# My Dell vs iMac



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 9, 2013)

I currently own a Dell Inspiron 580 i5 760 2.80GHz, 6GB RAM, I mainly use Lightroom but also use Photoshop and both run well. I want a new monitor but then I thought what’s the point when I would like to get an iMac. This would cost around £1920, £1,599 for the basic 27” adding another £320 with 16GB Ram and 1TB Fusion Drive. I want to future proof the iMac so I don’t regret not adding say more RAM. 

My question is, how much of a difference would there be between my current dell and the iMac? I know adding an extra 10GB will speed things up but its things like my i5 2.80GHz to an i5 3.2GHz, how big a difference is that? Should I go for the i7 and not the i5?
I don’t play games on my PC, have a PS4 for that, and I don’t edit videos either, so the most demanding thing will be the editing of RAW files. 

Thanks


----------



## Brand B (Dec 10, 2013)

Can't speak authoritatively about your dell, but a new iMac, even the base model i5 27" will be a decent speed bump. Going for the faster model or the i7 more so, just based on a more modern faster processor.

One note on the RAM. On the 27", the RAM IS user upgradeable.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5540?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US

What's more, the iMac comes with the DIMMS in 2 slots, and 2 more slots empty, so if you buy the base RAM config at 8GB, you can buy another 8GB for about $100 (UK pricing should be somewhat similar, which is half what US Apple store charges to go to 16GB, although again they only fill 2 of the 4 slots. So you might think about bumping the RAM yourself and using the 80 pounds or so you save towards other upgrades you can't do your self.


----------



## Grumbaki (Dec 10, 2013)

I have a late 2012 27" maxed out.

While I cannot compare with anything relevant (my office machine is pure typewriter spec), I have to say that in 1 year of use I never managed to make it slow down. That includes all kind of stupid multitasking (aperture + HD movie + Movie encoding + itunes dealing with an updating device + all backoffice processes like mail and so on). So i generally advocate for it to people who want a performance mac.

Now the usual disclaimer: a hand made PC would be cheaper for the same performance (but without the OS and the design)


----------



## Ruined (Dec 10, 2013)

You probably don't want to hear this as I assume you like the nifty look of the Mac, but simply upgrading the RAM on your Dell to 16GB and swapping the hard drive for a Crucial M500 960GB SSD will actually be *much faster* than the Mac you are looking at for total 25% of the cost. In your Dell's case the processor is fine, the hard disk is the biggest bottleneck followed by RAM. Maybe also add a Lexar USB3.0 SD/CF card reader and if your PC does not have USB3.0 ports also a Belkin pci-e usb3.0 card.

This is because Lightroom does not require a ton of processing power, you will get more of a speed boost from the fastest HD and a large amount of RAM, and the hybrid Apple Fusion drive you mention is slow as pudding compared to the 960GB Crucial M500 SSD. Even Photoshop doing complex layer work and filters would probably benefit more from a full-on SSD over a hybrid drive than the magnitude of processor upgrade here.

Crucial M500 960GB SSD
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crucial-960GB-Solid-State-Drive/dp/B00BQ8RGL6/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1386650682&sr=8-4&keywords=crucial+m500

Software to clone drive: https://www.paragon-software.com/home/hdm-personal/


----------



## WPJ (Dec 10, 2013)

Ruined said:


> You probably don't want to hear this as I assume you like the nifty look of the Mac, but simply upgrading the RAM on your Dell to 16GB and swapping the hard drive for a Crucial M500 960GB SSD will actually be *much faster* than the Mac you are looking at for total 25% of the cost. In your Dell's case the processor is fine, the hard disk is the biggest bottleneck followed by RAM.
> 
> This is because Lightroom does not require a ton of processing power, you will get more of a speed boost from the fastest HD and a large amount of RAM, and the hybrid Apple Fusion drive you mention is slow as pudding compared to the 960GB Crucial M500 SSD. Even Photoshop doing complex layer work and filters would probably benefit more from a full-on SSD over a hybrid drive than the magnitude of processor upgrade here.
> 
> ...


