MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Photography Equipment => Computer Hardware => Topic started by: luissantos84 on January 11, 2014, 20:36
-
I am mainly thinking in terms of photo editing, I am not looking at laptops (tired of mine!) or the usual tower desktop pc/mac with monitor, at the moment I believe the all in one pc/mac would suit me better, I understand the usual pc/mac tower is way more powerful with higher expandable cpu or ram or hd etc and cheaper but I am looking for something more "minimalist/practical"
any thoughts are welcome/appreciated, cheers guys :)
-
Well, I've been using an iMac for last few years and wouldn't hesitate to buy another one when the need arises.
-
I agree - iMac is terrific for image editing. Powerful, fast and great screen. Mine has dual hard drives. SSD (Solid state drive) with all my programs on it and a regular 1TB drive for my photos. Highly recommend it.
-
Luis,
I just bought a big iMac with 16gig ram. I love it. I am making the transition from PC to Mac. I think my iMac was about $2700 us with the memory.
-
Count me in as another iMac fan. It's a sweet set-up with a small footprint and a fabulous monitor.
I bought my first Apple II for home use in 1982. Yikes!!! Upgraded to an early Mac around 1985-86. The Mac was already amazing then, considering what else was out there. I've owned a beige cube. A gumdrop-colored, balloon-shaped gizmo. Several variations of the towers. And now my favorite of all, an iMac.
I used PCs at work for years and hated every clunky minute of it. One of the joys of retirement was to never have to work on one of them again.
-
You must mean 1987, the first Mac wasn’t even around until ’83. My first Mac was the 512K in 1984. I think the Mac II came out in '86 or '87. The company got a few 512K boxes in 83 (they came with a case so you could take them home but they were heavy) and asked me to figure them out so I could teach others. It had MacPaint and MacWrite for software, that's it. By 1987 I was learning QuarkXPress but Photoshop wasn’t around until ’89. It was called something else though. I use an iMac now and love it, the monitor is much improved from that old glossy screen. It is very compact but really sturdy.
-
Just in case you are not leaning toward the Mac side, most any current PC would work. Buying a particular brand is far less important than knowing what is under the hood. I know everyone loves their macs but if I can't open it up and take it apart I'm not interested. But that's just me, if you don't care then either works just fine.
Fast cpu, either i5 or i7 with lots of RAM, minimum of 8GB. I use 16GB. Fast hard disk for the boot drive or preferably an SSD at least 256GB if you can afford it. SSD prices are dropping fast and nothing else you can add will make as much difference in the computer's speed. You really have to see it to believe it. Add a big (2tb at least) drive for file storage and a couple of external drives for backup / off site storage.
Graphics card will depend on whether you use Lightroom or Photoshop, LR does not currently use the GPU so most anything will work. PS does, so check to make sure your card supports it, or the other way round.
Make sure you get a card reader that supports the card you camera uses. USB 3.0 ports should be standard now but you should check to make sure.
And the item generally considered last but arguably the most important: the monitor. I just got a Dell U2713 and am stunned at the improvement over my previous one. You should not consider anything but an IPS screen, older and cheaper TN based screens just don't cut it for image processing. If you are using a wide gamut workflow, then of course your monitor needs to support that. But if you are using wide gamut then you probably already know all this.
-
MSI GT60 3k
It's a laptop but a powerful one and the reason I will switch from my very powerful very huge desktop-pc to this laptop and an external raid-system as soon it is available in my country. You can power up four displays in matrix-mode with this laptop and itself has an high-resolution display.
-
If you already have a keyboard, a mouse and a good monitor, a Mac Mini with a lot of RAM is a very good option.
You told that you are not attracted by a new laptop, but I would consider a MacBook Pro 13 with the maximum of RAM.
http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook-pro?product=MD101LL/A&step=config (http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook-pro?product=MD101LL/A&step=config)
Mobility is always a good option for a photographer.
-
oh thanks for all contributions guys, nice to hear what other photographers/illustrators are using, much appreciated!
I am quite divided between the iMac 21.5 and the Dell Inspirion 2350 or even the biggest/powerful 27'' XPS One, I don't really need an optical drive and the 27'' isn't a must as well (same goes for touch display), I don't mind about the operating system too, I am used to Mac because many family members has them
regarding prices is something like buying the fastest PC or the slowest iMac
I agree that having a SSD is essential
-
My Christmas present to myself was a image processing beast. Tired of hearing my older computer complain about heavy use of the the CPU by OnOne Perfect Effects 8 and Photoshop.
After comparing Dell and the HP I went for HP. SSD drives to run operating system and apps. Photos stored on external drives. I also got a Asus factory calibrated 24 IPS monitor.
HP ENVY 810qe
• Windows 8.1 64
• 4th Generation Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770 processor quad-core [3.4GHz, 8MB Shared Cache]
• 4GB Nvidia GeForce GT640 [DX11,DVI,DP,HDMI & VGA via adapter]
• 8GB DDR3-1600MHz [1 DIMM ]
SLOTS OPEN FOR ADDING MORE RAM
• 128GB Solid state drive
• No Secondary HDD
I GOT A 250 GB SSD CHEAPER OFF OF AMAZON THEN HP WOULD HAVE CHARGED.
• Microsoft Office Trial
• Security software trial
• Blu-ray Reader & SuperMulti DVD burner
• 15-in-1 Multi-slot Media Card Reader, 4 USB Ports (Front/Top), Audio [Front 2USB2.0, Top 2USB3.0]
• No TV Tuner Card
• Integrated Sound, Envy Audio; Beats Audio
• HP USB Keyboard and USB Optical Mouse
• HP WLAN 802.11 b/g/n Bluetooth(R)(1x1)
• HP Home & Home Office Store in-box envelope
-
Note the computer equipment sans monitor was about $1200. Same with Apple probably be $5000 (ok maybe I exaggerate)
-
I've been using iMacs and MacBook Pros for quite some time now and would continue to do so. I do image and footage processing with my Mac.
If I were looking to upgrade my system it would be an iMac with the 3TB Fusion Drive and with the 27" screen, because of the user accessible memory slots.
I use 4TB and 2TB network drives for backups. Also a laptop for memory card backup and cloud backup when traveling.
-
I'm a PC user that just picked up a Macbook Pro. Regardless of what you get I'd agree with some of the other comments that specs are probably most important. Especially an SSD over a regular hard drive seems to have a big impact on performance. Or a hybrid version that combines SSD/HDD. Then after that a bunch of RAM. I have my Macbook connected to a 24inch Dell and it works great. I haven't used any of the all-in-ones so not much to add there.
Mac vs Windows is personal preference. I went to Mac because of my experience with my Iphone which has been flawless for the past year. So far OSX Mavericks has also been pretty painless. I grew tired of wasting time on tech problems.
-
This is what I use, and I love it.
