M4 Mac is so ridiculously fast, handles my 42MP files from the Sony a7riii without any lag.
I use the iPad Pro m4 , but for less than half the price the Mac mini is a steal!
Had to upgrade from an intel i7 processor and the difference (even on an iPad) is night and day. Old computer would crash when opening a raw file from the new cameras.
An m3 or m2 processor would probably also do the trick. Apple silicon is crazy efficient. Upgrade the base ram if possible, as this won’t be possible later
For the current Mac Mini, you can buy a 2TB SSD for about $300 today and install it yourself. Search youtube. For RAM, it's upgradable but requires a little more effort.
atnpro wrote:
For the current Mac Mini, you can buy a 2TB SSD for about $300 today and install it yourself. Search youtube. For RAM, it's upgradable but requires a little more effort.
Can you provide a link? Yeah, we could search, but I suspect you have something specific in mind, so why not just share it?
Although older Mac mini computers did allow replacement of the SSD and memory, I was under the impression that the current models do not.
EB-1 wrote:
In 5 years that Vienna Walz will seem like the slow Waltz.
Despite a computer having a high CPU and GPU core count some operations are single threaded and benefit from newer CPU designs. As well there may be new instructions and substantially improved ability to execute at CPU and/or GPU hardware level, for example to support AI-type workloads. So while there may be some value in overbuilding to increase the useful lifetime of a computer, the optimum area under the curve may be to start a little lower and implement a 3-year replacement cycle.
EBH
This is right on point. Once my computer gets to the slow waltz, I expect the fundamental chip architecture (M4 generation in my case) to be outdated. This is why I bought the base model of the M4 Pro. That's the configuration where 1) my needs right now are either met or exceeded and 2) all the components of the computer are likely to reach the end of their useful lives all at the same time at the right time. I want to hit that optimum area under the curve. That's what drives value for me as a consumer and a business owner.
Don’t know about a standard M4 Mini configuration. I bought the Mini M4 Pro last year and have no regrets at all. My large image files get processed quick and fast enough for my usage. Max specs.
The RAM “upgrade” is not the thing any normal person is going to try!!! Seriously, just get sufficient ram in the thing when you purchase it. Anyone wondering why I say this should go watch the video. ;-)
It is a bit hard to see from the other video — procedure details aren’t really shown — but upgrading the SSD seems a little more possible. (I thought that Apple had somehow instituted some new security steps in the OS to make this more difficult though.)
Anyway, interesting.
atnpro wrote:
go to YT and search "upgrade mac mini m4 ssd" or "upgrade mac mini m4 ram"
Happydan wrote:
You can also just keep it simple
Buy an external ssd drive
Either portable ones or buy the SSD Drive and the casing separate and combine
Unless your storage needs are pretty modest, getting an internal SSD with plenty of room for the system and apps plus an external drive for image files makes the most sense for lots of us. Don’t under-spec the internal SSD, but 512MB (low end) to 1TB will likely be enough for a “system” drive.
That’s less satisfactory for laptop users, for whom it is kludgy and awkward to always cart around an external drive.
Yeah the RAM is closely connected to the GPU, so better upgrade that when buying the machine
I certainly would not recommend that RAM upgrade process to anyone but the most dedicated Mac geeks. Just get sufficient (and a bit more) internal RAM and move on.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Unless your storage needs are pretty modest, getting an internal SSD with plenty of room for the system and apps plus an external drive for image files makes the most sense for lots of us. Don’t under-spec the internal SSD, but 512MB (low end) to 1TB will likely be enough for a “system” drive.
That’s less satisfactory for laptop users, for whom it is kludgy and awkward to always cart around an external drive.
I certainly would not recommend that RAM upgrade process to anyone but the most dedicated Mac geeks. Just get sufficient (and a bit more) internal RAM and move on....Show more →
You can pay someone who is handy to do it for you, still far cheaper.
gdanmitchell wrote:
A few months ago it was time to replace an older, high-end 27” iMac (one of the last non-M processor models) with something new. I ended up with a mini M4 Pro model with 48GB memory and a 2TB SSD. I set it up with a pair of 27” monitors, and have it attached to various hard droves and other accessories.
Dan, what monitors did you end up going with? My 27" iMac from 2017 is at the end of its life... still runs great but won't run the latest operating system or the newest Lightroom. I'm thinking of going with a MacBook Pro and having only one computer, but I'd then need a monitor. I like something comparable to the quality of the iMac at either 24" or 27" but haven't shopped for quality monitors in a decade or more. My budget is probably in the $500 - $750 range.
One point Doug, you are used to the 5k retina iMac. You might not like a 4k monitor. This was the case for me ergo I bit the bullet and ended up with the Studio Display set to the default 2560 x 1440 married to my MBP. Definitely pleased with the result. The 4k option doesn't natively support this resolution and instead scales the input image which does result is a slightly less sharp image.
DougVaughn wrote:
Dan, what monitors did you end up going with? My 27" iMac from 2017 is at the end of its life... still runs great but won't run the latest operating system or the newest Lightroom. I'm thinking of going with a MacBook Pro and having only one computer, but I'd then need a monitor. I like something comparable to the quality of the iMac at either 24" or 27" but haven't shopped for quality monitors in a decade or more. My budget is probably in the $500 - $750 range.
Anyone feel free to weigh in.
I ended up with a pair of the Apple 27” Studio displays. I found a small discount on them via an online vendor — a discount that expired months ago.
There are pluses and minuses to going this route.
Minuses: These are costly monitors, and you can find alternatives for less money. You might not need the second set of built-in speakers, and you may not need the rather large number of USB ports you’ll end up with.