this is a great plan and the one I would choose, along with adding the dell 30" monitor to it


----------



## DanielW (Dec 10, 2013)

It looks like you _want_ an iMac, and if that is the case there is not much to think. Spend some money and give yourself a present! 
On the other hand, from what you said you will use it for, you seem to have a fast enough computer, and my guess is that most people here would prefer to put that money on equipment (mainly lenses). Ruined's advice sounded good to me, though, if you are feeling hampered by processing speed, but does not address your monitor issue.
I have myself given me a basic iMac (i5, 8GB, 21 inches) after getting tired of "not responding" messages and printer conflicts with Windows, and could not be happier. It is not the fastest computer on the block, but it is definitely enough for my needs.
Good luck!


----------



## Botts (Dec 10, 2013)

Disclaimer: I worked for Apple for quite a long time.

I'd go with the iMac. The 27" display is fabulous, and the computer is wicked fast. I've got a loaded 2013 sitting on my desk right now.

If I were you, I'd go with the GPU and CPU upgrades from factory, I'd also choose the 256GB SSD. Buy your RAM as cash becomes available. 
I run 24GB of RAM right now in this config: 4GB (stock), 4GB (stock), 8GB (aftermarket), 8GB(aftermarket). 

The GPU and CPU will future proof you the longest.

With regards to the suggestion of the 960GB SSD, I'd avoid going that route. I'd also avoid the Fusion Drive. Reasons are as follows:

1. You *will outgrow* the SSD, be it 960GB or 256GB. It's a just a matter of time, then you're limited to USB 3.0 attached options anyways.
2. Lightroom runs great off a 2 HDD RAID-0, just make sure you've got a solid backup scheme or run RAID 10 with periodic offline backups. *Further,* moving your Lightroom Catalogues to SSD, then running the masters off the RAID will lead to even better performance. The Fusion drive won't touch either setup for speed.
3. Fusion Drives are currently a little finicky, and the replacement SSDs are still a constrained part AFAIK at Apple stores. I.e. if yours goes down, it's down for 2+ weeks.
4. That 960GB SSD is really expensive compared to building a fast RAID-0 + backup. You could probably do a 4TB RAID 10 for under $600 now. Alternatively, you could get a USB 3.0 DROBO.
5. Fire your programs on the SSD for super quick load times.

With regards to Aperture or Lightroom, keep in mind all they are, are glorified databases. They need super quick read/write to the database, master reads are less crucial. As such, most users with big libraries, or a need for speed run their Catalogues/Aperture Libraries on their SSDs, but store their masters / reference their masters on an external drive, RAID or otherwise.

If you have any questions, please PM me.


----------



## Ruined (Dec 10, 2013)

So, I think the bottom line what all can agree upon is that the OP would gain the most by increasing RAM to 16GB and getting a faster storage device such as an SSD.

This can be accomplished by purchasing a new computer (a bundle of money) or modifying current computer (a fraction of the cost). 960GB SSD is £372.00, not a huge investment. In fact, you could get two of them and still have made a very small investment compared to the iMac. Your original plan of a 1TB Apple Fusion drive will run a lot slower than your current computer with a 960GB SSD. The RAM upgrade will be a very small amount of money.

I'm not sure the need or hassle for RAID, 1TB is a decent amount of space of space for active use and rather than setting up a complex RAID setup simply getting a secondary 960GB M500 to increase active working space to 2TB would still not be a huge investment. These M500 960GB drives blow the doors off any HDD RAID setup, even 10000 RPM Western Digital 1TB Raptors (I know as I have some in RAID I am in the process of selling). If you need more space for archival purposes, buy a large 7200rpm HDD as you won't be accessing it regularly anyway.

As another poster stated earlier, Dell makes some fantastic monitors. Arguably the best consumer monitor made of any brand currently is Dell's UP3214Q 4K display which my friend just received. That is expensive, but their 2k UltraSharp displays are not.

