Computer For Digital Photography Recommendations: Spring 2009

Comments (43)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

1. Richard Earney says:

   February 26, 2009 at 3:58 pm

   For the MacPro I would recommend more than one internal drive, not necessarily from Apple, but you have 4 bays to fill and at SATA speeds. Then think of the external FW800 drive.
2. dpm says:

   February 26, 2009 at 3:59 pm

   Great read! I actually worked on Windows Vista. That is what made me decide to get my first Mac. I haven’t looked back since. Go figure.
3. David Terry says:

   February 26, 2009 at 4:16 pm

   I just recently purchased the Dell Studio XPS 16 laptop, with a 2.53Gh Core 2 Duo and 6Gb of Ram running on 64-bit Vista.

   While I’ve chosen to run CS4 in 16-bit mode because only a couple of my plugins are 64-bit ready, I’ve found that with the operating system itself having 6Gb of breathing room, Photoshop itself doesn’t seem to be hurting for ram.

   I am, however, running Lightroom in 64-bit mode and am quite pleased with its performance.
4. Scott says:

   February 26, 2009 at 4:25 pm

   I’ll go ahead and throw my official endorsement behind this article. As I’ve mentioned before, I am a Nikon shooter, but I believe strongly that brand makes no difference when it comes to which camera you use.

   When it comes to your computer, however, my opinion changes completely. I’ve used both Macs and PCs for a long time. I currently manage a cross-platform network. And, I consult with many beginning and advanced photographers on what sort of computers they enjoy. PCs always come out at the top of the list with complaints, compatibility issues, virus attacks, hardware failures, and more. There are many reasons for this that I won’t go into here, but I’ll say that the track record for current Macs is much better than Windows-based PCs.

   My article on the MacWorld 2009 Keynote Wrap-Up talks about my preference of the 17″ MacBook Pro and I’d previously recommended the 15″ MacBook Pro, which is still a quality machine.

   Thanks,
   Scott
5. Neil Corman says:

   February 26, 2009 at 4:34 pm

   Good info Scott. I just recently switched to the new MBP with basically the information you mentioned above. You mention the DVI adapter however I would also recommend getting a VGA adapter as well since recently when I needed to hook this machine up to a projector system it was the only option at the presenters stand. Also there are a few options available to get the student prices using professional organizations.
6. Deb says:

   February 26, 2009 at 9:26 pm

   What about Windows 7? I’ve heard that it’s lots better than Vista – it’s basically what Vista was supposed to be . . .
7. David says:

   February 27, 2009 at 7:41 am

   Thanks for all the great comment.

   First, I wanted to thank Richard Earney, whose site http://inside-lightroom.co.uk/ I monitor everyday, for his suggestion on the Mac Pro tower and to explain my single internal hard drive logic. While it is certainly true that you can add additional hard drives into the Mac Pro, and I would if you want the stability or speed of a RAID configuration, I see some great advantages to storing all of my images and my Lightroom catalog externally.

   My thinking is that external (firewire 800) hard drives are inexpensive, easily replaced, and portable. For the photographer who wants to use both a laptop and a desktop with Lightroom having all of your files on one external drive is the simplest and easiest solution. If everything, images and catalog, live on a single external disk then you never need to synchronize, or move anything, if you decide to work with more than one computer.

   Deb, you are right that the early buzz / hype about Windows 7 is very positive, but it is not for sale yet. I am not comfortable recommending, or knocking, any product that I haven’t used and abused for at least a year. I sure hope that 7 becomes a rock solid product. I think competition between operating systems breeds inovation and it is better for us consumers, but it just isn’t an available choice for folks needing a new computer right now.
8. Neil Corman says:

   February 27, 2009 at 8:31 am

   While on the topic of Windows 7, how do you think they will work with the 3rd parties this time around? I know one of the issues with Vista is that many products just wouldn’t work with Vista or you had to do some work around to get it to work. I was just using an Intuit product which I have in my gallery for sales, and it indicates on one page in the set-up screens to do not click one of the buttons if you are using Vista which I feel is an issue on both the Microsoft and Intuit side.
9. Scott says:

   February 27, 2009 at 3:44 pm

   I’m sure hoping that 3rd party software and driver compatibility will be improved in Windows 7. As you’ve indicated, the responsibility lies with both Microsoft and the third-party engineers.