(http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz187/rimglow/MyMac_zps15b2ddc6.jpg) (http://s826.photobucket.com/user/rimglow/media/MyMac_zps15b2ddc6.jpg.html)
-
I had to add another vote to the PC/cost-effective camp. I agree that specs are MUCH more important than brand and if you're looking at specs only, PCs are so much less expensive than Macs. My build which cost ~$1,000USD is below:
AMD FX 8150 8-core processor @ 3.6GHz
Biostar TA970 motherboard
NVIDIA GeForce GT 630 w/ 4GB DDR3
32GB RAM
2x OCZ 240GB SSD
2x 2TB 7200RPM HDD
850watt modular power supply
Generic case w/ 6 fans
Window 7
I built this system to be able to handle Canon HDSLR video editing and it's been superb. I tried to price out a Mac with similar specs and the price that I came up with was about $3000 with only 16GB of RAM.
That extra $2000 could buy a nice lens! The other benefit is that I can easily upgrade my system when I need to. The motherboard supports up to 64GB of RAM, so I plan to increase that in the near future.
-
You must mean 1987, the first Mac wasn’t even around until ’83. My first Mac was the 512K in 1984. I think the Mac II came out in '86 or '87. The company got a few 512K boxes in 83 (they came with a case so you could take them home but they were heavy) and asked me to figure them out so I could teach others. It had MacPaint and MacWrite for software, that's it. By 1987 I was learning QuarkXPress but Photoshop wasn’t around until ’89. It was called something else though. I use an iMac now and love it, the monitor is much improved from that old glossy screen. It is very compact but really sturdy.
The Apple II came out in 1977. It's not unlikely that Martha would purchase one in 1982 because Apple continued to sell them and introduce new Apple II models up until 1988, well after the introduction of the Macintosh in 1984. I used a Lisa at work for awhile in 1983-4 and also owned a home PC, an XT clone which ran MSDOS 2, I purchased in November 1983 to replace an older Commodore 64.
Apple History: http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/01/the-evolution-of-apple-design-between-1977-2008/ (http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/01/the-evolution-of-apple-design-between-1977-2008/)
IBM PC History: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer)
-
The evolution of the Mac is interesting and not many early ones were sold http://oldcomputers.net/lisa.html (http://oldcomputers.net/lisa.html) You've brought back memories with the mention of the Commodore 64 http://oldcomputers.net/c64.html (http://oldcomputers.net/c64.html). I learned BASIC on one of those, or it might have been a TRS-80 http://oldcomputers.net/trs80i.html (http://oldcomputers.net/trs80i.html). Time flies!
-
I also had a RadioShack TRS80 color computer. I remember being SO excited when I soldered in my gigantic new 128KB chip and also when I was able to store programs on cassette!
Basic was great!
-
16GB Mac Mini is a neat, small footprint and almost silent solution which runs at only 85W consumption max. Great for photo editing, inexpensive to run and will retain its resale value even after a few years (none Apple computer hardware has very little resale value).
People doing big video editing jobs might want something more powerful - though I believe that a Mac Mini with an external thunderbolt drive would be plenty fast enough for most stock clip length video. Seems to me that Macs are, for many people, a better platform for video since Final Cut Pro does not run under Windows - therefore running Windows would restrict choice and increase costs (Final Cut Pro cost only $300. Premiere is significantly more expensive and now requires a cloud subscription).
-
I had to add another vote to the PC/cost-effective camp. I agree that specs are MUCH more important than brand and if you're looking at specs only, PCs are so much less expensive than Macs. My build which cost ~$1,000USD is below:
AMD FX 8150 8-core processor @ 3.6GHz
Biostar TA970 motherboard
NVIDIA GeForce GT 630 w/ 4GB DDR3
32GB RAM
2x OCZ 240GB SSD
2x 2TB 7200RPM HDD
850watt modular power supply
Generic case w/ 6 fans
Window 7
I built this system to be able to handle Canon HDSLR video editing and it's been superb. I tried to price out a Mac with similar specs and the price that I came up with was about $3000 with only 16GB of RAM.
That extra $2000 could buy a nice lens! The other benefit is that I can easily upgrade my system when I need to. The motherboard supports up to 64GB of RAM, so I plan to increase that in the near future.
A beast... and macfans still don't get why savvier folks just laugh at them. I'v recently got an i7 with 32 gigs of ram, have been running win7 for about 6 months almost non-stop, zero problems. One thing many neglect: I also bought a pro gaming mouse + appropriate high grade mousepad = retouching twice as fast, regardless of the computer. (I also hit people mid air with rockets :))
-
the eternal Mac vs PC diatribe is going on since 30 yrs and will go on forever and ever.
BUT, until 15 yrs ago the Mac was king in DTP while nowadays there's little difference between the photo apps running on both systems.
and if we talk about CAD/CAM applications the PC has been king since day one apart for Archicad and some other exceptions to the rule.
what really makes the difference today is a good calibrated IPS minitor in my opinion.
by the way, the Mac fan boys should be reminded that they should recalibrate every 6 months at least with a hardware solution, no matter what the apple's marketing BS says.
as for OSX, well it's nothing more than a glorified revamped NextStep UNIX GUI recompiled for X86/64, with removed Finder and the * "dock" added.
and the file manager bundled with OSX can't even sort directories on top of files ... that's unacceptable for Pro users.
i'm using PC and Macs since the early 80's, if mac users are still ok using just one mouse button i'm afraid they're going to be confused with two buttons .. the mac user base is quite colorful to say the least, they could be put on par with those using Sony NEX and expecting to shoot in Auto mode forever in any situation as they've been told that Sony does it better ... they're indeed a sort of "cult" and go tell them otherwise.
now, talking about laptops, have you tried the Lenovo Ultrabook U series ?
as for monitors, Apple displays are mid-range in the best scenario, try some better stuff like 2-3000$ Eizo, Sony, Panasonic, etc
the bad reputation still affecting WIndows is that it's born and still is a general purpose OS, it's like a 18-200mm lens, jack of all trades and master of none.
moreover, users don't even want to hear about reading a manual and have unrealistic expectations from a PC.
thanks god now they're migrating in droves to smartphones and android in particular so the PC arena will go back being a tool for Pros rather than people buying a laptop to surf facebook and twiitter.
-
PC vs Mac is a no sense battle but did someone say his imac screen is wonderful?
How can a reflective screen be good for pro photo use?
imacs and macbooks (even retina) screen is rubbish. And the Cinema Display (the old non glare version) is a joke compared with a Nec or Quato (I own the three)
-
"imacs and macbooks (even retina) screen is rubbish. And the Cinema Display (the old non glare version) is a joke compared with a Nec or Quato (I own the three)"
Of course you do.
Anyway, another vote for iMacs here. I use it for illustration mainly, but photo processing too, I must admit when I swapped from the Apple Cinema Display I was concerned about the glossy screen but have come to love it. Very stable reliable platform, wouldn't use anything else personally.
-
"I agree that specs are MUCH more important than brand and if you're looking at specs only, PCs are so much less expensive than Macs."
This is an old and boring argument, ably refuted in this article, comparing a very highly specce'd new Power Mac and the attempt to build a PC equivalent in power ( to save you reading the whole article, the PC was more expensive)
http://www.futurelooks.com/new-apple-mac-pro-can-build-better-cheaper-pc-diy-style/ (http://www.futurelooks.com/new-apple-mac-pro-can-build-better-cheaper-pc-diy-style/)
-
i'm using PC and Macs since the early 80's, if mac users are still ok using just one mouse button i'm afraid they're going to be confused with two buttons
It's true that the mid 80s Macs you were once familiar with only had a one button mouse.
