# Computer Upgrade for new camera



## RadioPath (May 30, 2013)

Hi everyone,

thanks again for all the good advice before, wanted to hear your take on how/whether to upgrade my current computer:

I have a 2009 MacPro w/ 500 GB HD and 6d GB of RAM and an ATI Radeon 4870, currently still running OS X 10.5. Served me well enough for my work stuff and for fun, such as cataloging and minor adjustments on the JPG's from my 400D. Have been itching to upgrade anyways, mostly because I need more HD space and speed. I hope I'll manage to go to the store tonight to buy a 6D and thought to also take some stuff for my Computer, especially since I have to update my system to run LR included with the 6D and to be able to work on those larger Raw Files.

My thoughts re upgrade were:
250 GB Samsung 840 SSD for system and programs
2 x 2TB WD Black series HD, one for general files, music, and iPhoto, the other for working on photos and the occasional video. The latter would include the LR library.

The old HD would remain as a backup system, as I have some files programs, that I don't want to risk loosing. Would basically start a fresh system and copy over my files to HD #1.

1. Should that be fast enough? Or do I NEED more RAM or sth. else for it to runs smoothely (new computer is not an option at this point)?

2. Should I partition the HD's in a certain way. I'd rather not, as I like the flexibility of big HDs, but would do so if there was a significant speed increase.

3. The way I understand it, the LR library is not synched into the system, the way iPhoto is, so I thought I'd just export jpgs after PP straight into iPhoto. Is that easy/convenient or is there another way? The added benefit would be, that I'd have at least 1 level of backup. Also, my wife likes iPhoto 

4. Which system should I update to? I like 10.8 on my MBA, but how well would it run on my old machine? Better to go 10.6 and not use the additional features (which I like very much, though)?

5. Is this all worth it or will my computer be too slow anyways? It runs other Software (e.g. OsiriX) well enough. 

6. I was gonna use LR since I'll get it for free. If there is other software that needs less hardware, might be cost efficient to buy that instead...

Thanks in advance!
RadioPath


----------



## alexanderferdinand (May 30, 2013)

Speaking for my PC and the usage of RAM: 6GB should work flawless. 
I felt a little bit of faster performance from using 8gb instead of 4gb ram. Wasnt THE big step.
Or you WANT a newer machine.....


----------



## iKenndac (May 30, 2013)

1) The SSD will speed your system up a _ton_ for everyday tasks — booting, launching programs, etc. Also, get more RAM. It's relatively cheap nowadays, and it'll also increase the speed of you machine since it won't be paging stuff to disk. An SSD will speed this up, but RAM is still orders of magnitude faster than an SSD. None of my computers have less than 16Gb in them.

2) There's no need to partition the HDs really.

3) I don't understand what you mean by "synced into the system". Can you be a bit more clear?

4) Your Mac Pro should be able to run 10.8 just fine, especially with an SSD. Lightroom 4 requires Mac OS 10.6.8, and Lightroom 5 requires Mac OS 10.7. Aperture (which I'll get onto in a minute) requires 10.7.5.

5) The 2009 Mac Pro is still pretty quick. I think it has a few more years in it yet! 

6) Look at Apple's Aperture. I find it a lot faster than Lightroom 4 on my 2010 iMac (2.8Ghz, 16Gb of RAM) — it uses the GPU for rendering a lot more than Lightroom, which provides a nice speedup. Also, you mentioned that your wife likes iPhone — Aperture and iPhoto can actually share libraries these days, which is great — your wife can use iPhoto and you can use Aperture and both work with the same photo library. Aperture is a lot more powerful than iPhoto, and I like it a lot.


----------



## RadioPath (May 30, 2013)

iKenndac said:


> 1) The SSD will speed your system up a _ton_ for everyday tasks — booting, launching programs, etc. Also, get more RAM. It's relatively cheap nowadays, and it'll also increase the speed of you machine since it won't be paging stuff to disk. An SSD will speed this up, but RAM is still orders of magnitude faster than an SSD. None of my computers have less than 16Gb in them.
> 
> 2) There's no need to partition the HDs really.
> 
> ...