   One of the main Vista complaints has been the seemingly endless User Access Control (UAC) dialog boxes. That’s those boxes that keep popping up warning you that such-and-such program needs permission to do such-and-such. It seems Microsoft has tried, with the proliferation of the UAC warnings, to put the pressure on software developers to write better code which doesn’t repeatedly try to access system files unnecessarily.

   We’ll see how that pans out.
10. CW says:

    March 1, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    David Marx ’s decision to go Apple omits some important facts and in my opinion he’s doing a disservice to anyone sitting on the fence—the place where you procrastinate because you need more than biases to make you jump.

    The biggest omissions that David made relate to increased ADDRESS SPACE and GPU. Finally Adobe makes use of these with CS4/PS. In a nutshell a higher quality PC running Vista 64 SP1 can be obtained for about half the price that Apple wants, if they could even deliver it, that will run CS4/PS as Adobe intended. I’ve listed an example configuration below.

    Not being able to address as much RAM as can be installed in 64 bit chunks and also not being able to relegate processing to a GPU for which CS4/PS is optimized really shows what a poor performer Apple is in relative terms. Also bear in mind that Adobe invested very considerably in CS4 to take advantage of these hardware features. I’ve heard that when Adobe releases CS5/PS in 2 years, Apple will have a model that can use these features.

    How much does David really know about computers? He recommends DELL! Dell cannot configure a PC for optimal CS4/PS use—period. That’s simply not their market. He goes on to say that a faster processor is a good investment. Baloney! It’s the least bottlenecking component in any computer. If we’re going to discuss productivity one should always spend to remove the worst bottlenecks. Get rid of the slow disks—SATA/3gbs 7200 are slow—and stoke any computer with RAM.

    Here’s an example configuration that’ll spin your head if you decide to go with a PC that’s intended for CS4/PC:

    Cooler Master CM690 Case
    PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750
    EVGA 132-BL-E758-A1 X58 Motherboard
    Intel Core i7 920 processor (2.66GHz Overclocked to 3.2-3.4GHz)
    Asetek LCLC Self Contained Liquid Cooler
    12GB (6×2GB) Corsair XMS DDR3 1600
    EVGA Nvidia GTX 260 GPU (898MB GDDR3 Ram)
    2x 300GB Western Digital 10,000RPM Velociraptors (RAID 0 )
    2x 750GB Seagate 7200.11 (32MB Cache) – RAID 1
    HighPoint 3520 RAID controller
    4x Scythe S-Flex 120mm Fans (Sony Fluid Dynamic Ball Bearing) 28dBa
    1x LG 22x SATA DVD+\-R\RW Drive

    Pre SP1 Vista certainly had its problems and there’s no denying that Microsoft well and truly shot holes in both feet. That said, Vista 64 SP1+ is a huge improvement. By the way, its always worth waiting for the first service pack for any OS before deploying it. The incompatible issue is now mostly insignificant, but Murphy’s law implies that just you will have some add-in or driver for which there isn’t an upgrade. That scenario is always present. Even some of Microsoft’s software doesn’t run as well as it should under V64/SP1. Windows 7 SP1 will be even better than today’s choices.

    My decision in computing comes down to productivity—the less time it takes to do post the more profitable I am. I work on photographs that are 1GB files, before layers bloats them further. I also do video post.

    In another life I specified system boards and wrote software.
    Just my 2 cents
    CW
11. Scott says:

    March 2, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    Thanks for your input, CW. Sounds like you’ve got quite a machine spec’ed out there. Just out of curiosity, what would you say is the cost for that machine?

    Dave’s off on a trip right now (lucky guy), so I’ll let him respond when gets back near Internet land, but I will say that my experience is similar to his.

    From your comments, it sounds like you are much more advanced than the average computer user (even as professional photographers go). In my teaching and IT experience, though, I’ve found that there are so many fewer issues with Macs versus PCs that the initial price outlay is well worth it for most users.

    Many working photographers want a computer that’s easy to use, performs well, and is on the lower end of the scale as far as virus threats go. That’s definitely where Apple fits, in my opinion.

