Which iMac Should I get?

[walkertexasranger]

<p>Hello,<br>

I'm starting a wedding photography business and need to upgrade my computer. Here is my plan: I plan on purchasing the 5dMKIII when it comes out. I will then buy Adobe LR and PS Elements and I want a computer that can run those programs smoothly, handle the MKIII's RAW files with ease, and maybe do a little video work.<br>

Also a big reason I want a Mac is I am, on the side, going to be developing iPhone applications using Xcode.<br>

So I am looking into an iMac. Which one should I buy? There are 4 different models. At the moment I'm leaning toward the base model but I very confused and don't know if it can handle all the above listed smoothly.<br>

<a href="http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac/select?mco=MjIwNTQyNjE">http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac/select?mco=MjIwNTQyNjE</a><br>

(Also for all you haters out there who say the iMac screen is bad, read this:<br>

<a href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-11532-11564">http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-11532-11564</a> )<br>

Is the base model enough? Is 21.5in a big enough screen or should I splurge and get the 27in with higher resolution? Is the processing power of the base model enough or should I spend more and buy a faster one? I'm just so confused.<br>

All cogent input is welcome.<br>

Thanks so much!</p>

 

[seland]

<p>Short answer: Every new iMac will have no problem running Lightroom and Elements smoothly.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If you can afford it, it's always good to buy the currently "most advanced" model, which in 3 years time will then be the currently least advanced model. Inevitably.<br /> Memory (RAM) is more important for Photoshop than sheer speed. You might want to consider Aperture, which can be bought for a great price from Apple with the machine. Many Mac users prefer it to Lightroom.</p>

<p>Avoid overinvestment (too high start-up costs, that is) on the other hand. You want to have enough money on hand to stay in business long enough to make a profit.</p>

<p>So any of the models will do, but how much you put into these things depends on your personal situation.</p>

<p>So far as I know, there has been no real information on when an announcement of a new 5D model will come out, just rumors, so you might have a very long wait before buying a new one.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>I have a 4 year old 2Ghz iMac w/4GB memory and it runs LR3 with no sweat or strain. Which frankly surprised me. I think LR3 must be a very well-coded program (compared to CS2, which runs a bit doggish on my computer). I have a 21" screen and I wish I had the larger one. I'd rather have more screen than more CPU.</p>

[jean_yves_mead]

Get the largest monitor you can. When you're elbows-deep in photo editing and post-processing then you'll be grateful for the space to have all your tools in plain sight.

[andylynn]

<p>Here's what I'd do. Get the 27" base model - the $1700 version. Don't worry, the CPU is hella fast - it's a quad core Sandy Bridge. Then upgrade the memory yourself. The instructions for this are <a href="http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/imac_mid2011_ug.pdf">starting on page 37 of this document</a>. Use <a href="http://www.crucial.com/store/mpartspecs.aspx?mtbpoid=746859E0A5CA7304">this memory</a> - buy one kit or two (this computer has 4 slots). I'm honestly not sure whether you can mix two of those with Apple's two 2GB DIMMs for 12GB, but if I had to guess I'd say... probably. Get some external hard drive capacity.</p>

<p>I'd get <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002QEBMCI/?tag=andylynnnet-20">one of these</a> to use exclusively as the Time Machine drive (setting that up is in the OSX help) because you don't really need that to be your fastest drive, and if you want more storage later use Firewire or Thunderbolt.</p>

<p>Then I'd use the OSX App Store program to buy Aperture, because when you do it that way it only costs $80 (!) and... well, look, this is a personal perference thing, and if you already love Adobe Camera Raw you'll feel right at home in Lightroom, but to me Aperture is the better product, and you appear to have an iPhone and Aperture will sync photos to iPhone. Also, I'd use <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000JLO31M/?tag=andylynnnet-20">one of these</a>, because the Apple display is nice out of the box but still not well profiled enough for demanding users.</p>

[dan_south]

Big screens are nice.

 

 

Extra memory is nice.

 

 

The camera that you mentioned does not exist, and by the time that something similar materializes computers will

have improved significantly over today's models.