The upgrade in CPU and GPU are going to be meaningless in Lightroom, and given your current CPU near-meaningless in Photoshop.

I would also advise adding a USB3 PCI-e expansion card (cheap) if you don't have USB3 slots and buying an external Lexar USB3 reader, this can greatly cut down times of SD/CF copy times.

Thus, as is often the case, the question is would OP rather switch to iMac for a lot of money, or for much less money make your own computer much faster than the very expensive iMac would be by upping RAM & adding a high speed 960GB SSD - or a pair of them - to maximize the performance of the progams you use.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 10, 2013)

Thank you very much for your comments. 

The Crucial M500 960GB SSD does seem like a good idea, also adding more RAM, but am I right in saying that some computers you can only upgrade to a point and I have a feeling I found out my computer can't be pushed far. Sorry if I am wrong, I don't know a lot when it comes to upgrading! Also a better graphics card would be beneficial right?

I guess in my head I think, "it's an iMac, why wouldn't I want one" they are beautiful, as said I would still be wanting a new monitor and in iMac all in one kinda of makes sense. Part of me wants to move on from Windows. If I was to go ahead with the iMac, I would spend money on the non upgradable stuff and upgrade the ram at a later date. This would mean it would be fairly future proof.


----------



## Botts (Dec 10, 2013)

Just checked the GeekBench 2 scores for your i5 760 vs the iMac's i7 4771. The iMac scores 2.01x higher on GeekBench than your dell which is substantial.

The loaded iMac scores 17% faster than my Retina MacBook Pro, which is pretty close to what I see in real world speed difference for heavy compute actions. I.e. video rendering, or heavy PS work. As such, I'd expect the iMac would smoke your Dell.

I still don't think I could justify anything bigger than a 256GB SSD at today's cost though, as the only thing you really need to store on the SSD is programs and LR Catalogues. USB 3.0 / Thunderbolt also lets you add SSDs in SATA6 enclosures down the road.



Here's what I'd do instead of splurging on the 960GB SSD.
RAID enclosure $175 + 2TB Seagate $90x4 + 4TB USB 3.0 External $200

That comes to $735 and you'd get a RAID-10 enclosure with usable 4TB of space, and an external 4TB for offline backups. You could do a 2TB version of this for $605. It'll come down to whether or not you need that much data protection, I'd argue you always do; though I'm more conservative than most on backups.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 10, 2013)

Botts, thanks for that information, interesting to know! 
In your first post you say: _“I'd go with the iMac. The 27" display is fabulous, and the computer is wicked fast. I've got a loaded 2013 sitting on my desk right n_ow.”
Your also saying about upgrading my current PC, which is definitely an option, so which would you do if you were in my position and you didn’t have an iMac?

I see what is being said about Hard Drives but the top/near top iMac will still be much faster than my current Dell and I can cope with my Dell now so any improvment will be a bonus, so speed yes is important for programs like Lightroom, but for me I don’t see it as being essential.

But this does not get around my main point of wanting a new monitor, I have a 4 year old Samsung monitor and the iMac screen will blow my Samsung monitor out of the water.


----------



## WPJ (Dec 10, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Botts, thanks for that information, interesting to know!
> In your first post you say: _“I'd go with the iMac. The 27" display is fabulous, and the computer is wicked fast. I've got a loaded 2013 sitting on my desk right n_ow.”
> Your also saying about upgrading my current PC, which is definitely an option, so which would you do if you were in my position and you didn’t have an iMac?
> 
> ...



do two things convert to,SSD and get a top notch,monitor

if you go iMac, make sure you only use ssd in it


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 10, 2013)

At work I have a Dell Percision M/6700

At home I have two macs, a five year old MacBook pro and a four year old MacPro.

Every machine at home has Boot Camp and in windows mode will outperform the 4 month old Dell.

Running on apples platform with just a few clicks of the mouse and using mac air they are all integrated together.