    Thanks again,
    Scott
12. CW says:

    March 2, 2009 at 8:09 pm

    When people complain (to me) that they’re experiencing difficulties with their PC in a post production environment, invariably they’re using a low quality PC that isn’t configured for CSn/PS. If one starts with Adobe’s CS4 hardware profile, which generically identifies components that directly affect performance, and specifies a PC accordingly, the difference in both performance and reliability to a non-specific use PC are very substantial.

    A Mac Pro is great computer, but its relative price -performance quotient is far less than a well purpose-built PC that’s to be used for large file-size images. The configuration that I posted is in my opinion a starting point. It’s cost is about the same as a basic Mac Pro, but it outperforms it in most respects. I’m confident in saying that stepping through Apple’s configurator, for the same capacity and performance the Mac Pro would cost twice as much.

    Purpose-built for the maximum cost-productivity quotient should be the major objective when choosing a computer to do anything, in my opinion. No more is this demonstrable than in transcoding applications. To digress a little for the sake of example, take a look at http://www.ripcode.com. Their computer costs 3 times as much as a max’ed out Mac Pro, but it’s throughput is about 25 times greater.

    Apple is able to justify their prices for a number of reasons, but the most obvious reason (to me at least) is that there are very few vendors who deliver PCs with quality components. Here are 2 examples of all but unknown vendors that can deliver reliable special purpose PCs, particularly for CS4/PS: http://www.xicomputer.com and http://www.maingear.com.

    Scott you mentioned the threat of viruses. Because there are so many more PCs in use than there are Apple anything, there has to be more noise about such threats related to PCs, but that doesn’t translate into a Mac being any safer than a PC. Be it Mac or PC, if both are running QUALITY filters, its pretty much a non issue. To be absurd, bind a MAC and PC to a public IP and they’ll both be affected by malware in the same day.

    CW
13. Scott says:

    March 2, 2009 at 8:16 pm

    I don’t disagree about the potential vulnerabilities of Macs, but, in practice, I’ve personally found, time and again, that Macs are almost never affected by virus/malware-reated issues, while PCs operating in a similar environment tend to be more vulnerable.

    I think we are talking about quite different user groups here. My experience (and subsequent recommendations) come from work with typical users, particularly photographers (amateur and professional). In practice, relatively few users are diligent about keeping their virus definitions, service packs, and software patches up to date. In that real-world scenario, I’ve found that PC users are far more likely to suffer a virus or malware attack that is, at the least, quite frustrating and time consuming.
14. CW says:

    March 3, 2009 at 8:36 am

    If users aren’t installing and/or enabling software that’s intended to protect their PC or Mac from malware, obviously there’s little one can do to protect them (from themselves). But to say this is a reason to suffer a significant price-performance-productivity quotient as I pointed out earlier isn’t sensible in my opinion. The correct approach is to educate, which is minimal given the automation of protection. To repeat, malware is all but a non issue in choosing a PC or a Mac. It’s a myth to imagine one computer is safer than another if either isn’t protected.
15. Scott says:

    March 3, 2009 at 9:30 am

    I just have to jump in again with real-world experience of both Macs and PCs operating side-by-side. Unprotected Macs fare far better than even protected PCs.

    The fact is that, no matter the reason, there are countless more threats to Windows-based machines than there are to those operating on OSX.

    That translates to a much more trouble-free experience for the common Mac user…well worth the minimal price difference.

    I don’t disagree that education is important, but so many photographers are so busy taking pictures, editing, and running their lives and businesses that this education tends to fall to the wayside.
16. Apple Updates Professional and Consumer Desktop Line | TheLightroomLab.com | Written by Scott Rouse says:

    March 3, 2009 at 9:43 am

    [...] computer line with new Mac Pros, iMacs, and Mac minis. This is great news for photographers. As David mentioned in a recent article, our favorite desktop photography machine is the Mac Pro, and this upgrade makes it even [...]
17. CW says:

    March 3, 2009 at 12:11 pm

    Technically and literally it isn’t true to claim “Unprotected Macs fare far better than even protected PCs.” I think what you’re implying is what I posted before. As there are more PCs than Macs in use, the probability of more malware targeting PCs is almost absolute.

    If the fear of malware is the sole reason to choose a Mac over a PC and turn a blind eye to the cost-productivity quotient for the sake of not enabling protection, in my opinion one has decided to pass on $1000s a year. Its not simply the cost of the Mac versus the cost of a PC—its productivity over a few years.

