New 27" iMac

FM Actions & Plugins support
Workflow Guidelines

FM Forums \| Post-processing & Printing \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 4 end

Archive 2009 · New 27" iMac

AndreaPress
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #1 · New 27" iMac

Hi guys,
I'm another user that have liked the new iMac, like GeekChicPhoto I was saving for a new Mac Pro that probably will be out in the early 2010 and in the meantime I've looked for a decent 24 inch screen for my Macbook Pro.

Now, I'm seriously considering buying the new 27 iMac, on the paper the screen looks like a big deal (I hope to see some good tests about). It should be used like a normal LCD monitor too (from what I've red on iFixit and on the iMac manual) and a standalone monitor like this should cost about 1000 Eur here in Euorpe. The panel code is: LG LM270WQ1
A Mac Pro solution will be much more expensive than the new iMac and, for now, there's no monitor with the same size and resolution to add.

Regarding the internal storage, yes, this is a lack that iMac will always have: just one drive and NO ESATA EXTERNAL PORT, just the almost old FW800.

IMHO Apple have keep off just this port, so you don't have to enjoy your external raid storage!!
Maybe this should be an exclusive only for the Mac Pro users, so bye bye eSata we have to stuck with the FW800.

Oct 24, 2009 at 02:08 PM

justruss
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #2 · New 27" iMac

Man, I'd love to upgrade my aging c2d 20 inch iMac. Now that I can run os x on a netbook... I'm considering selling my iMac and my macbook and picking up one of these 27 inch monsters.

Oct 24, 2009 at 09:09 PM

balls
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #3 · New 27" iMac

GeekChicPhoto wrote:
I work at Apple for the Apple Care Tech Support and here's my opinion:

The 27" iMac is probably one of the best deals out there if you don't need all the power in the world. The i5 or i7 processor with even just 4gb of RAM will handle anything a photographer throws at it and with awesome speed, whether it be full rez files in Lightroom, Photoshop CS4, Aperture, Photomatix, etc.

Unfortunately, that was not my experience. 4GB is just too little memory to handle large raw image files. I ran 4GB and the RAW files from my 5D2, and I was constantly having memory issues.

And HDD speed is absolutely crucial to me. In fact, HDD speed is the biggest bottle neck in a computer. It doesn't make sense so spend $TEXAS on CPU, and RAM when the system will waste time waiting to read from disk. And with 4GB of ram, thats not enough space for the computer to cache applications and data to the disk effectively.

My lightroom catalog is ginormous, and reading from it off a slow HDD (especially laptop drives) was a pain. I recently swapped out my Superdrive for a 160GB intel g2 SSD, and the stock 320GB HDD in my MBP and it's been a night and day difference.

I bet for most the 27" IMac hits a sweet spot, but for large raw images, 4GB RAM has proven to be not enough memory.

Oct 24, 2009 at 09:29 PM

chesapeake
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #4 · New 27" iMac

Oct 24, 2009 at 11:17 PM

balls
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #5 · New 27" iMac

chesapeake wrote:
So, just add more memory, whats the big deal??

I was responding to GCP's assertion that the 27" iMac with 4GB of ram is more than enough to handle anything a photog can throw at it.

Oct 25, 2009 at 12:13 AM

Arka
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · New 27" iMac

AbramG wrote:
The only thing in my case is I don't like having to keep upgrading components. It's not that I'm not able to, I just don't like to lol!

I'm trying to make this swap be an even trade or come out ahead. If I only sell my mac pro, I'll still have to put out a good chunk of change to get a new mac pro.

What are the specs on you MacPro? Why are you hell-bent on selling it? I was using a G5 for pretty serious photo, paint, and 3D work up until 2008, when zBrush and Maya dropped support for the PowerPC platform. If they hadn't, I probably would've flogged a few more years of life out of that system before upgrading to my 8-core Nehalem MacPro. Not to say that the Nehalems aren't wicked fast, but I wonder what is driving your need to upgrade from a MacPro. To my knowledge, there isn't a MacPro iteration out there that doesn't perform well, even by modern standards.