[mdma]

<p>RAM is pretty darn important when it comes to using LR, CS5, iMovie etc. I have an app called iStat Menus 3, which displays my CPU an RAM usage (among other things) at the top of my desktop, next to the clock. With my 4GB installed, I can see LR3 uses 60-70%, wheres my 4 processers do little except idle most of the time (bar exporting of course). <br>

+1 for buying the most advanced model. I got the 27" $2000 model last september, and now the $1700 version is faster. But I figured paying more for the quad core = 16GB RAM max = longer usefulness. Also I was drawn in by the sheer amount of real estate in 27"....That must be hectares in pixel terms, no?<br>

However...All the processers across the range are now i5 Quad Core. Even the slowest version will be more than adequate. The RAM is the same across the range. The larger screen size is nice for editing and watching videos, but overkill for everything else. The increased resolution also makes standard fonts much smaller, so all those websites <strong><em>best viewed at 1024x800</em></strong> will become the bane of your life!<br>

My gut instinct is to tell you to the the base 21.5" model but upgrade the RAM to 8GB (at least). You can do this while ordering, but if I remember correctly Apple charges a kings ransom for the privilege, so considering installing it afterwards yourself. It's pretty simple to do.</p>

[photo5]

<p>The general rule when buying a computer is you buy the most expensive one you can afford today, because in 3-5 years it will be mediocre at best. In June, 2009 I bought the 24" C2D iMac and special ordered it through Apple with the best video card they offered at the time. It has a max RAM of 8gb, which I have already upgraded to. It does just fine by me, but at the time I spent $1999 on it, and now the entry level iMac, with the i5 CPU, beats it handily, and has an LED illuminated screen, and can be expanded to 16gb of RAM, not to mention it has Thunderbolt, etc.</p>

[andylynn]

Dave, I don't know where that general rule came from but I strongly disagree, simply because there are so many

opportunities to spend twice as much for a few percent performance increase that you can have a situation where a

$5000 computer is not noticeably more capable, for the uses the user intends, than a $2500 computer. Computer

configs should be tailored to the user's needs.

[walkertexasranger]

<p>Well based on what you said Andy, what would you suggest I do with the selection of iMacs?</p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses though, I appreciate the feedback.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Josh, even the entry level iMac is a superb computer. Quad core i5 CPU, LED 1080p IPS panel, wireless keyboard and mouse, OSX 10.6, the works! I would recommend upgrading to the next one to get a larger internal hard drive and slightly better video CPU. i7 gets you 4 more cores, virtual, but still useful and adds a speed boost.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Like I said in my first post, John - least expensive 27" model, and see my links on RAM, storage etc. I wouldn't even upgrade the internal hard drive, because soon enough there will be very fast Thunderbolt externals available, and prices always fall so it's better to add a hard drive in a year than have a half empty one now. Apple brand RAM is priced too high so I never recommend buying more than the minimum, and the CPU is not a good place to spend for the most expensive option because even the cheapest current option is extremely fast and you overpay at the high end.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Josh, the 27" model doesn't have a higher resolution than the 21.5" model, it just has more pixels, but the dots per inch on the screen is the same. Unless you know you need a 27" monitor, I would say you would be better off spending the extra money on a CPU upgrade (i5 to i7) which would benefit you much more than a larger screen. You can always add a second monitor, but once you buy the i5 iMac, you can't upgrade the CPU. </p>

[andylynn]

I don't want to get into anything but I really have to speak up here because this is terrible advice. First, that's a very

confusing use of the term resolution. Most monitor buyers prioritize screen size and large numbers of pixels over pixel

density and would not consider a 21.5" monitor to have the same resolution as a 27" monitor because it has the same

PPI, when the 27" has far more pixels.

 

The 27" is better for photography apps because it has many more pixels and more physical screen size, so you can

view your work larger and in more detail.

 

Also, the advice is bad. It makes no sense to prioritize CPU speed over screen size in a graphic design or

photography context, when all the available CPUs are More than fast enough. If, for example, the OP had said "I want

to spend $1700, should I get the 27" with the 2.7GHz i5 or the 21.5" with the 2.8Ghz i7, I plan to run photography

apps," the answer would be, without question, the 27. The difference between the monitors has a direct impact on the

use of the computer, while the difference in the CPUs is so insignificant as to be entirely unnoticeable. (So much so

that on my own site I've made recommendations like "don't pay extra for that CPU, instead spend the money on

beer.")