    Personally, having a PC for which I rarely have to wait lets me do post as fast as I can stand it. If I did the same work on a Mac Pro that cost about the same as a PC, assuming Apple could configure it, my productivity loss would be untenable.

    Ignoring a productivity objective can only be applicable in a non-commercial environment. If the amount of time spent in front of a computer isn’t too important, then a mathematical argument for a PC is pointless. Other reasons would then come into play. That is, hobbies are rarely cost justified as that isn’t necessarily a metric for a past-time.

    All said and done, my point is that I’m pushing you to stick to like comparisons and to be more factual. Math will always bust myths . Till next time…
18. Scott says:

    March 4, 2009 at 8:48 am

    Not to keep the debate going, but, again, my comparisons are not theoretical mathematical models. They are derived from years of real experience with typical users.

    For those users, the productivity gained on a Mac by not having to spend time with the seemingly inevitable malware and virus issues (not to mention driver frustrations, etc) that pop up on a PC is well worth the relatively small price difference.

    I do agree that one may be able to outfit a high-end, super-geek machine PC for cheaper than an equivalently- or slightly under-powered Mac, but there’s no accounting for style, right? I just wouldn’t look as cool sitting in Starbucks sipping my non-fat double iced caramel macchiato with extra whip and candy sprinkles if I didn’t have that sleek, silver beast sitting on the table in front of me.
19. Carter says:

    March 4, 2009 at 8:59 am

    The one major thing that has made a huge difference putting aside all the tech stuff is that I spend more time making my mac perfect for me with out having to deal with all the anti-virus or spyware.

    And like it has been said before it just works.
20. MadCap says:

    March 4, 2009 at 9:11 am

    Well, yet another flame (or at least almost flame).
    Productivity and happiness with any OS is quite individual matter. I can happily do anything without dedicated antivirus or firewall software on my desktop PC behind router – it`s Vista x64 and I`am not that stupid to do something really wrong. Weakest link is always the user and the simple truth of using a Mac OS X is, that the threats for this OS are virtually non-existent in present day (but it`s getting worse), so the user has very few options do actually do something horribly wrong (like manually installing a virus/malware etc.).
    So, if you are kinda clueless computer user, you like executing anything that can be executed, you surf p0rn and cr4ck sites from time to time, than you are more vulnerable running Windows.
    More on hardware later, when I get to finishing the article I promised .
21. Nick says:

    March 4, 2009 at 9:11 am

    Here we go again!

    This is all really down to personal choice and in all the years I’ve seen this argument battle back and forth I’ve never seen a persuasive reason to choose PC over Mac or Mac over PC beyond personal preference.

    I’ve used both, but I’m currently using a PC running Vista. Despite the bad press (which I personally suspect is more hype than reality) I’ve never had any problems with Vista and neither has any of my friends who are also on it. I do think PC’s are easier to upgrade than Macs. Even someone with little technical knowledge can usually swap out a graphics card with no problem or add extra memory.

    Historically programs like Photoshop were optimised for the Mac but nowadays its built on the same code base and works just fine regardless of which machine you use.

    As for the complaints about spyware and viruses – get an anti-virus program. I’ve never had issues with this on a PC. And don’t think Macs are immune. PCs are only targeted because of their popularity. Macs had such a small user-base it was not worthwhile for people to write viruses for them. As Macs get more common look out for these being targeted too. In fact this is already beginning to happen.
22. MadCap says:

    March 4, 2009 at 9:14 am

    About “Just works” – not always, not for everybody. It`s not unconditional but well ahead of user build setups, because those are not software wise optimized in any way. If you got a system from good vendor, it should seamless under Windows without any problems.
23. Aurynn Shaw says:

    March 4, 2009 at 9:30 am

    CW;

    I’d do more research into the comparative qualities of Unix vs. Windows security models, and why Unix-based systems are less vulnerable in general to the kinds of malware attacks present on the open ‘net. Windows’ security model is well-known to have considerable flaws.