Arka C.

Oct 25, 2009 at 02:44 AM

GeekChicPhoto
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #7 · New 27" iMac

balls wrote:
GeekChicPhoto wrote:
I work at Apple for the Apple Care Tech Support and here's my opinion:

The 27" iMac is probably one of the best deals out there if you don't need all the power in the world. The i5 or i7 processor with even just 4gb of RAM will handle anything a photographer throws at it and with awesome speed, whether it be full rez files in Lightroom, Photoshop CS4, Aperture, Photomatix, etc.

Unfortunately, that was not my experience. 4GB is just too little memory to handle large raw image files. I ran 4GB and the RAW files from my 5D2, and I was constantly having memory issues.

And HDD speed is absolutely crucial to me. In fact, HDD speed is the biggest bottle neck in a computer. It doesn't make sense so spend $TEXAS on CPU, and RAM when the system will waste time waiting to read from disk. And with 4GB of ram, thats not enough space for the computer to cache applications and data to the disk effectively.

My lightroom catalog is ginormous, and reading from it off a slow HDD (especially laptop drives) was a pain. I recently swapped out my Superdrive for a 160GB intel g2 SSD, and the stock 320GB HDD in my MBP and it's been a night and day difference.

I bet for most the 27" IMac hits a sweet spot, but for large raw images, 4GB RAM has proven to be not enough memory.

Point well taken. I have not tried processing files from a 5Dmk2 so I wouldn't know. But like other people have said, you can always upgrade the HDD and RAM to your liking.

Another thing I want to note, why do people have "ginormous" Lightroom catalogs? I'll admit, I used to be one that would just load every single image into a single catalog and organize them according sets/collections/etc. But one of the best things I've ever done to increase my workflow and efficiency is to create a separate catalog for each of my shoots. This cuts down on catalog loading and also increases organization of your files.

Typical Workflow for me when importing:
1) Create a new catalog and name it "month_year_description, i.e. 10_2009_ModelShoot" This automatically creates a new folder with that catalog name.
2) Import photos via "copy" mode into a folder named "RAW" within the main folder that was just created
3) Edit photos and export them into a folder called "Edited" which is also placed in the main folder

Obviously you can tweak this to how ever you like, but once you start getting into the mode of creating new catalogs for each shoot you do, your catalogs will load faster, organization goes up, and you don't have to worry about backing up an ever increasing catalog of images every time you add to it.

Oct 25, 2009 at 08:45 AM

pjbishop
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #8 · New 27" iMac

GeekChickPhoto, what do you know about how the new iMacs will calibrate color? The specs on the new iMacs are great, but the machines will be worthless if the displays won't calibrate well. (My current machine, an older 20" matte-screen iMac - Intel Core 2 Duo - calibrates just fine with Spyder3, but the reports have not been so good with regard to the glossy displays on the newer iMacs.)

Oct 25, 2009 at 11:22 AM

AdrianRogers
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #9 · New 27" iMac

Should have gone the whole hog and made a 30" 16:10 iMac with room for two hardrives. Don't like 16:9, though granted its much less of an issue with 2560 x 1440 res, don't like glossy, though that was never going to change, and I absolutely cannot live with a single hardrive and FW800 as my only other option. At very least my photoshop scratchdisk has to be on another hardrive.

Will be interesting to see how they calibrate as mentioned above. You can pry my matt screen from my cold dead fingers before I move to glossy on my workstation. Hate it on my MacBook Pro.

Oct 26, 2009 at 12:39 AM

XsigmaSD
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #10 · New 27" iMac

AdrianRogers wrote:
Should have gone the whole hog and made a 30" 16:10 iMac with room for two hardrives. Don't like 16:9, though granted its much less of an issue with 2560 x 1440 res, don't like glossy, though that was never going to change, and I absolutely cannot live with a single hardrive and FW800 as my only other option. At very least my photoshop scratchdisk has to be on another hardrive.