Thanks!
A few further questions:
1) Will look into buying more RAM, then. Don't think they'll have it in stock anyways.
2) 
3) I mean that I can see the iPhoto library from other applications, e.g. e-mail attachments and such. Works very nicely with iPhoto. Aperture is the same I guess.
4) Will go for ML then
5)  Love that computer! Sooo quiet. Just wish it was smaller and not so hard - I hurt my knees on it sometimes, liked the G4 before better.
6) I'll look into Aperture, too. Reasons I consider LR are: a) I get it for free, b) lens correction included. 

What are other Mac users oppinions re LR vs. Aperture? Worth to shell out another 80$ to get it over LR?


----------



## iKenndac (May 30, 2013)

RadioPath said:


> 3) I mean that I can see the iPhoto library from other applications, e.g. e-mail attachments and such. Works very nicely with iPhoto. Aperture is the same I guess.



Aha, I understand. Yes, you're correct in that a) Lightroom doesn't show up in there and b) Aperture does.



RadioPath said:


> 6) I'll look into Aperture, too. Reasons I consider LR are: a) I get it for free, b) lens correction included.
> 
> What are other Mac users oppinions re LR vs. Aperture? Worth to shell out another 80$ to get it over LR?



I'm currently torn on Aperture. I used it from the day 1.0 came out right up until a few months ago. I adore the UI, the speed, the "edit-anywhere" functionality and the system integration (Photo Stream, the system image picker you mentioned, etc). Lightroom, in comparison, feels clunky and slow to me. 

However, on the flip side, Lightroom currently has far better image editing capabilities. The noise reduction is fantastic, and the lens correction tools are really useful. The new features coming in LR 5 look to make it pretty much all I'd ever need for image editing, and I've heard it's somewhat faster than Lightroom 4. After a month or so of getting used to it, I don't Lightroom's UI bad enough to move back. I still don't like the UI as much as Aperture's, but the image editing tools keep me with Lightroom, at least for now.

I'm eagerly awaiting Aperture 4. If it steps up its game in terms of image editing, I'll probably move back.

To be honest they're both great image editing and asset management programs, and like Canon and Nikon, they keep leapfrogging one another. Lightroom is currently ahead, but I'm not sure how long that'll be the case. Of course, you'll get die-hard fans defending one over the other (also like Canon and Nikon), but in my opinion you can't really make the wrong choice here — just go with whatever you prefer. They'll both get the job done, and that's all that really matters.


----------



## Grumbaki (May 30, 2013)

RadioPath said:


> What are other Mac users oppinions re LR vs. Aperture? Worth to shell out another 80$ to get it over LR?



Well. 80$ in itself for Aperture isn't that bad considering the quality. I always used it for the same reasons you still use iPhoto: perfect integration with the general software environment. I have to say that this aspect never disapointed me. v3 also brings the advantage to let you work on Aperture while your newbs can still use iPhoto (one single merged library).

On the other hand, once i got serious i felt the need to get Nik Collection (great denoize, awesome B&W, natural HDR and much more) That's another 100ish bucks. 

From an absolute point of view, less than 200 bucks for everything you'll ever need if you run photojournalism style is a acceptable deal. From your point of view of free LR, that might be an issue. Your call.


As to the computer. SSd is the way to go. HDD are the bottleneck in 99% computers sold right now.

But maybe you also feel like getting something shiny. I have to say that 27" iMacs at max specs are some badass mothercomputers. 4 months in and I never managed to make him sweat.


----------



## RadioPath (May 30, 2013)

Grumbaki said:


> RadioPath said:
> 
> 
> > What are other Mac users oppinions re LR vs. Aperture? Worth to shell out another 80$ to get it over LR?
> ...