If not for Excel and Word and the occasional video game I would have no use for windows at all. (and especially Dell)

I typed this using Dell's 30" monitor. It would be a pain editing photo's on this thing.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 10, 2013)

For the same price as a 1tb fusion drive on the iMac is a 256GB Flash Storage, no mention of SSD, because of my lack of knowledge with all this I may be missing something? 

Also am I right in saying basically the advantage of SSD is the write and read speed will be faster?


----------



## WPJ (Dec 10, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> For the same price as a 1tb fusion drive on the iMac is a 256GB Flash Storage, no mention of SSD, because of my lack of knowledge with all this I may be missing something?
> 
> Also am I right in saying basically the advantage of SSD is the write and read speed will be faster?



yes exactly, I run on a dell m6500 precision and my windows boots in about 12 seconds, for the other guy running a newer windows dell he has some mayor issues if his 4 year old mac is faster.

lightroom opens up in about 1 second.

I have 16g ram and 2 x 256gb ssd and another 80gb ssd. For long term storage I have a 2gb network has with 8x 2tb, raid 10 for 8 tv usable space, tye photos are sync from that has to another raid 5 has daily.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 10, 2013)

Ok so it's quicker, but I'm still confused with Apple not mentioning SSD but only Flash, is this the same thing?


----------



## WPJ (Dec 11, 2013)

Flash and ssd are not interchangeable.

flash is typically a slower memory type than solid state disk.

it is ask in a hybrid style which it tries to figure out what to keep in cache this method does,not always work but that's why its cheaper than ssd

post the link to tue model your looking at olease


----------



## tcmatthews (Dec 11, 2013)

Flash by it's self dose not tell us much. There are two type of flash memory. SSD's are normally made out of Nand Flash. It should be comparable to a SSD and in fact may be a SSD. But when Apple just says flash it may be a SSD or it may be PCIE flash Drive or some other proprietary configuration. On some of the new computers they are Soldering it onto the motherboard. 

Hybrid drives have a flash drive with a normal hard drive all built into one. The theory is you can use the flash portion of the drive as a large cache. The store a copy of commonly run files and programs in the flash storage. It does not always work but it provides relatively cheep bulk storage of a HD and near SSD performance.




WPJ said:


> Flash and ssd are not interchangeable.
> 
> flash is typically a slower memory type than solid state disk.
> 
> ...


----------



## jprusa (Dec 11, 2013)

I went from a Dell to a Mac last year, only regret is not doing it 15 years ago.


----------



## Rofflesaurrr (Dec 11, 2013)

Alright, let's clear some things up...

Your Dell has a first generation Intel i5 Processor. The iMac uses a 4th generation i5. As mentioned, it is about twice as fast as your first generation i5. It supports faster RAM speeds, PCI Express 3.0, and it runs cooler and more efficiently. 

The iMac is available with flash memory, which is the same as an SSD. The flash memory is faster than any standard SSD you can put in your PC for 2 reasons. The first reason being that your Dell has a SATA II interface, which limits data transfer speeds to around 270MB/sec. The second reason is that the iMac uses a proprietary interface which is connected directly to a PCI Express lane and can reach speeds over 700MB/sec. Even SATA III interfaces in newer PCs can not reach these speeds. 

The iMac also has a thunderbolt connection, which is faster than any eSATA or USB 3.0 port on any PC. This thunderbolt connection allows you to add additional storage, whether it be external hard drives or SSDs, with no loss in performance compared to an internal drive. I would opt for flash storage on your iMac. You can keep your Lightroom catalog on the internal flash storage, and keep your actual photos on a high capacity external HDD. Lightroom is still very quick when set up this way. 

As for RAM, just configure the iMac with the base amount, and buy RAM from OWC (Other World Computing). They specialize in Mac upgrades and it is cheaper this way. All 4 RAM slots are accessible from the rear of the 27" iMac.

Depending on what version of Photoshop you have, and what you use it for... the nVIDIA graphics processor in the iMac will accelerate some features.