Will be interesting to see how they calibrate as mentioned above. You can pry my matt screen from my cold dead fingers before I move to glossy on my workstation. Hate it on my MacBook Pro.

Sounds like you are asking for the same thing I have for a few years, a MacPro Jr. if you will. A smaller desktop machine, just a couple drive bays, swappable graphics card. Something to fit between the full-blown MacPro and iMac/MacMini.

Oct 26, 2009 at 03:31 PM

AdrianRogers
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #11 · New 27" iMac

XsigmaSD wrote:
AdrianRogers wrote:
Should have gone the whole hog and made a 30" 16:10 iMac with room for two hardrives. Don't like 16:9, though granted its much less of an issue with 2560 x 1440 res, don't like glossy, though that was never going to change, and I absolutely cannot live with a single hardrive and FW800 as my only other option. At very least my photoshop scratchdisk has to be on another hardrive.

Will be interesting to see how they calibrate as mentioned above. You can pry my matt screen from my cold dead fingers before I move to glossy on my workstation. Hate it on my MacBook Pro.

Sounds like you are asking for the same thing I have for a few years, a MacPro Jr. if you will. A smaller desktop machine, just a couple drive bays, swappable graphics card. Something to fit between the full-blown MacPro and iMac/MacMini.

Absolutely. That's why i'm running a Quad core 16GB PC workstation with multiple hardrives and dedicated graphics card. Apple wouldn't make me one so I made it myself, and it cost me peanuts. Problem is Apple know this setup can be cheaper and faster than their ludicrously priced Mac Pros, so they won't be making one anytime soon

I never recommend an iMac to someone looking to *really* edit photos, made that mistake myself, never again.

Oct 26, 2009 at 03:41 PM

Il Medico
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #12 · New 27" iMac

AdrianRogers wrote:

Problem is Apple know this setup can be cheaper and faster than their ludicrously priced Mac Pros, so they won't be making one anytime soon

Again with the perpetuating of this "myth". The MacPro is less expensive than any comparable Windows machine from any Tier 1 or 2 vendor.

You cannot compare it to home builds. 99% of computer users buy prebuilt systems.

Gene

Oct 26, 2009 at 07:16 PM

mdude85
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #13 · New 27" iMac

Il Medico wrote:

You cannot compare it to home builds. 99% of computer users buy prebuilt systems.

Gene

Why does the percentage of people who buy prebuilt computers have a bearing on the value of a prebuilt computer compared with a home-built computer?

Oct 26, 2009 at 07:31 PM

AdrianRogers
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #14 · New 27" iMac

Il Medico wrote:
AdrianRogers wrote:

Problem is Apple know this setup can be cheaper and faster than their ludicrously priced Mac Pros, so they won't be making one anytime soon

Again with the perpetuating of this "myth". The MacPro is less expensive than any comparable Windows machine from any Tier 1 or 2 vendor.

You cannot compare it to home builds. 99% of computer users buy prebuilt systems.

Gene

*yawn*

It's not a myth. It's faster, honestly, i'm using it now. I can compare it to home builds because a) I can build a computer, and b) I'm talking about me, and my money. There is no need for Apple to use expensive server components in their Quad Mac Pro, there is nothing offered (less infact, with only 4 ram dimms) a desktop i7 CPU and board don't offer. This new 27" iMac has only highlighted what a poor dear the quad MacPro actually is. Good use of the 99% statistic though.

Oct 26, 2009 at 07:37 PM

mdude85
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #15 · New 27" iMac

I agree with Adrian, that the Mac pro is using Xeon processor which is more suitable for servers, and that you probably won't really see a decrease in processing power if you switch to a more economical i7. In fact you can price a Dell XPS Studio 9000 desktop at $999 which has the same specs (+100 GB larger HD) as the $2499 Mac Pro, except that it lacks the Xeon processor which is arguably not even necessary to have over the i7 (certainly not at a $1500 price premium). You can do the same price matching with a Gateway or HP. Just spec it and see for yourself.