I LOVE getting shiny new stuff and the newer iMacs look really nice. Can't afford one at the moment, though, unless I pass on a new camera  Also: If the SSD and new HDs will make my Mac fast enough to do the stuff I need to do for another 2-3 years I'd be very happy with the money spent to have used it for 6-7 years overall.


----------



## RadioPath (May 30, 2013)

Additional question for the computer-hw-geeks: Would my choice of SSD and HD's be good? Or are there better options (for the same kind of money?).

Also: Is my idea with automatic export from LR to iPhoto on a different HD easily feasible (e.g. one check box in Settings)? Does LR import pics and videos from iPhones?


----------



## Grumbaki (May 31, 2013)

RadioPath said:


> Additional question for the computer-hw-geeks: Would my choice of SSD and HD's be good?



It's actually pretty decent. Want to make it awesome? dunno if you read it but you don't need a physical "Fusion Drive" to get the fusion drive "experience". Needs a little bit of terminal litteracy but that's very easy and you'll get the awesomeness: a 3TB SSD feel 

Here's the How to: http://www.macworld.com/article/2014011/how-to-make-your-own-fusion-drive.html



> Or are there better options (for the same kind of money?).


Not that i know of. (and if it exists, probably not for the same kind of $$)



> Also: Is my idea with automatic export from LR to iPhoto on a different HD easily feasible (e.g. one check box in Settings)?


Might be doable with scripts or Automator. The latter is probably the most awesome but unknown mac feature.
I'd suggest reading :
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2488
http://www.macosxautomation.com/automator/learn.html
http://mac.appstorm.net/how-to/productivity-how-to/automator-the-ultimate-automation-assistant/
(pointless advertisement: see? OSX isn't only for grandmas)


----------



## RadioPath (May 31, 2013)

Grumbaki said:


> RadioPath said:
> 
> 
> > Additional question for the computer-hw-geeks: Would my choice of SSD and HD's be good?
> ...



Hi,
I read about the Fusion drive option, but probably won't go that way: There is just the risk that with future system upgrades that might not work anymore. I also figured that with that size of SSD I should have plenty of space for all programs and to use as a scratch disk, so I'm not sure how much speed the fusion drive option would add. Might even make it slower, if the SSD is filled with downloads, etc. rather than program files and scratch disk.

Also, with my setup ugrading the system (or moving it to a different computer should be a breeze): Just install a new system on the SSD, link to user folder on HD1 and LR to LR folder on HD 2. Done. Always a fresh system, I hope.

So my scenario of synching LR and iPhoto is not covered by standard options I see. Will look into Automator, then. Useful skill to have anyways, I guess  

Thanks!
RadioPath

Edit: P.S.: Installed the HD's and SSD yesterday, was even quicker and easier than I thought! Should have done that a long time ago! I just realized, that one cannot buy ML as a full version, had to order SL on DVD will update, then.


----------



## Grumbaki (May 31, 2013)

Fusion drive (official or homebrewed) isn't about performance by itself. If you speak average in random use, from my experience it's really like having a huge SSD as the software seems to be very smart. The only slow down I can remember is from a few days ago, opening a 4 Giga mkv that was never opened since its transfer to the computer 4 months ago. And that wasn't even that bad.

For further upgrade, I don't see Apple streamlining the "homebrewed fusion drive" but i would be surprised if they invalidate it.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy your new computer (really the feel once going SSD)


----------



## whothafunk (May 31, 2013)

I'm editing photos on a white Macbook 2008 C2D 2.4ghz, 4gb RAM and 256gb SSD (with external monitor + 2TB mypassport external HDD) on a 10.6.8. 
Other than RAM, I dont need anything else, as LR4 eats RAM like there is no tomorrow. And you're telling us you need a better machine? BS. get a SSD, more RAM, and thats it. 

my RAW files from 550D and 70-200L are about 24-28MB big.