Last but not least, you're also getting an amazing 27" IPS display with the iMac. Sure, there's better monitors out there, but the iMac display is very capable and should fulfill most people's photography needs.

Hope this information will assist you in making a decision. I'm using a Lenovo ThinkStation right now, and am also considering upgrading to a 27" iMac.


----------



## mkabi (Dec 11, 2013)

I'm going to add my 2 cents.

I don't doubt that an iMac or even a mac pro would be amazing addition.
But ultimately, look at the internal parts... they aren't any different from any other PC.
So whats the main difference... its really the OS.

I say, given your Dell... use it and create yourself a Hackintosh.
Load up the Mac OS... and you're partly done.

Now for your monitor.... lets go to the next level and get yourself a 4K monitor. If you can afford an iMac, you can afford this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-LED-4K-120hz-Ultra-HDTV-/331070588760?pt=Televisions&hash=item4d15584758


----------



## viggen61 (Dec 11, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Ok so it's quicker, but I'm still confused with Apple not mentioning SSD but only Flash, is this the same thing?


In this case, yes. I believe Apple uses the term "flash" storage to differentiate from "SSD", which has come to mean - more or less - flash-type storage built into a housing the same form factor as "HDD" storage, and with a compatible SATA interface.

In other words, they don't want you to think you can buy an off-the-shelf SSD and install it.


----------



## Ruined (Dec 11, 2013)

The iMac FUSION storage drive OP mentioned is a hybrid drive - basically traditional HDD with flash memory bolted on for cache... similar to Seagate Momentus XT. It is nowhere near as fast as a real SSD and is limited by the speed of HDD, not by the interface. An SSD on SATA I would be faster than the drive the OP is considering on an interface of unlimited speed, as the files OP will be working with will quickly exceed the flash capacity of the hybrid drive. Thus the bottleneck in the Fusion drive will very quickly become the spinning HDD platters, something a fast interface can do nothing about.

At the minimum, if OP does decide iMac he should dump the Fusion drive and get a real 1TB SSD such as the Crucial M500 I linked, which is the best performance per buck in the SSD world. For lightroom especially, upgrading to an SSD is much more important than processor, even if the processor were three times as fast than the i5 the OP has - due to diminishing returns in lightroom processing power. I have run Lightroom on a Intel Bay Trail CPU which has 1/2 of the power of the OP's Dell


----------



## scotthillphoto (Dec 11, 2013)

My setup is a little different, I had an iMac maxed out an older 24" with 8gb's of Ram when I went to buy new I realized that my monitor was still awesome with my imac but the computer could keep up, so I bought an apple display and the top of the line mac mini and maxed out the ram at home. When I'm in the middle of a huge batch and using about 14gb's of ram in photoshop it runs a little hot but I have software monitoring everything and I'm still watching netflix and answering emails while it does the batch editing... 

So when I go to upgrade next time all I have to buy is a desktop which is much cheaper than another iMac.... I also looked at other monitors but having all the usb ports, speakers, and camera on the apple display I decided to stay with apple on that as well... 

Hope this helps, but I would stay away form windows unless you want to run it without ever getting on the internet....


----------



## TexPhoto (Dec 11, 2013)

Ruined said:


> The iMac FUSION storage drive OP mentioned is a hybrid drive - basically traditional HDD with flash memory bolted on for cache... similar to Seagate Momentus XT. It is nowhere near as fast as a real SSD and is limited by the speed of HDD, not by the interface.



The fusion drive is just that, a fusion between 2 drives. I have a 512GB SSD and a 4TB Hard Drive running in my iMac. The computer handles deciding which data goes where, and data that is accessed more often stays on the SSD. For smaller reads and writes it is as fast as the SSD. For bigger stuff, it slows to the speed of the HD. Considering it boots in about 20 seconds, and brings photoshop up in 1.5, AND has 4.5 TB of capacity, I am pretty happy with it. If one drive fails, you loos all data. So back it up...


