today of rumors and some "prematurely run" ads in Italy, that suggest new models are immanent. Of course, new models are <strong><em>always</em> </strong> immanent! (<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/04/new-imac-macbook-mac-mini_n_308992.html">link</a> )</p>

<p>At my SE house my Mac SE/30 went under in Katrina; it had a 16Mhz cpu. With some hacks this box could hold 128megs of ram; alot for its era. I bought the SE/30 at a thrift store for something like 30 bucks about 7 years ago; it all worked until it went under salt water.<br>

<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/KATRINA/P1010025shingleMACPC.jpg?t=1254678833" alt="" width="460" height="401" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>A Mac is rarely - if ever - the most economical way to go...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, he is buying a $2700 5DII, so obviously he has some money to burn and wants to enjoy a few of the finer things in life: stated he wanted to go Mac and buy a model with plenty of power for those big honkin' 21MP files. I waited on buying a 5DII until the Mac Pro with Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Nehalem" hit the Apple Stores and wasn't disappointed in the combo.</p>

As stated before, I'm obviously biased... But to say that the Mac is never the most economical way to go is just flat wrong.

Elegance and excellence aren't found on in the cheap PC boxes... That's just reality. But, to make the obvious

extrapolation from the PC arguments above... Why not just buy a Rebel. It takes pictures - just like a 5DII, doesn't it? And

it's less than half the cost! :-)

<blockquote>

<p>Well, he is buying a $2700 5DII, so obviously he has some money to burn and wants to enjoy a few of the finer things in life.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Puppy Face, you are 100% correct. Sorry I am such a penny pincher, but I can't help it. My post was obviously misplaced in this thread!</p>

<p>May I suggest the OP sip some Penfolds Grange whilst setting up the Mac? I hear 1998 is quite an acceptable vintage, and still available at only $600 per bottle. But how crude of me to talk about money. I'll try to be better, promise! </p>

<p>Oh, and I do shoot a Rebel - an XT nonetheless. Better get out of here. Cheers!</p>

<p>I'll second the 24" iMac recommended by other posters. It is stylish, quiet, doesn't take up too much space, and the screen is wonderful for photo viewing and editing. I have a 2 year old one now, but it doesn't really need upgrading until it breaks.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>May I suggest the OP sip some Penfolds Grange whilst setting up the Mac? I hear 1998 is quite an acceptable vintage, and still available at only $600 per bottle. But how crude of me to talk about money. I'll try to be better, promise!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Too old skool. I'd suggest ah wee bit 'o Maui Wowie or Kona Gold. More elegant and perception enhancing than wino, making the most of both the Canon and Mac experience.</p>

<p>Personally I'd stay away from any computer – and that includes the current iMacs – with a glossy screen. They're terrible for image editing.</p>

<p>Apple has been massively criticised by professional photographers for only offering a matte screen on their top-of-the-line 17" Mac Book Pro. Now they've finally come to their senses, and added this as an option for the 15" model.</p>

<p>Martin,</p>

<p>We are all entitled to our opinions, I personally compared the two, glossy and matte, when I bought my first 17 MBP, the old core duo, I paid $300 more for the glossy screen and would never get a non glossy screen for photo work. Why? Because the contrast and blacks are so much richer on the glossy screen. It is not difficult to set yourself up with no reflections, well I don't find it difficult, neither do millions of others. But I compared the same images in the same programs side by side, no contest for me.</p>

<p>Just go to an Apple store and say "I need to do <strong>hard core</strong> photo/video editing". Those guys will hook you up right. <br>

Also you can't have too much HDD space. I have an iMac and two external hard drives, but then I scan a lot of film in addition to using digital cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Too old skool. I'd suggest ah wee bit 'o Maui Wowie or Kona Gold. More elegant and perception enhancing than wino, making the most of both the Canon and Mac experience.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I thought I'd never live to hear an Aussie wine called 'old skool'. Had to use google to find out what the other stuff even is. Guess I need to get out more, not just with the camera ;-)</p>

<p>As a point of reference, I have a 24 inch iMac with a 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 4 GB RAM and a 750 GB internal drive. Last year I processed about 29,000 images through it and this year through September I have processed 31,000 images (year end projection about 38-40,000). Use Aperture for work flow and Aperture, Photoshop CS3 and Nik filters (Color Efex 3.0 Pro, Silver Efex, Vivenda) for touch up and whatever else I want to do. I also use Drobo 2nd Gen to store all my RAW files and WD 2TB Studio drive for archiving.<br>

My Aperture libraries are all referenced and stored on my internal drive for the moment.<br>

I also carry around a MacBook Pro (17") when I travel or am in the studio and use WD Passport drives to store the images.<br>

Good luck. If you do 100,000 images/yr and lots of HDR and scanned TIFF, an iMac might not be able to do it for you.<br>

Regards, Steven</p>

<p>Apparently, the first vintage of the Grange was reviewed thus: "A concoction of wild fruits and sundry berries with crushed ants predominating". They may have improved it since then. <br>

This contribution to the thread couldn't be more off-topic.</p>

<p>I've been very pleased with my new 17 inch MBP, which I got with a matte screen. It was a major leap from my old Aluminum MBP of late 2006 vintage. </p>

<p>If you're thinking about an iMac, I'd wait until the new ones are released. Yes, there's always something new coming in the future, but in this case, the future is almost certainly just a few weeks away, perhaps less. They're overdue for a refresh/upgrade and the holidays are just around the corner. Bank on new iMacs soon. </p>