----------



## RadioPath (May 31, 2013)

whothafunk said:


> I'm editing photos on a white Macbook 2008 C2D 2.4ghz, 4gb RAM and 256gb SSD (with external monitor + 2TB mypassport external HDD) on a 10.6.8.
> Other than RAM, I dont need anything else, as LR4 eats RAM like there is no tomorrow. And you're telling us you need a better machine? BS. get a SSD, more RAM, and thats it.
> 
> my RAW files from 550D and 70-200L are about 24-28MB big.



Hi,

sorry for the misunderstanding: I DON'T need a new machine! I was asking how to upgrade my computer to make it possible to edit photos nicely with more memory as the 1 HD I had was way to full and slowing down the computer and I wasn't sure if my RAM would be enough. 
As I am not using Raw files till now I wanted to make sure, before I put money into an upgrade that wouldn't make sense anyways.

RadioPath


----------



## whothafunk (May 31, 2013)

Sorry about that. I only read the first post thoroughly, then I just randomly scrolled and have read somewhere about iMacs and love getting something something, so I just concluded you're getting one. Anyway. Get a SSD (your computer will be reborn, I promise you that) and 4GB RAM (more, if it fits in your laptop). Lightroom 4 has this stupid bug, which won't flush memory. After editing about 20-25 pictures, all my RAM is used up and even if I restart Lightroom, it won't help much, other than restarting whole computer.


----------



## Harry Muff (May 31, 2013)

Max out the RAM. It'll probably take 16Gb. That'll make a difference.


An SSD will speed up anything to do with the system, such as start up and app launching. Don't expect it to make much difference when actually using PS or LR though, apart from saving.


After taking out the HDD you've got, look into taking out the DVD drive and install the HDD using a bay adapter off eBay in place of it.


That way you don't have to get a massive SSD; you can use it to run the OS and apps only.


Regarding OS X, I recommend taking it up to Lion (10.7) at least. It uses up less space and runs faster. It has some features you might like too. I'm not sure if a 2009 MBP will run 10.8.


Also look into which of the Apple apps you actually _need._ I've deleted iPhoto, iMovie, Photo Booth, etc. There's a good few gig to be freed up doing that.




Maintenance is important to speed too. Onyx (free) is an essential tool for keep OS X in shape and CleanMyMac (money) is good for cleaning out unwanted crap as well.


----------



## Harry Muff (May 31, 2013)

whothafunk said:


> Sorry about that. I only read the first post thoroughly, then I just randomly scrolled and have read somewherer about iMaca and love getting something something, so I just concluded you're getting one. Anyway. Get a SSD (your computer will be reborn, I promise you that) and 4GB RAM (more, if it fits in your laptop). Lightroom 4 has this stupid bug, which won't flush memory. After editing about 20-25 pictures, all my RAM is used up and even if I restart Lightroom, it won't help much, other than restarting whole computer.




Have a look on the App Store for free Memory Flushers. They work a treat.


----------



## whothafunk (Jun 1, 2013)

Will check it out, thanks.

And any Mac thats 4,2 (new unibody) and newer runs 10.8. Mine is 4,1 and it won't run.


----------



## Rocguy (Jun 1, 2013)

Lightroom free with a 6D? I didn't get that.... 

I've been meaning to check it out since it apparently easily does lens corrections and Aperture does not do them at all. Otherwise Aperture is great. 

And get as much ram as you can afford really. I'm running a 2010 iMac with 8GB of ram. And it gets annoyingly slow at times. I just would rather put the money in upgrading this into a new machine at this point or I'd double that for sure.


----------



## RadioPath (Jun 1, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> Max out the RAM. It'll probably take 16Gb. That'll make a difference.
> 
> 
> An SSD will speed up anything to do with the system, such as start up and app launching. Don't expect it to make much difference when actually using PS or LR though, apart from saving.
> ...



