Lightroom on Mac - Mac Pro Desktop or iMac

<p>I'm running Lightroom 2.3 on my aging iMac (PowerPC -not Intel, 2GHZ 1.5 GB Ram) and am ready to upgrade. I've also recently purchased the Canon 5D MKII and shooting primarily RAW I am now dealing with 25MB files as opposed to the <10 MB ones from my 20D. The 20D files were slow enough to preview and edit, the 5D are a test of patience.</p>

<p>I was figuring on just getting the latest iMac with the fast processor and 4GB RAM but am now wondering if I should bite the bullet and go straight for a Mac Pro. The obvious sticking point is that the nicest iMac comes in just over $2K while an average spec'd Pro is in the $3.5K - $4K range, though certainly a much more powerful beast with lots more options for growth.</p>

<p>My question is to anyone out there running LR on a new iMac (and even better with large RAW files of this size) - do you find the iMac sufficient for your LR tasks, or is it still a bit wanting?</p>

<p>To complicate matters my LR images are stored on a Network Raid Drive, though it is a wired connection of iMac - Router - Drive. I'm sure that contributes to some of the loading time...<br>

I've looked at the Apple site for refurbished Pros but they only have a full bore model at over $4K.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Jeff</p>

<p>I also have a NAS and you will take a hit on speed but that's balanced w/ the convenience a NAS system gives.</p>

<p>From what I've seen, most people are quite happy w/ a iMac. There will always be those that want a Pro</p>

<p>I've just gotten a MacBook Pro, but I was using an 18 month old iMac and it was pretty snappy when using Lightroom. The Mac Pro would certainly be faster and have a longer life for you, but in terms of Lightroom usage I'd be surprised if you could tell much of a difference.</p>

<p>Jeff, <br>

I'm running LR 2.3 on an iMac 2.4GHz duo 2 core and a MacBook Pro (15") with Firewire 800 connection to Lacie external HD. No problems with speed for me.</p>

<p>Jeff,</p>

<p>I run LR 2.2 on a Dual 1.8 GHz PPC (IBM chips) which Ive upgraded to 4.5GB of RAM and I process scanned negs at anything between 40MB to 185MB per image in CS3. I also use a NAS as a working drive. The two main points I would make is, RAM is critical, and ensure your network connection (at least between the Mac and the NAS) is running at Gigabit Ethernet.</p>

<p>My personal view is that I still have no need to upgrade my hardware. It all runs perfectly well and the speed issues I have are exactly the same Ive always had (as I work with scans). I do make points of capping software releases (on 10.4.11) as the dependencies of one app on another on the OS on the hardware is all designed to continually force you down the upgrade path. Im know the newer machines are faster but I intend to extract as much value out of the current investment as possible. To be honest, I still see no reason I couldn't pull another 5 years out of this machine. At worst, I will buy a low end Mac to run Internet banking or other requirements that wont run on the current machine.</p>

<p>The short answer is yes.</p>

<p>I've been toying with the same decision. The Mac Pro is expensive, but it's very fast, so I'd expect to get several years more use from it. If cash isn't a problem, I'd opt for the Pro.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My question is to anyone out there running LR on a new iMac (and even better with large RAW files of this size) - do you find the iMac sufficient for your LR tasks, or is it still a bit wanting?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>On location i work with a Imac 24 / MacBookpro unibody laptop both at 2.4 ghz, 4gig ram..with any kind of camera from 5DMkII to P45 Phase One...it just kick a**</p>

<p>If you *only* have 2k to spend, the Imac is the best choice vs the macpro of course. Yeah i know, you cant upgrade the Imac like the MacPro, cant add video card, cant put 16gig of ram bla bla bla ..but really..who does that? I have a MacPro 3ghz, 6gig of ram, original video card and run a NEC 26inch and a Apple 23inch..work with it 50hrs a week and dont wait on 250meg file...so do i need more power? maybe next year ; )</p>

<p>__________</p>

<p>TO PC USERS/ the OP ask for a Imac vs MacPro..please whe all know PC is cheaper, faster, better, etc...just stick to the Mac for once ; )</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with an earlier post: Ram and network speed will be the bottlenecks long before the processor. The more Ram the better. Gigiabit ethernet is a must and chances are your router is 10/100 and not 10/100/1000! However, I might also suggest taking the images off of a network drive and keeping them on a local drive. In the case of an iMac that would be a FW800 drive or in the case of a MacPro that would be a 2nd internal drive. The internal drive being the faster of the two options. All told, the MacPro will be faster than the iMac- but I am not so sure you will notice any day-to-day productivity increase provided you have enough Ram and the the images on their own drive. </p>