Oct 26, 2009 at 07:54 PM

masgrada
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #16 · New 27" iMac

From what I've been reading it's the same panel as the NEC(I think) 30 inch but shorter in a 16:9 format. It was on one of the tech webpages that tore it apart already.

Oct 27, 2009 at 04:25 AM

AndreaPress
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #17 · New 27" iMac

masgrada wrote:
From what I've been reading it's the same panel as the NEC(I think) 30 inch but shorter in a 16:9 format. It was on one of the tech webpages that tore it apart already.

Is it a wide-gamut display?
In case I hope that Apple have well managed it.

Some test and report regarding colour calibration will be very appreciated.

Oct 27, 2009 at 07:06 AM

balls
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #18 · New 27" iMac

mdude85 wrote:
I agree with Adrian, that the Mac pro is using Xeon processor which is more suitable for servers, and that you probably won't really see a decrease in processing power if you switch to a more economical i7. In fact you can price a Dell XPS Studio 9000 desktop at $999 which has the same specs (+100 GB larger HD) as the $2499 Mac Pro, except that it lacks the Xeon processor which is arguably not even necessary to have over the i7 (certainly not at a $1500 price premium). You can do the same price matching with a Gateway or HP. Just spec it and see for yourself.

I agree to a certain extent.

There are only two differences between the Xeons in the Mac Pro and the CoreI7's:

Multiple CPUs and ECC Ram.

Multiple CPU's is a chipset issue, but IIRC, Intel has no plans for multiple i7s on a single board.

ECC ram is really important for servers that cache lots of data and applications to memory (think 64+ GB of ram). ECC ram is wicked expensive over the cheaper non-ECC stuff.

Other than that, the i7 is identical to the server xeon chip.

Regarding the Apple Tax, it's not necessarily true. If you build a PC with the same components as a Mac Pro, the price difference is negligible.

As others have said, apple is missing computers in the middle tier market segment. An iMac has awesome features, but you're forced to move to the Mac Pro if you want full customization and future expansion options that are available with lower cost PC's.

Oct 27, 2009 at 07:18 AM

mdude85
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #19 · New 27" iMac

balls wrote:
If you build a PC with the same components as a Mac Pro, the price difference is negligible.

Basically no OEM except for Apple would bother to load up a Xeon processor with 8 GB of RAM and a really expensive graphics card. It just doesn't make sense because most of the EOM PC manufacturers only put their Xeon processors in servers where they belong. Maybe Apple just thinks that if they load up a bunch of top of the line products into a shiny case with a bunch of extra bays, that people will not even think twice about buying it, and maybe that has paid off for them, but it's not very economical for you and me. I just posted an example of how component for component, the Dell XPS 9000 matched the Mac Pro with a savings of $1500 by forgoing the "better" processor.

You can do the same with any of the other OEM PC manufacturers.

Oct 27, 2009 at 02:46 PM

Vince Cuares
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #20 · New 27" iMac

Had the chance to check it out at the apple store while having my mac pro repaired.

From a photography perspective:
Reflection from the glossy screen is terrible. It's glass glossy. Workable if you work in an environment where room light sources don't tend to reflect towards you.

IPS screen is expectedly awesome. On default setting, blacks were clipped abit thereby boosting contrast, whites were were perfect.

For me, LR's right develop panel needs all the vertical resolution it can get. Although not significant, it makes me think twice going from a 30in monitor.

Coming from a Mac Pro. Price for the display resolution and panel you get is almost irresitable. However drawbacks for me is expandability and upgradeabilty. Like using SSD as boot and a regular drive for storage. Video card for OpenCL if it ever becomes big.

If I am on a market for a new computer and I didn't have what I have right now, the iMac is a very serious contender.

Oct 27, 2009 at 04:52 PM

1 2 3 4 end
FM Forums \| Post-processing & Printing \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 end