I have a Mac Pro, not a MBP, so I had the slots available. Already bought and installed the SSD and the 2 HDs, waiting for my ML DVD to arrive, so I can update to SL.

I'll look into upgrading RAM as well, I found an upgrade to 12 GB for 150 €, 24 GB for 200€. 16 GB is not such a good option for this Mac Pro, b/c one should only fill slots 1 - 3, otherwise it slows down the bus or sth. like that. Will have to wait a bit, though, my gadget budget is pretty much empty now.

I'll check out Onyx, never heard of it so far.



Rocguy said:


> Lightroom free with a 6D? I didn't get that....
> 
> I've been meaning to check it out since it apparently easily does lens corrections and Aperture does not do them at all. Otherwise Aperture is great.
> 
> And get as much ram as you can afford really. I'm running a 2010 iMac with 8GB of ram. And it gets annoyingly slow at times. I just would rather put the money in upgrading this into a new machine at this point or I'd double that for sure.



Did you buy it recently in Germany? Canon support told me, that they give it anyone who bought it after April 22nd, just drop them a line. Maybe they also have it in other countries, just check out canon.(de, fr, cn,...).

You also feel that more RAM is needed I see. Well, 6 GB is apparently not as much, as when I bought the machine.

Thanks everyone!
RadioPath


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 2, 2013)

RadioPath said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> thanks again for all the good advice before, wanted to hear your take on how/whether to upgrade my current computer:
> 
> ...


 
Avoid the Samsung 250GB 840 SSD. Go for the PRO versions if you can.

Samsung used two types of memory in the 840 series, The Pro versions are much preferred for a few dollars more.

"When we finally got the specifications for the SSD 840, I understood why Samsung was reluctant to share too many details about the drive before its launch: the Samsung SSD 840 is the first consumer SSD to utilize 3-bit-per-cell MLC NAND (aka TLC). "

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6337/samsung-ssd-840-250gb-review

Another option is the Crucial 960 GB SSD Drive. Its not a speed demon like the Samsung 840 Pro, but it is fast, large, and low cost. It uses MLC, and not TLC DRAM.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6884/crucial-micron-m500-review-960gb-480gb-240gb-120gb


----------



## RadioPath (Jun 2, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> RadioPath said:
> 
> 
> > Hi everyone,
> ...



Thanks for the advice, too late though, already bought and built in.... OTOH the price difference here would have ben 150 vs. 210 € and that review you posted the life span given is 7 years; could live with that, I'm sure by that time I would buy a new computer with a bigger SSD. One probably shouldn't go for the Fusion drive with the non-pro version, as the drive could fail earlier. When all the important data is on a different drive anyway, the worst that could happen would be to buy a new SSD, install it in the computer, install the software (maybe just through Time Machine? Not using that, yet), done.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 2, 2013)

Thanks for the advice, too late though, already bought and built in.... OTOH the price difference here would have ben 150 vs. 210 € and that review you posted the life span given is 7 years; could live with that, I'm sure by that time I would buy a new computer with a bigger SSD. One probably shouldn't go for the Fusion drive with the non-pro version, as the drive could fail earlier. When all the important data is on a different drive anyway, the worst that could happen would be to buy a new SSD, install it in the computer, install the software (maybe just through Time Machine? Not using that, yet), done.


I'm sure you will like it, Its more a matter of being much slower than the 830.

I had a 256 GB 830 and When I bought a new PC, I was going to add a 840, but noticed the specs had it slower than my 830. I found what was happening from the review and bought a 840 Pro instead. I also doubt if life is a issue.


----------



## RadioPath (Jun 2, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'm sure you will like it, Its more a matter of being much slower than the 830.
> 
> I had a 256 GB 830 and When I bought a new PC, I was going to add a 840, but noticed the specs had it slower than my 830. I found what was happening from the review and bought a 840 Pro instead. I also doubt if life is a issue.