OS X fully supports 2 and 3 button mice, wheel mice etc. The interface and menus are built around right click etc. The standalone and integrated trackpads also fully replicate the old 3 button paradigm but also support a wider range of gestures.
-
"I agree that specs are MUCH more important than brand and if you're looking at specs only, PCs are so much less expensive than Macs."
This is an old and boring argument, ably refuted in this article, comparing a very highly specce'd new Power Mac and the attempt to build a PC equivalent in power ( to save you reading the whole article, the PC was more expensive)
[url]http://www.futurelooks.com/new-apple-mac-pro-can-build-better-cheaper-pc-diy-style/[/url] ([url]http://www.futurelooks.com/new-apple-mac-pro-can-build-better-cheaper-pc-diy-style/[/url])
BoBoBolinski I agree with you.
And at last if a computer does an operation in 0,0000000000000000001 second it is 10000 times faster than a computer doing the same operation in 0,000000000000001 seconds, but I am not sure that we can see the difference…
Pure speed can be useful for high quality 3D movies, some complex movie editing, etc. but not to draw vectors in Illustrator or make some corrections in Lightroom or Photoshop.
A "slow" modern computer with a good amount of RAM will do the work perfectly.
For me it is more important the stability and the reliability of the machine that I use than the speed.
-
I recently upgraded.
PC i7 32 GB RAM, SSD local disk (+four HDD for storage).
price for the upgrading: about 900 dollars
It flies, no matter what software I'm using.
-
There are many of us who don't want to build our own machines. We don't know or care what is inside. We want to buy a computer that works from the get-go, is fast, has an operating system that is easy to upgrade, has a display that works with our eyes and that can be color-tuned to they way we work, will not be obsolete in a year and seldom needs trouble-shooting. I work on a Windows machine at work, a Mac at home. I use the same programs and they work just as well on both. They are both speedy. The dif is that there is an IT staff at work that takes care of all the problems and upgrades. At home I don't have to know too much other than every Mac I have owned has been worry-free out of the box and lasts forever. Yes, I back-up - that is a given no matter your system. Yes, I add as much memory and storage as I can but that can be done before the machine arrives at my house. Do I pay more, probably but the convenience is worth it to me since I am not a computer tech and do not play one on tv. It all comes down to personal preference (duh) and any time this question is asked you will get the same answers. It's just like the question, "which is the best camera, blah, blah". It depends on what you want to shoot and how you work. As with cameras, I say give a few a try and see what feels right for you. Same with computers. Your mileage may vary.
-
There are many of us who don't want to build our own machines. We don't know or care what is inside. We want to buy a computer that works from the get-go, is fast, has an operating system that is easy to upgrade, has a display that works with our eyes and that can be color-tuned to they way we work, will not be obsolete in a year and seldom needs trouble-shooting. I work on a Windows machine at work, a Mac at home. I use the same programs and they work just as well on both. They are both speedy. The dif is that there is an IT staff at work that takes care of all the problems and upgrades. At home I don't have to know too much other than every Mac I have owned has been worry-free out of the box and lasts forever. Yes, I back-up - that is a given no matter your system. Yes, I add as much memory and storage as I can but that can be done before the machine arrives at my house. Do I pay more, probably but the convenience is worth it to me since I am not a computer tech and do not play one on tv. It all comes down to personal preference (duh) and any time this question is asked you will get the same answers. It's just like the question, "which is the best camera, blah, blah". It depends on what you want to shoot and how you work. As with cameras, I say give a few a try and see what feels right for you. Same with computers. Your mileage may vary.
There are many of us who just want to be lumberjacks, no need to concern ourselves with what/how computers are, and all that 21st century BS. Just need an axe and a comp that can log on to the lumberjack forums on weekends.
-
There are many of us who don't want to build our own machines. We don't know or care what is inside. We want to buy a computer that works from the get-go, is fast, has an operating system that is easy to upgrade, has a display that works with our eyes and that can be color-tuned to they way we work, will not be obsolete in a year and seldom needs trouble-shooting. I work on a Windows machine at work, a Mac at home. I use the same programs and they work just as well on both. They are both speedy. The dif is that there is an IT staff at work that takes care of all the problems and upgrades. At home I don't have to know too much other than every Mac I have owned has been worry-free out of the box and lasts forever. Yes, I back-up - that is a given no matter your system. Yes, I add as much memory and storage as I can but that can be done before the machine arrives at my house. Do I pay more, probably but the convenience is worth it to me since I am not a computer tech and do not play one on tv. It all comes down to personal preference (duh) and any time this question is asked you will get the same answers. It's just like the question, "which is the best camera, blah, blah". It depends on what you want to shoot and how you work. As with cameras, I say give a few a try and see what feels right for you. Same with computers. Your mileage may vary.
There are many of us who just want to be lumberjacks, no need to concern ourselves with what/how computers are, and all that 21st century BS. Just need an axe and a comp that can log on to the lumberjack forums on weekends.
Why did you bother posting such an idiotic response? Oh, the answer lies in my sentence, sorry.
-
There are many of us who don't want to build our own machines. We don't know or care what is inside. We want to buy a computer that works from the get-go, is fast, has an operating system that is easy to upgrade, has a display that works with our eyes and that can be color-tuned to they way we work, will not be obsolete in a year and seldom needs trouble-shooting. I work on a Windows machine at work, a Mac at home. I use the same programs and they work just as well on both. They are both speedy. The dif is that there is an IT staff at work that takes care of all the problems and upgrades. At home I don't have to know too much other than every Mac I have owned has been worry-free out of the box and lasts forever. Yes, I back-up - that is a given no matter your system. Yes, I add as much memory and storage as I can but that can be done before the machine arrives at my house. Do I pay more, probably but the convenience is worth it to me since I am not a computer tech and do not play one on tv. It all comes down to personal preference (duh) and any time this question is asked you will get the same answers. It's just like the question, "which is the best camera, blah, blah". It depends on what you want to shoot and how you work. As with cameras, I say give a few a try and see what feels right for you. Same with computers. Your mileage may vary.
There are many of us who just want to be lumberjacks, no need to concern ourselves with what/how computers are, and all that 21st century BS. Just need an axe and a comp that can log on to the lumberjack forums on weekends.
Why did you bother posting such an idiotic response? Oh, the answer lies in my sentence, sorry.
Well that's a tad embarrassing with such basic irony. What I meant is saying that you don't want to care how computers work, etc, is saying you don't want to live/be compatible with the 21st century. Glad I could help, always here for the simple folk.
-
You don't have to build it from the ground up but it helps to know a few things. Like how easy it is to buy a hard drive and install it yourself - about two minutes.
Or how to order the machine so you don't to throw out memory to add more. On my new machine I priced out a few things and it turned out cheaper for me to add a second SSD drive myself that have it on the configured machine. Also ordered it with less memory then I eventually want but on a single SIMM so three slots are open.
-
You must mean 1987, the first Mac wasn’t even around until ’83.
Actually, I did mean 1982. If you'll notice, I said I got an Apple II that year. Not a Mac II. Before the Mac came out, there were the original Apple, Apple II, and even an Apple III.
Believe me, I still have documents written on my original Apple II, dated 1982.