    Secondly, Apple/OSX already has a full 64-bit stack available, so your comment that “by late 2010, Apple will have something Adobe can use” is wrong.
    This is a subtle detail, and I can see why it would trip you up.
    In short, Apple’s 64-bit library set isn’t written in the same language as Photoshop is. Adobe is having to port the entirety of CS to the new language in order to take advantage of the 64-bit options.
    This is why CS4 isn’t running in 64-bit on Mac systems, not due to any missing features in the Mac OS.

    Finally, I’d also note that, while I’m quite able to use the hardware specs you posted, I’m going to agree with Scott. Very few photographers know -how- to handbuild a system, and even fewer -want- to. Apple systems give you “This works, you don’t need maintain virus scanners/other Windows BS, and all the great apps work. Right here. Right now.”
    Vista, XP Pro – _none_ of the Windows options give you the same level of “Plug in, turn on, works” that Apple systems do.

    My PC is handbuilt, as I mentioned. I can read out specs, but I know it’s faster that my Mac. It has more memory than my Mac. It will have a very fast SCSI subsystem.
    It’s a glorified game launcher. I could make it work as a photo processing station.
    Or I could just buy a Mac, drop Aperture onto it, and have my photo chain up in less than 20 minutes.

    I’d contend your math leaves out the value of It Just Works that Apple brings to the table. The hardware may cost less on the PC side, but how much is your time worth? Every hour that you’re messing with hardware, viruses, and other normal Windows-world BS, is an hour I’m -getting paid for-, because I’m NOT messing with those things.

    I’ll pay for that right-here-right-now any day.

    And the last comment of, I’d buy those Raptors for a Mac Pro.
24. Scott says:

    March 4, 2009 at 9:45 am

    Thanks for all the comments, folks. It’s no secret which side I’m on, but I’m always interested in hearing opposing arguments.

    Keep it up, all.

    -Scott
25. Jason Wall says:

    March 4, 2009 at 10:00 am

    Ugh. I’m not sure I want to jump into a big win/mac debate.

    I grew up on windows, though I hold no animosity toward Mac OS X. There are a couple of things you should consider when designing a photoshop machine:

    the problem with photoshop is it handles lots of data, and its moving that data back and forth between the CPU, RAM and the DISK. Unless you have 10 gigs of RAM, you’re going to be using disk to hold information.

    that means, there are three things you need. Lots of RAM, fast fast HDs, and a fast CPU. Your graphics card isn’t used much by PS, at least not as of CS3 (i can’t speak to CS4/5).

    My last photoshop machine was a Dell XPS. 3ghz dual core chip with 1333 bus, 4 gigs of RAM with a 1066 bus, and dual 10,000rpm drives on RAID 0, which effectively doubles the read/write speed. most everything else is superfluous.

    —–

    if you want to argue the relative merits of Mac’s smaller risk due to obscurity vs windows problems thats fine. it really depends on what you, as a user, are willing to put up with.

    windows still holds the advantage in third party plugins and software. though that is a smaller issue today than it used to be.

    ——-

    personally, if you want a lot of power, resorting to a laptop is probably not the best idea.

    ——-

    that being said, both OS’s are fabulous. and Apple does make great hardware.
26. Scott says:

    March 4, 2009 at 12:09 pm

    Good points, Jason. I will add that Photoshop CS4 definitely makes use of the graphics card (GPU) much more than previous versions, so a good graphics card is a big help for heavy Photoshop users.

    -Scott
27. Arno says:

    March 8, 2009 at 8:16 am

    Hey Scott,
    Since you were an avid Nikon shooter and you just put up all your gear for sale to go for Canon, no one really knows which side you’re on ;o)
    Maybe you’ll go back to PC someday too.

    Anyway…
    I’m partly agreeing with CW.
    What he was trying to say, I think, is that because PC has such a big market share compared to Mac, it’s a lot more fun to bust PCs than it is Macs, and thus people develop a lot more crap for PCs because it does a lot more damage.
    But if you give a hacker the order to hack do harm to an unprotected machine, he will have no more problems doing that to a PC than to a Mac.

    I’ll bet you… it’s only a matter of time, now that Apple’s market share is increasing in both business and consumer market, there will be a (shock) wave of bad stuff coming down on the Mac, and then all the people who are now cheering about Macs safety are going to go down hard.
    Because the difference between Mac and PC users is that we (or at least those who have been paying attention in the past 10 years) know what we’re up against and we know where to and where bad things are hiding.
    “You Mac people” will start learning only when the first malicious viruses for Mac will get on the market.
    What I’m trying to say is that Mac will get to the virus stage where PC was about 10 years ago. The only advantage that Mac people will have over PC people back then is that there’s virus protection software ;o)

    Also… If a computer gets infected by a virus it’s in most of the cases people’s own stupidity or ignorance, because they rely too much on their virus software and too little on their own logical thinking.