----------



## Rofflesaurrr (Dec 11, 2013)

mkabi said:


> Now for your monitor.... lets go to the next level and get yourself a 4K monitor. If you can afford an iMac, you can afford this:
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-LED-4K-120hz-Ultra-HDTV-/331070588760?pt=Televisions&hash=item4d15584758



That TV might be okay for spreadsheets or office applications, but it's not ideal by any means for photo editing. It has poor color accuracy, varying panel uniformity, and HDMI 1.4 limits it to a 30Hz refresh rate which is half that of a standard monitor. Dell is coming out with much better 4K panels for around $1000-1500 with proper Displayport connections.


----------



## Botts (Dec 11, 2013)

viggen61 said:


> JPlendPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Ok so it's quicker, but I'm still confused with Apple not mentioning SSD but only Flash, is this the same thing?
> ...



You can't. At least not easily. It's a PCIe interface, but you'd need a custom built PCIe flash drive to fit the space inside the iMac. A preexisting PCIe flash solution like a Mercury Accelsior wouldn't fit.



JPlendPhoto said:


> Ok so it's quicker, but I'm still confused with Apple not mentioning SSD but only Flash, is this the same thing?


Apple does use the term Flash to refer to SSDs. The iMac's SSD/flash option achieves well over 500MB/s, often reaching into the low 700MB/s.



JPlendPhoto said:


> Botts, thanks for that information, interesting to know!
> In your first post you say: _“I'd go with the iMac. The 27" display is fabulous, and the computer is wicked fast. I've got a loaded 2013 sitting on my desk right n_ow.”
> Your also saying about upgrading my current PC, which is definitely an option, so which would you do if you were in my position and you didn’t have an iMac?
> * I had meant to recommend the RAID option and RAM to be used with the iMac, not the current PC.*
> ...





Rofflesaurrr said:


> The iMac is available with flash memory, which is the same as an SSD. The flash memory is faster than any standard SSD you can put in your PC for 2 reasons. The first reason being that your Dell has a SATA II interface, which limits data transfer speeds to around 270MB/sec. The second reason is that the iMac uses a proprietary interface which is connected directly to a PCI Express lane and can reach speeds over 700MB/sec. Even SATA III interfaces in newer PCs can not reach these speeds.
> 
> The iMac also has a thunderbolt connection, which is faster than any eSATA or USB 3.0 port on any PC. This thunderbolt connection allows you to add additional storage, whether it be external hard drives or SSDs, with no loss in performance compared to an internal drive. I would opt for flash storage on your iMac. You can keep your Lightroom catalog on the internal flash storage, and keep your actual photos on a high capacity external HDD. Lightroom is still very quick when set up this way.



Rofflesaurrr nails it. I hadn't even thought of the SATA2 vs SATA3 issue. You're effectively wasting your money putting any SSD into that Dell as it'll be limited by your logic board's SATA2 connections.

The iMac is the way to go for future proofing. It'll have the speed to store large libraries effectively. USB 2.0 or FW800 even, will continue to slow down your workflow.

He also suggests the catalog = ssd, and masters = hdd advantage as well.


----------



## Botts (Dec 11, 2013)

TexPhoto said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > The iMac FUSION storage drive OP mentioned is a hybrid drive - basically traditional HDD with flash memory bolted on for cache... similar to Seagate Momentus XT. It is nowhere near as fast as a real SSD and is limited by the speed of HDD, not by the interface.
> ...



Did you build your own Fusion Drive? It seems like you must have opened your iMac as that config isn't available as a BTO. I would caution others against this route, as:
a) It is currently untested, and slightly unstable. At the Apple Store we had some serious grief maintaining even Apple supported implementations of Fusion Drive.
b) You have to cut the adhesive holding the display in place.
c) Totally voids any semblance of AppleCare you ever had.


----------



## syder (Dec 11, 2013)

> Posted by: Botts
> 
> 'The iMac is the way to go for future proofing.'