-
Note the computer equipment sans monitor was about $1200. Same with Apple probably be $5000 (ok maybe I exaggerate)
Yes, you definitely do exaggerate. :)
-
You must mean 1987, the first Mac wasn’t even around until ’83. My first Mac was the 512K in 1984. I think the Mac II came out in '86 or '87.
The Apple II came out in 1977. It's not unlikely that Martha would purchase one in 1982 because Apple continued to sell them and introduce new Apple II models up until 1988, well after the introduction of the Macintosh in 1984.
Exactly right.
As an old-timer with a loooooong history of using Apple products, I do know what computers I used in the early days.
-
@cuppacoffee :
OK, but this is 2014, not 1997 with Win NT 4.0 or Win 98 running DOS legacy apps and legacy drivers.
It's never been easier to run a pc with Win7 or Win8, they're all 100% plug & play now and very stable, i can't even remember the last "blue screen" i had on my laptop, maybe one year ago ? maybe more ?
Actually the only app randomly crashing is Firefox but it's no big deal as thanks god there's an automatic session restore function.
Really, it's like day and night compared to 10 yrs ago with Win2000 or early XP versions.
So, where's OSX supposed technological advantage towards windozz now ? All the plus factors OSX had before vanished one after the other and even at hardware level they're the same machines and architecture.
If Apple wanted to be "special" they should switch to ARM cpus rather than stick to Intel.
-
Martha, I didn't mean to challenge your statement. I'm seasoned too and have used Macs and/or Apples since the beginning. The Apple II wasn't in use at many places in the early years but that doesn't mean you didn't use one. You were one of the lucky ones to have an alternative to DOS. Looking back you and I have seen a lot of tech changes.
Hobo - Yes, I realize that Windows has come a long way and as I said, I use both with equal results. I guess you could also say that since this is 2014 what is the dif between a Canon and Nikon camera? Not as much difference as in 1997 but you will still find people who insist that one is "better". It's more about comfort level and often past experience. Even though a $1000 bottle of wine may lose in a taste test to a $5 bottle, there are some who will insist that the more expensive is "better." Different strokes for different folks...
-
I am mainly thinking in terms of photo editing, I am not looking at laptops (tired of mine!) or the usual tower desktop pc/mac with monitor, at the moment I believe the all in one pc/mac would suit me better, I understand the usual pc/mac tower is way more powerful with higher expandable cpu or ram or hd etc and cheaper but I am looking for something more "minimalist/practical"
any thoughts are welcome/appreciated, cheers guys :)
Get a used Mac Pro. In my opinion iMac's are not worth the money because I lost 2 to bad displays. :o
-
I would invest in PC Hackintosh.
My working configuraton: (2 years old) - Intel i7 3770K/4 cores, 32GB, GF450 1GB, 4xSSD is about £700 now (UK) + now Maverics is free. Solutions, hints and guides here: www.tonymacx86.com (http://www.tonymacx86.com)
-
I would invest in PC Hackintosh.
My working configuraton: (2 years old) - Intel i7 3770K/4 cores, 32GB, GF450 1GB, 4xSSD is about £700 now (UK) + now Maverics is free. Solutions, hints and guides here: [url=http://www.tonymacx86.com]www.tonymacx86.com[/url] ([url]http://www.tonymacx86.com[/url])
I equate Hackintoshing with image and film piracy. If you are using a thing beyond pure experimentation I think you should pay for it. And OS X which is basically free is funded by the people who buy Macs.
Why not go the Linux route if you want a great free OS ? Linux is excellent.
-
I am PC builder for 15 years :) I would buy all parts and build it. Best solution for performance and scalability for the money + I love building my machine.
But if you are not, I make it easy. Here is the answer in two scenarios :
- If you want easy setup, worry free OS and you are fine with paying more - buy MAC
- If you want best performance and save some money for lens e.g., and you are fine with handling Win7/8 (I hate w8) - buy PC
:) enjoy
-
You must mean 1987, the first Mac wasn’t even around until ’83. My first Mac was the 512K in 1984. I think the Mac II came out in '86 or '87. The company got a few 512K boxes in 83 (they came with a case so you could take them home but they were heavy) and asked me to figure them out so I could teach others. It had MacPaint and MacWrite for software, that's it. By 1987 I was learning QuarkXPress but Photoshop wasn’t around until ’89. It was called something else though. I use an iMac now and love it, the monitor is much improved from that old glossy screen. It is very compact but really sturdy.
She said Apple II, not Mac II and that could have been '82
-
I still have the receipt for my first "real" computer, which was an Apple IIe, dual floppy drives, monitor (monochrome), very expensive Hayes 300 baud modem, daisy wheel printer, monitor was composite back then. But since I can't quote it exactly, about $2700 drove it home and assembled it myself. Still have that computer and used it for my checkbook for a long, long time.
First IBM, which was really an IBM computer, complete with a huge 20MB hard drive and 2MB of memory. Wow, loaded 8086 and EGA graphics. :) Ran about $2000 - but remember times had changed and technology was getting less expensive. (last I saw it, under a desk in the office somewhere)
TRS 80 Model III was more expensive than either of the above. Still have it, doesn't work, but with some effort it might. It was the floppy drive to boot LDOS that went bad. There's a good reason people called them Trash 80s.
I've stuck to MS-DOS computers because that's what I have and what I build and what I can afford. Nothing wrong with people who picked Macs, they work fine also. Each has advantages.
Note the computer equipment sans monitor was about $1200. Same with Apple probably be $5000 (ok maybe I exaggerate)
Yes, you definitely do exaggerate. :)
Yes I can answer:
I guess you could also say that since this is 2014 what is the dif between a Canon and Nikon camera?
One has a K in the name and the other has a C, after that, it's difficult to find anything really different except personal choice. Both have N's and an o and take fine photographs, in the right hands.
I shoot Canon because my first SLR was a Canon. Almost every camera I've had since then has been a Canon.
I had to decide at the time, Yashika, Minolta, Pentax, Nikon or Canon. (think about 1966) I couldn't afford a Nikon and Canon had good lens quality. The Pentax had a threaded mount, and the Canon a Bayonet. Other two didn't offer the accessories, durability or options I wanted. I was happy then (still have that camera...) and I'm happy now.
Nikon people somewhere made the same decisions and picked what they liked and wanted and here we all are. So I'll rest on, one has a K in the name the other has a C. 8)
Reminds me I should get out one of the old IIe's and see if I remember how to boot it. I did get an external drive eventually and a color monitor. I wonder if I can find Lunar Lander or one of those games with block people and square balls?
-
thanks again for all relevant information guys! I still haven't made up my mind because I am very busy lately but I am still more inclined to PC (Dell) once I don't want to change all my workflow, hope this topic is helping other as well :)
-
thanks again for all relevant information guys! I still haven't made up my mind because I am very busy lately but I am still more inclined to PC (Dell) once I don't want to change all my workflow, hope this topic is helping other as well :)
If you use Lightroom and Photoshop (and most of the software) your workflow will be very similar with Windows or Mac.
Personally I should not consider not changing the workflow a valid point for a decision.