    I mean… COMMON!
    If you get an email reading (typos intended):

    Dear User,
    You receaved greating card by Hallmark. If you want read you click link and card will open automaticly. This card is free and don’t cost nothing.

    Hallmark

    Where I do agree that Unix has long since been a more stable system to work on, Windows has come a long way in improving and developing its operating system. With of course the exception of a few versions of it, Vista being probably its miserably lowest point of sadness. But reading all the cheerios on Windows 7 I have good hope that this might actually be a break-through.

    But Dave’s right. It’s not on the market yet, been considering trying the Beta, but I dare not take the risk of putting it on my work horse and I don’t have a good computer lying around here to put it on…

    Let’s see what the future brings…

    PS Scott: got your 5D yet? ;o)
28. jarvie says:

    June 10, 2009 at 2:36 am

    If you want the fastest machine possible at the moment for editing you’ll have to stick with a PC for now.

    -Good news is it will be half the cost or perhaps many times less.
    -You’ll either need to set it up yourself
    OR – Pay someone a couple hundred to set it up.
    Still much cheaper than a Mac by several thousand.

    Thing about PCs is that stores sell cheap PCs or sell the good ones too expensive. (Not an efficient move)
    Like i said just pay some techy friend to set it up… or I’ll find you a techy friend to set it up for you.

    I have a brand new MacBookPro for traveling but it’s way way slower than my PC. But laptops don’t have a big price difference and the mac laptops are great… but come on, don’t use a laptop for editing if you do lots. If you edit just a bit… it’s ok.

    Top of the line PC can be built sub $2k

    Seriously I’ll find someone to build it for you
    i7 8cores, 12gb ram, SSD fast HD with several 1.5TB HDs, best video card or two for up to 4 monitors, full tower, best MB with tons of toys.

    Crazy fast for Lightroom editing.
29. JD says:

    August 12, 2009 at 1:06 pm

    I use both platforms and while I lean toward Macs it is really only because I got tired of hearing the inevitable ” You use a PC!!??” from clients while in the field! I bought the Mac after a REALLY miserable virus experience that ate up a lot of time and equipment, and there is something to be said for elegance and GUI…BUT even with that said, I enjoyed building my editing machines in the past, and if it wasn’t for having to purchase different software versions I probably still would.
    I have ALWAYS ascribed to the “modular” approach with my images, too, and recommend it to avoid having all your eggs in one basket when gear fails ( and it all does!). Great read, guys….will be back many times!
30. Scott Rouse says:

    August 13, 2009 at 11:49 am

    Thanks, JD.

    -Scott
31. Doug says:

    October 20, 2009 at 1:59 pm

    David,

    I am a Lightroom and PS user (along with an Epson 3880) and am considering upgrading my 2005 iMac to a newer computer.

    I have several issues through which to sort:

    Mac vs. PC: I have read your post on this an am almost entirely convinced. My only reservation is that years of training on a windows PC at my day job have made me a wiz on the keyboard and I have grown to hate the more limited keyboard functionality of the mac. The flipside is, of course, that I will being doing NOTHING while my PC is crashing!

    So, if Mac…

    iMac vs MBP vs Mac Pro
    * I would prefer not get the tower (bulky, maybe overkill, expensive), but could if its really needed.
    * I don’t really need a laptop, and ill be paying more for the portability, so again seems unsecure.
    * So the question is, is the new iMac lineup powerful enough.
    * If the answer is yes, which of the 27″ setups is enough?
    Specifically:
    * Processor: Intel Core Duo or Quad Core; if Quad Core, i5 or i7?
    * RAM: should I just get the base amount and buy the rest from a third party? What brand? How much? Can it be user installed on a new iMac 27?
    * Hard Drives: can USB or Firewire drives be used as scratch drives? Do they need to meet any particular spec?

    Thanks very much for any help.