[eric_brody]

<p>There's no substitute for monitor real estate, eg 27". CPU speed is a non-issue, RAM is important, as much as affordable (and not from Apple), a fast (firewire 800 or thunderbolt-when it arrives) external drive is also important. All the rest is bull...oney.<br>

Good luck.</p>

[dan_south]

I would be lost without my 24" monitor. 27" would be better. 21.5 would be extremely limiting.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>As some who moved fro ,a a 21" imac to a 27" Imac, i terms of enjoying doing the work there is no contest: the 27' iMac wins. </p>

<p>As to Ghz and chip selection. For photography I have an i5 (early 2010 model) and I am not sure the i7 will offer any advantage that is terribly useful for still photographers and general users.</p>

<p>More RAM is very useful. If you will be doing video an i& makes more sense. I started with 4GB, went to 12GB ( 2 x 2GB + 2 x 4GB) and now have a full 16GB ( 4 x 4GB) installed. Having a lot of RAM makes a whopping difference in performance. All of my current RAM came from Other World Computing. </p>

<p>Storage" The current models have an option to have second HDD (or rather one HDD and one SSD installed internally. While the speed push will generally be minimal if you go wit that configuration you are likely to see better performance if you store the OS and Applications on the SSD and your iamges on the internal HDD. Thunderbolt equipped external storage cases may make this a moot point. If you go with just the one internal HDD, get at least a 1TB and only use 20% of it's capacity. </p>

<p>I got that last tip from Lloyd Chambers' excellent guide to choosing and setting up Macs of all flavors for optimal performance. You can find it at http://macperformanceguide.com/ Except for constantly promoting Other World Computing, http://macperformanceguide.com/ is remarkably clear headed, honest, well thought out, written clearly and free from hype and hyperbole. </p>

[warren_wilson]

<p>Well, I have found having a second monitor (I use the 21" Apple cinema monitor beside my iMac which itself has a 21" monitor) works very well.<br>

With PS, I can put controls on one monitor and full-screen on the other. With Bridge, I fill one screen with thumbnails -- the other with the full-screen image.<br>

As far as "buy the most expensive," I'd disagree. After many years of buying computers for schools (as a principal), I found that the best bang for the buck came with buying at the middle of current technology. It all ages quickly, but there's little sense in paying to live at the "bleeding edge."<br>

The advice I'd offer is to buy the mid-range computer and use the money saved for a second monitor. It will make your work flow more easily: certainly handier than shaving pico-seconds off an edit. And monitors remain current a lot longer than do CPUs.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I'd take a faster computer any day over a larger monitor. I spent 10 years working at a 21 inch CRT monitor with "only" 1156 pixels across. Now the 21.5" iMac has 1920 pixels across, and you're saying it's still not enough? Amazing.</p>

<p>The i7 is considerably more powerful than the i5 because it has another 4 virtual cores working for you, which can be quite a boost. The i5 is a good middle of the road CPU today, but in a couple years it will be quite out of date, whereas the i7 has a lot more future power wise.</p>

<p>The OP could buy the 21.5" iMac today and buy a 27" second monitor, or even a 32" second monitor if he wanted, using the iMac for his small controls or pallets monitor. That to me would be the right way to go. The value is in CPU horsepower, not a big screen. I have a 21.5" monitor here in front of me right now and it doesn't seem small to me at all.</p>

<p>Warren is right, add a second monitor. One for your controls, pallets, and the other for full screen image editing.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I spent years working on CPUs that were not four cores at 2.7GHz, and you're saying that's still not enough? Amazing.</p>

<p>I get paid to write about this, I moderate the hardware board on a site that has 56,000 members, I've tested these myself and there is no noticeable Photoshop performance difference between the slowest 27" model (i5-2500S, 2.7GHz) and the fastest 21.5" model (i7-2600S, 2.8GHz). It's low single digit percentages. You can't tell the difference. You'd be crazy to choose the faster 21.5" over the slowest 27", when they're the same price. Dave, it's such bad advice I can't imagine you've done any testing at all.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>I moderate the hardware board on a site that has 56,000 members...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So much for loyalty. </p>

<p>Are you sure you're instilling confidence in your expertise mentioning this? </p>

[andylynn]

<p>What? I don't moderate this site, and this site and that one are not competitors in any way.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>That's not what I meant, Andy. You have 56,000 members at your site you moderate of which I'm sure some are paying members so I have to wonder how they feel about you dividing your time posting on sites like this one.</p>

<p>From all the spam, sock puppets, trolls and boiler plate discussion that get out of hand at Photo.net it appears to be almost a full time job to moderate. Or maybe your site doesn't have that much traffic to where you DO have enough time to post on other sites.</p>

<p>Not sure because our moderators don't disclose that kind of information about their<br /> job like you just did about yours.</p>

<p>In short to win trust here as an expert you need to spend some time here and not use your accolades as a moderator and reviewer on another site as a point of argument that you know what you're talking about.</p>

[andylynn]

Haha, I see. No no, the other site isn't a paid site and the thing that is paid is a limited number of hours, there's not

much subject matter overlap here and I'm free to write whatever I feel like - no worries, it's all under control.