And according to Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/04/25/the-best-windows-pc-is-an-apple-mac/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/04/25/the-best-windows-pc-is-an-apple-mac/)
-
thanks again for all relevant information guys! I still haven't made up my mind because I am very busy lately but I am still more inclined to PC (Dell) once I don't want to change all my workflow, hope this topic is helping other as well :)
If you use Lightroom and Photoshop (and most of the software) your workflow will be very similar with Windows or Mac.
Personally I should not consider not changing the workflow a valid point for a decision.
And according to Forbes:
[url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/04/25/the-best-windows-pc-is-an-apple-mac/[/url] ([url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/04/25/the-best-windows-pc-is-an-apple-mac/[/url])
guess you have a good point but I am incredible lazy and prefer to jump ahead with Windows, nothing against Mac once I got the 1st iphone, a few ipods and also the ipad, there is a 700 pounds diference as well comparing to Dell
-
Forget the PC and MAC BS...just buy the best computer you can afford. In short get the most processing power and RAM you can afford. A good mid-range video card is pretty cheap these days. And a solid state drive makes a different when open and saving programs and files to your hard drive.
-
... In short get the most processing power and RAM you can afford...
=PC
;)
-
My husband is on the phone all the time with Apple. Mac software never works and they constantly have to take control of his computer to figure things out.
-
Don't know about Windows 8, but beware of the blue screen of death in 7.
Hopefully they fixed it in 8.
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/resolving-stop-blue-screen-errors-in-windows-7 (http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/resolving-stop-blue-screen-errors-in-windows-7)
-
I'm not a fan of the iMac screens. Had two and didn't like either. I switched to a Mac Pro 2 years ago and got a really nice ViewSonic screen to use with it.
I really like the expandability of the Mac Pro. Not the new ones that look like trash cans, the old towers that let you do anything to them. Figure I'll just upgrade things as needed and I expect to get quite a few years out of this thing. Told my wife this is going to be my 10-year computer. She laughed.
Challenge accepted. :)
But really, I got 5 years out of my last iMac before I felt compelled to upgrade. I really see no reason why this can't be a 10-year computer.
-
My husband is on the phone all the time with Apple. Mac software never works and they constantly have to take control of his computer to figure things out.
Gadzooks! What kind of hellaciously complicated software is he using?
I'm a sweet little old lady ;D and by some major miracle (I guess) I'm fully able to install new software on my Mac and keep it running for years, all by my itsy-bitsy self, without ever once needing to call Apple to take control of my computer to figure things out.
-
lb for lb MACs are at least twice the price - I'd prefer to spend on CPU and RAM than badges or complete non-essentials like SSDs.
-
lb for lb MACs are at least twice the price - I'd prefer to spend on CPU and RAM than badges or complete non-essentials like SSDs.
I would hesitate to put SSDs into the non-essential category. The increase in performance is pretty amazing!
-
lb for lb MACs are at least twice the price - I'd prefer to spend on CPU and RAM than badges or complete non-essentials like SSDs.
I would hesitate to put SSDs into the non-essential category. The increase in performance is pretty amazing!
I'd agree. I tested the boot time between a HDD vs Hybrid HDD/SSD. HDD was 42 seconds. Hybrid was 20 seconds. I haven't timed anything else but a lot of apps seem a lot quicker to load and run with the Hybrid.
And I'm not sure the price thing is accurate. I always believed this too but when I spec'd out a Dell laptop with similar configuration to a Macbook Pro the price was pretty close. Seems like Apple doesn't make bare bones stuff which is why PC is cheaper on average but not apples to apples.
-
lb for lb MACs are at least twice the price - I'd prefer to spend on CPU and RAM than badges or complete non-essentials like SSDs.
I would hesitate to put SSDs into the non-essential category. The increase in performance is pretty amazing!
I'd agree. I tested the boot time between a HDD vs Hybrid HDD/SSD. HDD was 42 seconds. Hybrid was 20 seconds. I haven't timed anything else but a lot of apps seem a lot quicker to load and run with the Hybrid.
And I'm not sure the price thing is accurate. I always believed this too but when I spec'd out a Dell laptop with similar configuration to a Macbook Pro the price was pretty close. Seems like Apple doesn't make bare bones stuff which is why PC is cheaper on average but not apples to apples.
Of course it's quicker to load. What do you spend your time on, loading or working and is 20 seconds at the start really worth the money? When working it's all in RAM anyway.
-
lb for lb MACs are at least twice the price - I'd prefer to spend on CPU and RAM than badges or complete non-essentials like SSDs.
I would hesitate to put SSDs into the non-essential category. The increase in performance is pretty amazing!
I'd agree. I tested the boot time between a HDD vs Hybrid HDD/SSD. HDD was 42 seconds. Hybrid was 20 seconds. I haven't timed anything else but a lot of apps seem a lot quicker to load and run with the Hybrid.
And I'm not sure the price thing is accurate. I always believed this too but when I spec'd out a Dell laptop with similar configuration to a Macbook Pro the price was pretty close. Seems like Apple doesn't make bare bones stuff which is why PC is cheaper on average but not apples to apples.
Of course it's quicker to load. What do you spend your time on, loading or working and is 20 seconds at the start really worth the money? When working it's all in RAM anyway.
You're right. RAM means everything. Carry on.
-
lb for lb MACs are at least twice the price - I'd prefer to spend on CPU and RAM than badges or complete non-essentials like SSDs.
I would hesitate to put SSDs into the non-essential category. The increase in performance is pretty amazing!
Slow computer means: more time to think… and drink coffee.
-
I've been running a Early 2008 Mac Pro tower since, well, early 2008 obviously. Still runs fine, though I have to replace the HDs every year to keep up with storage limitations.
I think my next workstation will be an iMac though, when they make a 27" retina display one. With Thunderbolt you don't need internal SATA drives to keep the I/O speed up and that makes it a lot easier to stay on top of storage and back up. 32GB of ram and OSX running off a fast SSD and you'll be good to go I reckon, even when we're all editing 4K video from our phones in 3 years time.
-
Very happy with the latest mac mini. It is 4x faster than my 5 years old iMac. It isn't much slower than Mac Pro considering the price difference. Advice: go for Fussion drive when you plan to use it for photo editing. I have the same mac mini without fussion drive as rendering server and it takes much longer to load photographs or open apps.
I believe there is new gen mac mini coming soon, I'd wait for that.
iMacs are suberb for editing as well, if you prefer all in 1 option.
-
I think my next workstation will be an iMac though
The only downside might be - if the screen goes off over time. An old monitor panel is difficult to replace DIY. I recently sold on my 2006 Mac Pro. I had worn out several monitors over the life of the machine and am pleased that I did not have built in monitor panels. Mac Minis and Macbook Airs are the current sweet spots for most users IMO.
(OT - For various reasons I have started getting back into some coding again recently. The Apple Xcode development environment for iOS and OS X is awesome. iOS / OS X is extremely mature and well designed. I thoroughly recommend anyone with even a passing interest to download Xcode from the App Store and spend a few hours having a look at it and reading some of the documentation and history).
-
Very happy with the latest mac mini. It is 4x faster than my 5 years old iMac. It isn't much slower than Mac Pro considering the price difference. Advice: go for Fussion drive when you plan to use it for photo editing. I have the same mac mini without fussion drive as rendering server and it takes much longer to load photographs or open apps.