    Doug
32. Scott Rouse says:

    October 20, 2009 at 5:35 pm

    Doug,

    I’m sure David will jump in as well, but I wanted to take moment to try to address some of your questions.

    I agree with David that a Mac is the way to go. It’s all I’ll use and all I recommend to my clients and students.

    I don’t experience any keyboard limitations on the Mac, so I’m not sure what it is that bothers you with it. There are certainly some changes (Control key vs. Command key, etc), but it’s nothing you won’t grasp in an hour or so. You can customize the Function keys (F1, F2, F3, etc) on the Mac to work more like the Function keys on PC keyboards. You’re also not limited to the stock keyboard on a Mac. I do like the addition of a number pad on my keyboard, so I’d opt for that over the smaller wireless version that ships with the iMac. You can also use some third-party keyboards with the Mac for even more options.

    Regarding your question about which system to purchase:

    If you don’t need the portability of a laptop, then you can certainly get much more computer for your money with the iMac or the Mac Pro. The new iMacs match many of the enticing features of the Mac Pro, so I’d have no trouble recommending one of the to a client.

    As far as which processor is fast enough… Well, that’s always something we struggle with, eh?

    The 27-inch Intel Core 2 Duo machine will certainly be much faster than your existing 2005 model. That being said, I really feel like the 27-inch Intel Quad-Core i7 will scream when combined with Snow Leopard and Lightroom 2, Photoshop CS4, or future editions of those products.

    Regarding RAM, I typically just order the base RAM configuration from Apple and purchase additional RAM from Other World Computing. How much? Well, RAM is where the difference can really be made, so…as much as you can afford. As long as you buy in the correct configurations, you can add more down the road (until you max it out).

    I’ve not had my hands on one of the new iMacs yet, but I can say that changing RAM on the previous generation model was a snap. I assume it will be just as easy on this model.

    As far as external hard drives go, yes, they can be used as scratch drives. You’ll get the best performance out of a FireWire 800 drive that runs at 7200RPM. I like this 500GB G-drive from G-Tech.

    Hope that helps,
    -Scott
33. Doug says:

    October 21, 2009 at 10:45 am

    Scott,

    Thanks very much. This is extremely helpful.

    I have a few follow-up questions:

    You mentioned the 27-inch Intel Quad-Core i7. What about the i5? Where would I really notice the difference?

    For RAM, it looks like the best value is to go ahead and get the base model, and buy 4GBx2 at OWC.

    This will get me up to 12 GBs.

    If I want to swap out the 2GBx2 later I can, for more RAM. In noticed that OWC will take the old ones as a rebate for $45. Are there better alternatives?

    On the Hard drive, there is an option to get a 2 TB drive for $250 more than the 1TB drive. Can this drive be partitioned for use as a scratch disk? Is there any benefit to having the extra space included in the computer, or am I just as well using external drives? The extra GB comes at a 25% premium to what I think I would pay to get the 1TB G-drive from G-Tech.

    And finally, and maybe most importantly, I have read a lot of complaints about Apple displays, and the inability to properly color profile them for accurate prints. Whats your take?

    Thanks again – your site is a great resource.

    Doug
34. Scott Rouse says:

    October 21, 2009 at 12:49 pm

    Doug,

    For most day-to-day activities, I doubt one would be able to see a significant difference in performance between the i5 and i7. If you were working with video (as more and more photographers are these days) or rendering previews for large raw files (also something we’re doing more and more). It really depends on your needs as a photographer. If you shoot weddings and have to render hundreds or thousands of photos per shoot, then I’d recommend you go all out. On the other hand, if you’re a fine-art/landscape shooter who just has a few dozen photos from a shoot, you can probably save the money. The $200 price difference, to me, makes it worth the upgrade.

    Regarding the RAM, that’s typically what I do. Take out the Apple RAM and sell it back to OWC. You’ll see a huge difference at 12GB and could probably hold off on the full 16GB for a while.

    You can partition a drive, but I see no benefit in doing that. The drive in the computer will be the fastest. If you go with the 2 TB internal drive, you’ll be able to keep lots of images on that drive. Keep in mind that you’ll want at least a 2 TB external drive dedicated solely to Time Machine backups, anyway. It doesn’t need to be speedy or super-reliable, though, since it’s just a backup.

