BSPhotog wrote: leighton w wrote: CGrindahl wrote: leighton w wrote: CGrindahl wrote:
Where Apple hooks you on monitors is with their resolution. My 2019 27" iMac has a resolution of 5120 by 2880 which is double the resolution of my previous 27" iMac. It is marketed as 5K. Looking at monitors available at the moment no one has anything like it and even the 4K monitors cost almost as much as a new iMac. Granted, the newest iMac has a 24" display. Of course, a stand alone Apple display is outrageously expensive. I certainly wouldn't be buying one if I chose to go with the Mac Mini. I guess I'll stay with an iMac and the one I own could very well be the last I'll ever need.
Except the new Samsung S9 27" which is also 5k and selling for around $1400.
As I said Leighton... I can buy a refurbished 27" iMac today for $1299... a hundred dollars less than that Samsung monitor. I can add RAM to that machine as well. Things are changing with the 24" iMac but my point is still valid. You get a great deal with an iMac...
I agree but, the only 27" iMacs are intel based. After I've tried a Mac with a silicon chip, I cannot go back to intel. YMMV.
I'm struck by the irony of talking about cutting edge computing in a thread full of photos from 60 year-old-lenses. What if we talked computers like we do lenses? "I really feel like the Intel processors help me slow down my editing process and really focus on getting the tone curve just right. Apple silicon is fine, but I really feel more connected with this experience"