I believe there is new gen mac mini coming soon, I'd wait for that.
iMacs are suberb for editing as well, if you prefer all in 1 option.
I am a fan of the Mac Mini too.
I think that it is a very undervalued machine (you can even consider it as a portable one…)
-
lb for lb MACs are at least twice the price - I'd prefer to spend on CPU and RAM than badges or complete non-essentials like SSDs.
You buy your computers by the pound? Probably not a good idea. :)
-
great discussion - been trying to find out the same info - thanks much!
-
great discussion - been trying to find out the same info - thanks much!
cool stuff! still haven't made my decision, guess I have spent the money already ???
-
PC=viruses
Mac=no viruses
-
PC=viruses
Mac=no viruses
Macs are just as vulnerable to viruses. Since Macs are the minority it is less of a target, but to say Macs do not get viruses is just untrue.
No matter which you get, don't bypass virus protection software
-
PC=viruses
Mac=no viruses
Macs are just as vulnerable to viruses. Since Macs are the minority it is less of a target, but to say Macs do not get viruses is just untrue.
No matter which you get, don't bypass virus protection software
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/features/security/3418367/do-apple-macs-need-antivirus-os-x-security-explained/ (http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/features/security/3418367/do-apple-macs-need-antivirus-os-x-security-explained/)
-
That article is pure opinion and BS. I can write you up a virus for Apple, especially if you don't have antivirus. Let's stick to facts, fact is that a Mac is less likely to be the target of viruses since it is in the minority. This is not the same as saying they don't get viruses. Truth is they are just as vulnerable. Apple markets the no virus thing based on the small number of Mac viruses in comparison to PC. I'm not being anti-Mac, just realistic here. Mac or PC doesn't matter as much as the software and the users abilities. The system you use just determines how fast you get to your end result spec wise. This is why getting the most Ram, CPU, and GPU you can afford is more important than the Platform.
http://drtech.bangordailynews.com/2013/04/14/new-products/busting-the-myth-apple-macs-do-get-viruses/ (http://drtech.bangordailynews.com/2013/04/14/new-products/busting-the-myth-apple-macs-do-get-viruses/)
-
I changed to Mac this year from being PC for ten years. The PC (XP) was great, so stable. The Mac had to be fixed twice. Motherboard both times costing Apple $800 in parts. Has been good since then but I'm going to have to shell out another $200 for an Apple care plan given the history of this machine so far.
Coming back to Mac after 10 years away was like working in honey for the first few weeks. I was so use to the speed of navigation the PC. I'm slowly getting the hang of the mac.
-
I've had more serious trouble with my MACs than I ever had with PCs - in 2012 both my iMac and my Macbook crashed within 2 days of each other! My antivirus software finds the occasional virus and cleans it.
Yet, despite the higher cost and their track record, I wouldn't go back to a PC. I've used my husband's and friend's PCs from time to time over the past 6-7 years since I switched and find them far less user-friendly than MACs.
As a photographer, when I print the colors match, even from my uncalibrated laptop prints look much as they do on my screen. Personally, I find it worth the difference. And the convenience of the MAC stores and their online help beats any of the PC manufacturers I've dealt with (I had trouble with my Dell and HP PCs/laptops too - and getting help was always a trial).
Just one woman's opinion.
Once you get the hang of the MAC again, I think you'll be happy. Apple Care is a necessity. Good choice.
-
started this interesting discussion back in January and I still haven't made up my mind, lately I have been looking at the Lenovo A730, too bad there aren't many extended reviews on it, anyone has or knows a person that purchased one?
thanks in advance!
-
I am purchasing a new Mac this week. I looked and thought hard about buying a PC -- the value is so much better, but having owned both Macs and PCs, the Macs require much less maintenance. I have virtually never had a serious problem with any of my Mac laptops and desktops in 20 years. The PCs I have owned always had problems requiring lots of attention. My wife has a Dell laptop and if a week goes by without a problem it's a miracle. The reality is, I am too busy to spend time on computer maintenance.
-
I would invest in PC Hackintosh.
My working configuraton: (2 years old) - Intel i7 3770K/4 cores, 32GB, GF450 1GB, 4xSSD is about £700 now (UK) + now Maverics is free. Solutions, hints and guides here: [url=http://www.tonymacx86.com]www.tonymacx86.com[/url] ([url]http://www.tonymacx86.com[/url])
I equate Hackintoshing with image and film piracy. If you are using a thing beyond pure experimentation I think you should pay for it. And OS X which is basically free is funded by the people who buy Macs.
Why not go the Linux route if you want a great free OS ? Linux is excellent.
A "hackintosh" is just a PC running Mac OS. Began to be possible once Macs started using Intel processors.
Hardly piracy.
-
Thanks for starting this topic luis. I have also been trying to get the right machine for me as i was so sick of my dell laptop, specially their support in my country.. Pathetic. Probably dell providing good support in states and Europian country but not in asia. After searching a lot and considering my budget, i have decided to Hp envy tower pc as i want a work horse for my images,footage and games also. But seriously dell laptop was nightmare for me. Do let us know in this thread when you decide and buy one ;)
-
The one thing that i see (and hear) over and over is "laptop." I'm not sure why anyone wanting to get a serious volume of work done would consider a laptop in the first place. You get much more bang for your buck (Mac or PC) from a desktop. And honestly, how often are you doing heavy-duty work when you're not in your home or office?
YMMV, but for me, when I'm not in my office in front of my computer, I don't want my computer following me! ;D
-
lb for lb MACs are at least twice the price - I'd prefer to spend on CPU and RAM than badges or complete non-essentials like SSDs.
I would hesitate to put SSDs into the non-essential category. The increase in performance is pretty amazing!
I'd agree. I tested the boot time between a HDD vs Hybrid HDD/SSD. HDD was 42 seconds. Hybrid was 20 seconds. I haven't timed anything else but a lot of apps seem a lot quicker to load and run with the Hybrid.
And I'm not sure the price thing is accurate. I always believed this too but when I spec'd out a Dell laptop with similar configuration to a Macbook Pro the price was pretty close. Seems like Apple doesn't make bare bones stuff which is why PC is cheaper on average but not apples to apples.
Of course it's quicker to load. What do you spend your time on, loading or working and is 20 seconds at the start really worth the money? When working it's all in RAM anyway.
It's not much money so that alone would be worth it. Also it would be obvious to anyone with a bit of computer literacy that starting programs and swapping/caching is also hell of lot faster with ssd... because no, it's almost never ever all RAM when working, even if you have a lot of it. It's right there in photoshop, one of the most basic settings to do after install, swap disc / ram usage: edit-->preferences-->performance. Glad I could help.
-
I've had more serious trouble with my MACs than I ever had with PCs - in 2012 both my iMac and my Macbook crashed within 2 days of each other! My antivirus software finds the occasional virus and cleans it.
Yet, despite the higher cost and their track record, I wouldn't go back to a PC. I've used my husband's and friend's PCs from time to time over the past 6-7 years since I switched and find them far less user-friendly than MACs.
As a photographer, when I print the colors match, even from my uncalibrated laptop prints look much as they do on my screen. Personally, I find it worth the difference. And the convenience of the MAC stores and their online help beats any of the PC manufacturers I've dealt with (I had trouble with my Dell and HP PCs/laptops too - and getting help was always a trial).