The guy in the store actually also said, that the 830 would have been better for my computer, especially since the old Mac Pro does not support SATA 3. They just don't sell it anymore, so the 840 would be next best thing. The SATA might be a bottle neck anyways. Let's see, it should be faster than what I have now and psychologically that will make it good


----------



## iKenndac (Jun 2, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> whothafunk said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry about that. I only read the first post thoroughly, then I just randomly scrolled and have read somewherer about iMaca and love getting something something, so I just concluded you're getting one. Anyway. Get a SSD (your computer will be reborn, I promise you that) and 4GB RAM (more, if it fits in your laptop). Lightroom 4 has this stupid bug, which won't flush memory. After editing about 20-25 pictures, all my RAM is used up and even if I restart Lightroom, it won't help much, other than restarting whole computer.
> ...



I hate to be that guy, but: No. No no no no no.

Memory flushers are often detrimental to overall system performance. Here's why: Unused RAM is wasted RAM. It's money better spent on something else. Therefore, when you quit an application or an application frees/flushes memory, Mac OS X won't actually free it. Instead, the system keeps the data in RAM around in case it's needed again later. For example, if you reboot your Mac and launch Photoshop, it'll take quite a long time to launch. If you quit Photoshop and launch it again a second time, it'll load *much* faster. This is because the system kept the data around in RAM so it didn't have to load Photoshop from disk the second time.

This cached information is freed from RAM automatically if something else needs it. Using "RAM flushers" deletes this cache, meaning you lose the performance benefits it provides.

You can read more about this from Apple themselves here (under the "Inactive" header). 

Basically, if you have more than 0Mb of free RAM on a Mac OS X machine at the end of the work day, that RAM was a waste of money and you should've spent it on something else.

Source: I'm a programmer by trade — it'd my job to know this boring crap like the back of my hand.

*Edit:* Sorry, forgot the useful part of this post: The simple way to tell if your computer needs more RAM is to look at the "Page Outs" figure in Activity Monitor. Page Outs happen when the system has run out of RAM to store everything it needs, so it starts purging stuff out to disk. Doing that is super slow (even with SSDs) and you should avoid it if you can. For example, my Mac has 16Gb of RAM and its uptime is nearly 80 days (I just sleep it rather than shutting it down). In this time, page outs total around 200Mb, which is perfectly fine. My free memory figure is never more than 1Gb or so, and all my apps load super fast because they're in the cache. However, because the page outs figure is so low, adding more RAM won't really increase performance.


----------



## RadioPath (Jun 2, 2013)

iKenndac said:


> Harry Muff said:
> 
> 
> > whothafunk said:
> ...



Wow, that page out thing is a good tip. I'll just see what it says to evaluate wether I need more ram. What would be an acceptable amount?


----------



## whothafunk (Jun 3, 2013)

iKenndac said:


> Harry Muff said:
> 
> 
> > Have a look on the App Store for free Memory Flushers. They work a treat.
> ...


i'm aware of that. however if i use LR4 when editing RAWS, then quit it, activity monitor's icon (rainbow pie) is mostly blue, meaning "inactive" memory. what good does inactive memory do me if i only have 400mb free afterwards and once i open a couple of tabs on google chrome and another program, that blue (inactive memory) stays the same, taking up 60% or more of RAM for nothing. with SSD, PS5 f.e. opens in 4 seconds the first time i start it, and takes about 2-3s when i launch the second time, so i really dont care about that 1 second if it means that ill have free memory.


----------



## Harry Muff (Jun 4, 2013)

Exactly. If you're worried about load up times, get an SSD. I'd rather keep my RAM freed up.


----------



## andres5d3 (Jun 4, 2013)

but RAM is so cheap these days 8GB for $40?

i know my system had 16GB of RAM on Windows 7, when stitching photos from LR to CS5.5, the most I used was 13 out of 16GB of RAM, never had thought of an SSD back then and probably will not; i just max out on what the motherboard can take


----------