Pluses: Matching the image quality on the two screens is pretty much problem free. (It can be a challenge with one Apple monitor and a different third party monitor.) I do need all those ports. Since the two monitors are the same, there are no issues with how high you mount them or with things like scaling.
gdanmitchell wrote:
At the time of purchase the big question was whether one needs a Studio model or the mini will work. After using the mini for months, I would not replace it with the Studio at this point for my purposes.
When it comes to internal memory, a lot depends on how you’ll use the thing. If, like me, you have many terabytes of image files, you’ll likely store them externally. (Hopefully on a fast drive or several, and with thunderbolt access.) Since you won’t be storing all of your images on the computer’s internal SSD you probably don’t need more that 1TB. You might get by with the 512MB configuration, but I think that’s likely to be curing it close, and over the life of the computer the demands on internal storage will only increase. Do you need 2TB? Probably not....Show more →
Thanks for the feedback about your Mini M4 Pro!
I agree that end-use cases have a big impact on the relevancy of specific hardware configurations. For a stills-only photographer, moving from Pro to Max or Ultra IMO is primarily beneficial if doing large sets of AI noise reduction, which will benefit from more GPU cores.
With regard to internal memory, I've recently been somewhat unpleasantly reminded that the 48GB RAM I thought was ample for my LR uses actually sometimes is not due to the changes Adobe brought with AI NR in LR v14.x. As I mentioned on the previous page, the change away from generating a new DNG file stored outside LR to incorporating the NR data within the LR catalog has resulted in a significant increase in catalog size. But I'm also finding that exporting large image sets (45MP and more than ~2000 images) has LR consuming a ton of memory, to the point where it's not uncommon for me to get system pop ups that it has run out of memory. Going to 64GB RAM would have eased this somewhat, but I think ultimately it's a 'runaway' memory consumption issue with Adobe/LR because with a large enough image set, it will eventually consume all available memory.
It appears LRC 15 addresses some of the catalog bloat issues as follows (from The Lightroom Queen):
ACR Sidecar Files: If you write to XMP, Lightroom Classic now writes large pixel-based edits, such as AI Masks, Denoise, and Super Resolution, to a separate sidecar *.acr file for proprietary raw files, so the *.xmp file goes back to being a small file. This may also reduce the size of your catalog, especially if it’s ballooned since the June 2025 release, as the XMP-formatted metadata is duplicated in the catalog. The Camera Raw plug-in already uses this format for performance reasons. Any existing sidecars will be updated if you manually write to XMP (Metadata menu > Save Metadata to File), even if you haven’t made any other changes. If you have Catalog Settings > Metadata tab > Automatically write changes into XMP checked, they’ll get updated the next time you edit the photo.
To reply to the part of your post about memory, I suspect that Adobe is having some memory management issues. They may be related, at least in my case, to leaving the program running for long periods of time as I open and close many files. When I launch the program, it is usually using about 8 gigabytes, but as I leave it running that continues to increase, even if I have no large files open. It is hard for me to say for sure, but it seems to me like something in the software is not giving back memory once it is done using it.
rscheffler wrote:
Thanks for the feedback about your Mini M4 Pro!
I agree that end-use cases have a big impact on the relevancy of specific hardware configurations. For a stills-only photographer, moving from Pro to Max or Ultra IMO is primarily beneficial if doing large sets of AI noise reduction, which will benefit from more GPU cores.
With regard to internal memory, I've recently been somewhat unpleasantly reminded that the 48GB RAM I thought was ample for my LR uses actually sometimes is not due to the changes Adobe brought with AI NR in LR v14.x. As I mentioned on the previous page, the change away from generating a new DNG file stored outside LR to incorporating the NR data within the LR catalog has resulted in a significant increase in catalog size. But I'm also finding that exporting large image sets (45MP and more than ~2000 images) has LR consuming a ton of memory, to the point where it's not uncommon for me to get system pop ups that it has run out of memory. Going to 64GB RAM would have eased this somewhat, but I think ultimately it's a 'runaway' memory consumption issue with Adobe/LR because with a large enough image set, it will eventually consume all available memory.
It appears LRC 15 addresses some of the catalog bloat issues as follows (from The Lightroom Queen):
ACR Sidecar Files: If you write to XMP, Lightroom Classic now writes large pixel-based edits, such as AI Masks, Denoise, and Super Resolution, to a separate sidecar *.acr file for proprietary raw files, so the *.xmp file goes back to being a small file. This may also reduce the size of your catalog, especially if it’s ballooned since the June 2025 release, as the XMP-formatted metadata is duplicated in the catalog. The Camera Raw plug-in already uses this format for performance reasons. Any existing sidecars will be updated if you manually write to XMP (Metadata menu > Save Metadata to File), even if you haven’t made any other changes. If you have Catalog Settings > Metadata tab > Automatically write changes into XMP checked, they’ll get updated the next time you edit the photo....Show more →
Thanks Dan. A comment in the LRC 15 thread suggests that a GPU-related memory leak in pre-v15 versions has been fixed. It may have been this at the root of what I experienced, because generally all of my people photos have Denoise and AI-generated masks applied, which are GPU driven.
The problem I had was that a catalog of a few thousand-ish images with the above adjustments applied would result in ballooning memory consumption and pressure when performing certain tasks, such as bulk exports. For example one catalog of about 3500 images would not export more than halfway before consuming all available memory and locking up the system.
I have not yet upgraded to v15 in part due to a few projects on the go and not wanting to transition halfway through, but also to allow time for bugs to be identified and hopefully resolved.