Just one woman's opinion.
Once you get the hang of the MAC again, I think you'll be happy. Apple Care is a necessity. Good choice.
Same experience here. I worked with macs for years and years, they crash like any other computer, but when they do it's a lot more severe issue than with a PC. With a PC it was always just the application in use dying and doing it instantly, I could reload it in 2 secs. With macs, it was the wheel spinning for god knows how long, because you never knew if it was a crash or just the system getting clogged up. When it didn't come back after about 5-10 mins, it always needed cold reset and waiting for the whole system to reboot. You get very-very quickly disillusioned from the mac myth when you do some professional workload on them.
-
I would wait a bit more and buy the new upcoming Mac Mini i7 with maximum RAM, as I am doing "now"
-
I have
- iMac 27" 2011 2.7ghz i5 8gb ram
- 2011 MBP13" 2.4ghz i5 8gb ram
Both works well with adobe illustrator. When I edit photos with lightroom, 8gb sometimes is the problem. If I have anything else going on at the same time, both computers comes sick slow.
I still never would go back to windows as they suck so bad in my opinion. It's not about the hardware, but the windows. I'm too newbie and lazy to build a hackintosh.
Next time I'll buy a new 27" iMac with 32gb ram. Or then I'll just upgrade now to 32gb.
-
Lots of good info in this thread, thanks!
-
Ignorance is a bad beast. :-X
-
Ignorance is a bad beast. :-X
cheers man, that was brilliant!
-
The one thing that i see (and hear) over and over is "laptop." I'm not sure why anyone wanting to get a serious volume of work done would consider a laptop in the first place. You get much more bang for your buck (Mac or PC) from a desktop. And honestly, how often are you doing heavy-duty work when you're not in your home or office?
YMMV, but for me, when I'm not in my office in front of my computer, I don't want my computer following me! ;D
Having one computer is more efficient. I was using a Windows desktop and laptop and managing data between the two was a pain. I picked up a MacBook Pro with I7, 16GB, SSD Hybrid and connected it to a 24" monitor. I no longer need a desktop. It runs Lightroom, Photoshop and everything else great. And if I need to travel I have everything on my laptop.
-
lb for lb MACs are at least twice the price - I'd prefer to spend on CPU and RAM than badges or complete non-essentials like SSDs.
I would hesitate to put SSDs into the non-essential category. The increase in performance is pretty amazing!
I'd agree. I tested the boot time between a HDD vs Hybrid HDD/SSD. HDD was 42 seconds. Hybrid was 20 seconds. I haven't timed anything else but a lot of apps seem a lot quicker to load and run with the Hybrid.
And I'm not sure the price thing is accurate. I always believed this too but when I spec'd out a Dell laptop with similar configuration to a Macbook Pro the price was pretty close. Seems like Apple doesn't make bare bones stuff which is why PC is cheaper on average but not apples to apples.
Of course it's quicker to load. What do you spend your time on, loading or working and is 20 seconds at the start really worth the money? When working it's all in RAM anyway.
It's not much money so that alone would be worth it. Also it would be obvious to anyone with a bit of computer literacy that starting programs and swapping/caching is also hell of lot faster with ssd... because no, it's almost never ever all RAM when working, even if you have a lot of it. It's right there in photoshop, one of the most basic settings to do after install, swap disc / ram usage: edit-->preferences-->performance. Glad I could help.
You didn't - anyone with basic computer literacy knows that processing requires the program and data to be in RAM - SSDs certainly get it in there faster but, unless you're working on high transaction volumes, it's not much of an issue.
-
any comments regarding video cards ?
I don't want to run 3d games but video from my 5dMkII stalls my present 5 year old computer.
Any comments on Dell Inspiron Vs XPS series desktops.
-
I'm no MAC zealot, but if you're working with huge files (processing can turn a 34MB RAW file into a 400+MB layered PSD giant really fast ) I'd go with a MAC and opt for a SSD as the main hard drive as those processing seconds you save turn into minutes and hours really fast.
I had planned to upgrade my iMac to 16 GB RAM when I had the funds (bought it after two computers crashed in three days due to some electrical issues-nightmare), but never bothered because since I got the SSD/HD hybrid iMac, I can keep working at peak performance even with my terrible habit of keeping too many windows & apps open. (I can work really fast in PS with no crashes even with LR, PS (5-8 files open) along with a Nik filter window I"m working on, Bridge, Word, Excel, Mail (with a few accounts) 2 browsers (lots of windows open - 70+), Adobe Reader and Preview ( a duplicative waste I know) all open at once)
On the iMac, all my apps are on the SSD. I have a few other items on the SSD - my documents and Mail, a few photos but most of the photos are on the second internal HD or the external one. Caches are split between the SSD and other HDs - I do go in every month or so and clear them out.
With the laptop it's all on SSD (since it's the only internal drive) and since I use the laptop when traveling I don't usually have an external drive attached except for daily backup.
Again, just my experience, but IMHO I'm glad I spent the $ on the SSD rather than more RAM. I have a 2.8 Ghz i7 processor on the macbook and not sure if the one on the iMac is a 2.5 or 2.8 and an i5 or i7. This little 13" macbookpro packs so much power and weighs next to nothing.
The graphics card on the macbook is an Intel Iris 1024 MB - I really know nothing about gaming or graphic cards so doubt that is much help.
-
I think you can get by cheaper by buying a PC, or building a hackintosh.
My configuration:
Proc: Intel Core i7 4770
SSD: Samsung 840 EVO - 250 GB
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 - SATA III 6 Gb/s - 2 TB
Graphics: MSI GeForce GTX 760 (2 GB)
RAM: G.Skill Kit Extreme3 16 GB PC12800 Ripjaws X CAS10
Packed everything in the quietest case I could find, the CPU temperature is around 30 degrees, it's a joy to work and play (I upgraded like 10 days ago so I'm still surprised how fast it is, especially compared to my old computer) and you can barely hear the computer when it's on.
Anyway, if you're doing anything serious, an SSD and 16 GB of RAM is a must. And the strongest proc your money can buy. Cuda cores are a plus.
-
Well, I had Windows (xp,2000, 7) the whole life, I have android phone and tablet. But I need new laptop for uploading editorial to news agency during the matches.
As I hate win8, I will buy now MacBook Pro 13” Retina (i5 2,4GHz/8GB/256GB/Intel Iris). Good performance for the money.
I will stay on android and Win on the workstation. No need to change that. If you are going to use standard photo tools like LR/PS/PhotoMech/. You dont have to have everything from apple :) I will backup to normal cheap NAS storage from seagate, I will use 24" BenQ monitor etc..
Just buy what you need and ask your self why you need that. Anything will deliver the goods today :)
-
Recently got one of these for drawing on the screen.. (Sony vaio flip + sony stylus)
does the job just fine..
14 inch version is quite cheap too..
(http://www1.pcmag.com/media/images/403688-sony-vaio-flip-15.jpg?thumb=y)
-
I saw many person using imac for photo related job, is the imac screen good for it?
for a PC+good display, will the price come close to imac?
I would like to work on a bigger display after using lightroom on laptop screen..
now i put lightroom catalog on a portable drive so i can work on different computer, will it be able to share it for an imac OS?