    These Western Digital My Book Essential 2 TB USB 2.0 Desktop External Hard Drives are, in my experience, some of the least-reliable drives out there, but they can be fairly cheap. If you’re a Costco member, I’ve found some good deals on large, crappy hard drives there.

    As far as the display goes, I’m not the person to ask about color profiling and getting accurate prints, apparently. I’ve always been more than happy with the level of quality I get from do-it-yourself printing on mid-range and high-end printers as well as most outsourcing locations. I have colleagues, however, that just never seem satisfied with their results and spend days staring at three different prints that look exactly the same to me. So, my answer (which you should take with a grain of salt) is that you’ll be just fine. I’ve profiled Apple Cinema Displays, iMacs, and third-party displays all attached to Macs on a personal, business, and education level and achieved results that I’ve been happy with. Printing takes tweaking. That’s the deal. There’s no perfect profile/right the first time solution out there. End of story.

    Enjoy,
    Scott
35. Doug says:

    October 21, 2009 at 3:26 pm

    Scott,
    Thanks so much. I am leaning towards:
    * 27″ w/ Quad Core i7
    * 1 TB HD
    * 2×2 (default) RAM
    * Order from OWC 4GBx2
    Thanks again.
    Best,
    Doug
36. Scott Rouse says:

    October 21, 2009 at 5:55 pm

    Doug,

    Sounds great. If you’re ordering online, you can help support this site (without costing yourself any more money) by using our banner ads or links when placing your order.

    The Apple Online Store

    Amazon.com

    Thanks!

    -Scott
37. Doug says:

    October 22, 2009 at 1:11 pm

    You bet – thanks again.

    Also – I think I agree with you on: “Printing takes tweaking”

    Best,

    Doug
38. Harvey says:

    November 5, 2009 at 7:36 pm

    Scott and David,

    I am an avid amateur photographer (Canon 1D MkIII with lots of glass) who recently switched to a MacBook Pro from a PC. I use an Epson 2200 printer and have enjoyed making some beautiful prints over the years.

    Long, long story short…that has all come to an end with my MBP. Epson doesn’t have updated drivers for the 2200 for Snow Leopard. They gave me a work around which I had the Mac store install. No go…prints are still awful.

    I love the MBP but I am totally frustrated.

    Can you help???

    Thanks so much!
39. David Marx says:

    November 8, 2009 at 9:43 pm

    Dear Harvey,
    I don’t own a printer of any brand so I can’t give you any first hand advice but I did a little research and found an Epson driver that says its compatible with OS X 10.6. Try this link.

    http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/support/supDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=14402&prodoid=20306147&infoType=Downloads&platform=Macintosh

    Hope this helps,

    David
40. ibtjh says:

    November 9, 2009 at 8:49 pm

    Way toooooo much debate going on here. Was hoping for some help in making a decission on switching from PC to Mac. My current PC (an HP) is blue screening (crashing) me and currently won’t even boot up. My last PC (Dell) crashed too much and was too slow.
    So, after reading pretty much all of the above comments, NO ONE has convinced me to switch to Mac BUT no one has convinced me to stay with a PC.
    Bigger problem is that I am working with very limited funds these days but still need computing power for photogarhy.
41. Danielle Sprockett says:

    November 16, 2009 at 1:25 pm

    I am with you on the confusion from PC to Mac. I also have limited funds but want to start getting into photography on a professional level. My dell crashed and I am without a computer so have been searching for great suggestions. What is recommended for someone who wants to start with digital photography?
42. Mark G says:

    November 16, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    I too am searching for an answer here. With a 5dMk2 shooting RAW my Dell Latitude of 5 years is starting to creak. I Have researched MACS v PC’s and everything about IMACs read well – EXCEPT the Glossy screen – every phtographers complaint seems to be lack of a Matte Screen with the new IMACS and standard coloure being to saturated.

    So why not get a specialist 24-27inch screen colour calibrated and attach to an upgraded PC. 3+GHZ processor, 8GB Ram, Decent Graphics card, 500 GB-1TB HD and save money on the Apple ??
43. David says:

    November 16, 2009 at 2:03 pm

    Dear Danielle,

    If I were just starting and truly starting from scratch, I would go for an iMac.

    In my opinion its the best value in computing right now for photographers. See Scott’s advice too on this page from October 21.