-
Thanks for starting this topic luis. I have also been trying to get the right machine for me as i was so sick of my dell laptop, specially their support in my country.. Pathetic. Probably dell providing good support in states and Europian country but not in asia.
No Dell is not providing good support in the US - their support is downright horrible! Dell has lost me as a customer forever. They treat their customers like dirt.
-
not in the UK
-
Thanks for starting this topic luis. I have also been trying to get the right machine for me as i was so sick of my dell laptop, specially their support in my country.. Pathetic. Probably dell providing good support in states and Europian country but not in asia.
No Dell is not providing good support in the US - their support is downright horrible! Dell has lost me as a customer forever. They treat their customers like dirt.
oh. Sad to hear that. HP is also an US company but i dont hear much from Americans about them. Its support is better in my country. I have a HP printer and even after rough use, its working perfectly and its support has been great so HP probably my next brand. When i was buying dell, i was so optimistic about it but HELL. Completely regretting. Now i think the brand which advertise more (in my country), are not so good
-
Back in my PC days I had both Dells and HPs - my husband still has an HP - and I've always had HP printers. HP's customer service is quite good. Dell was always awful.
I love my iMac but I have been told that a Mac tower with a separate screen is slightly better because the iMac screen will always make your photos look a little bluer (cooler) than they really are, even when you color calibrate it. I keep that in mind and if something looks a little warm I'll tend to tweak the white balance to make it a little cooler, but I get excellent color fidelity when I print - I have a Canon Pixma - so I would go for the iMac.
I've used the tower Mac (Mac Pro desktop) when I was assisting another photographer and helping her print up her portfolio on a very expensive Epson Pro printer and honestly don't feel the extra cost and space required by the tower is worth it. Most of the designers out there are going to be looking at your work on an iMac.
There are plenty of good PCs out there too from what I've heard - I think the most important thing is to get a powerful machine and if you get a Solid State Drive and at least 8MB RAM it will be blazing fast. If you're used to a PC, I'd price out both a PC and an iMac customized the way you want them and then decide.
-
The one thing that i see (and hear) over and over is "laptop." I'm not sure why anyone wanting to get a serious volume of work done would consider a laptop in the first place. You get much more bang for your buck (Mac or PC) from a desktop. And honestly, how often are you doing heavy-duty work when you're not in your home or office?
YMMV, but for me, when I'm not in my office in front of my computer, I don't want my computer following me! ;D
Having one computer is more efficient. I was using a Windows desktop and laptop and managing data between the two was a pain. I picked up a MacBook Pro with I7, 16GB, SSD Hybrid and connected it to a 24" monitor. I no longer need a desktop. It runs Lightroom, Photoshop and everything else great. And if I need to travel I have everything on my laptop.
If you lose MacBook you lose everything. iMac 27 work, with local backup. PC laptop road. Cloud storage share files.
-
The one thing that i see (and hear) over and over is "laptop." I'm not sure why anyone wanting to get a serious volume of work done would consider a laptop in the first place. You get much more bang for your buck (Mac or PC) from a desktop. And honestly, how often are you doing heavy-duty work when you're not in your home or office?
YMMV, but for me, when I'm not in my office in front of my computer, I don't want my computer following me! ;D
Having one computer is more efficient. I was using a Windows desktop and laptop and managing data between the two was a pain. I picked up a MacBook Pro with I7, 16GB, SSD Hybrid and connected it to a 24" monitor. I no longer need a desktop. It runs Lightroom, Photoshop and everything else great. And if I need to travel I have everything on my laptop.
If you lose MacBook you lose everything. iMac 27 work, with local backup. PC laptop road. Cloud storage share files.
Why?
During a travel you can have a portable HD (less than 100 g) as Back-up / Time Machine HD
And you still can make a back-up of important data (or a complete back-up) in the cloud if you want.
And you can have another Back-up / Time Machine HD at home too.
-
The one thing that i see (and hear) over and over is "laptop." I'm not sure why anyone wanting to get a serious volume of work done would consider a laptop in the first place. You get much more bang for your buck (Mac or PC) from a desktop. And honestly, how often are you doing heavy-duty work when you're not in your home or office?
YMMV, but for me, when I'm not in my office in front of my computer, I don't want my computer following me! ;D
Having one computer is more efficient. I was using a Windows desktop and laptop and managing data between the two was a pain. I picked up a MacBook Pro with I7, 16GB, SSD Hybrid and connected it to a 24" monitor. I no longer need a desktop. It runs Lightroom, Photoshop and everything else great. And if I need to travel I have everything on my laptop.
If you lose MacBook you lose everything. iMac 27 work, with local backup. PC laptop road. Cloud storage share files.
I use a portable external 2TB mini drive for images. Everything gets backed up weekly to a regular 4TB portable drive at home that's stored in a safe. I'm planning on adding another backup drive to store offsite.
-
I want to buy a laptop for video processing in 4k and 6k. Advise configuration or model?
This configuration is already outdated:?
- Intel Core I7-10750H;
- 32 gb (DDR4)
- SSD 512 gb.
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti, Intel UHD, 6 gb GDDR6
-
I want to buy a laptop for video processing in 4k and 6k. Advise configuration or model?
This configuration is already outdated:?
- Intel Core I7-10750H;
- 32 gb (DDR4)
- SSD 512 gb.
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti, Intel UHD, 6 gb GDDR6
You already have DDR5 in memory and SSD NVMe PCIe 4.0 (fast and the best for photogammetry). i do recommend RTX 4080 QHD. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 40 series are really better. They are powered by NVIDIA Ada Lovelace architecture that delivers a quantum leap in both performance and AI-powered graphics. if you also do graphics you can take advantage for ray tracing and FPS games with the lowest latency if you like to play games too.
Anyway for a laptop a possible solution for really smooth 4K and a reasonable good 6K video would be something like the Portable Razer Blade 16 i9 13950HZ 32GB DDR5 1TB RTX 4080 QHD+ 240Hz W11. It already comes with 4 USB ports (C and A 3.2 Gen 2) , 1 hdmi 2.1 and 1 UHS-II card reader.
I put here the specifications of the model I mentioned:
Intel Core i9-13950HX 24-Core Processor (Turbo up to 5.5 GHz, 36 MB Cache)
Windows 11 Home Operating System
Memory 32GB DDR5 5600MHz RAM
Storage 1 TB SSD M.2 NVMe PCIe 4.0 x4
Audio 4 speaker array (tweeters x 2, sub x 2)
16" QHD+ display (2560 x 1600), 240Hz, 16:10
NVIDIA® GeForce RTX 4080 graphics with 12GB of GDDR6 VRAM memory
Up to 2280MHz Boost Clock up to 175W with TGP (Total Graphics Power)
Interface 1 x Thunderbolt™ 4 (USB-C) (100W USB PD 3)
1 x USB-C 3.2 Gen 2 supports power delivery up to 100W
3 x USB-A 3.2 Gen 2
1 x HDMI 2.1
1 x UHS-II SD Card Reader
Razer Chroma per-key RGB keyboard, N-Key rollover, US Layout
Wireless Wi-Fi 6E Network AX211
Dimensions 21.99 x 244 x 355 mm
Weight 2.45 Kg