No it isn't. If you want a future proof system buy a workstation. Something where you can upgrade all the components as and when you wish. And get something with a separate monitor so that you don't have to pay for a new screen when you want to upgrade your computer (the 27 inch monitor with the iMac will easily outlast the CPU and motherboard - we've often gone two or three generations of computers with one generation of monitors). Modularity is really valuable when you're talking about building something with an eye on the future.

Bang for buck-wise Macs are never really a good option. It used to be the case that Mac only software (FCP 7) was a good reason for a lot of people to buy Macs. That isn't really a reason anymore (unless you're using Smoke I guess). 

We've just upgraded a lab's worth of computers from iMacs to HP Z820s Dual hex core E5 Xeons Dual K4000 Quadro graphics cards, loads of RAM, SSDs and Raid HDDs for extra storage (video editing machines need it). And because we're a university those machines cost us about the same amount as the top specced iMac (HP gives us a better discount than Apple so for retail machines the Z820 would cost more). If in the future we want to upgrade any part of the system we can. That flexibility is what future proofing is about.


----------



## Botts (Dec 11, 2013)

syder said:


> > Posted by: Botts
> >
> > 'The iMac is the way to go for future proofing.'
> 
> ...



Of the options presented, it was better than upgrading the Dell.

As a PC user, you probably won't ever be sold on the idea of buying a Mac. That's OK, but if a user wants to switch to the Apple environment, it's really their call.


----------



## Rofflesaurrr (Dec 11, 2013)

There's no denying that the price to performance ratio is much better on the PC side. However, the operating system is an important deciding factor too. Apple products also have some of the best resale value.


----------



## kirillica (Dec 11, 2013)

holy war! holy war!

computer is not just a motherboard, memory and disk. infrastructure is something you should also consider. i've seen people switching from pc to mac and vice versa. reasons are different: mac/pc is slow, mac/pc is crashing all the time, mac/pc doesn't have software needed and etc, etc.

so... will you have everything needed from infrastructure point for switching? for example, do you know that Adobe products are much more stable for pc than for mac? have you considering buying outstanding dell ultrasharp monitor? there are lot more questions to consider, as you see.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 11, 2013)

My head is still saying go with an iMac, but this is not going to be cheap. I now understand the best option is to go with the 256GB SSD/Flash option and go with USB 3.0 externals for storing things like photos, keeping things like the Lightroom catalogue on the internal storage.

In terms of future proofing I am sure getting near the top of the line model will do me for the next 5 years with no problems at all. The price of the following comes to £2,228.99:
• 3.5GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz 
• 8GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM (RAM TO BE UPGRADED AT A LATER DATE)
• 256GB Flash Storage 
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M 4GB GDDR5 

Syder makes a good point though, but for me what is above I am sure will be more than I need so to me that is future proofing, I know other may think otherwise, your thoughts? 

What is slightly putting me off getting an iMac is the price, above is just the price for the iMac, not taking into account buying Photoshop again, the CS6 I currently have is only for Windows but Lightroom 3 is for both, but I would like to get the latest version of Lightroom. At some point I’ll probably add an Apple USB SuperDrive and other things. The main add on here will be USB 3.0 externals, bringing the cost easily over £2500. Nearly forgot the i1 Display Pro which is essential.

Can someone recommend some USB 3.0 externals for me to look at?

EDIT: Sorry forgot to add, I am not ruling out upgrading my current PC and getting a decent monitor.


----------



## syder (Dec 11, 2013)

Just for the sake of comparison

http://www.novatech.co.uk/pc/range/novatechblacknti50.html (first place I looked - i used to live in Bristol and went to the Novatech shop to but computer bits, the guys there were really friendly and helpful)

Same processor, twice the memory, only a 128mb SSD but also has a 3gb HDD, 770gtx desktop graphics card - which is faster than the 780m which is a mobile graphics card (fitting things in that small case comes at a premium) see http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html for benchmarks.

£1300 - if you look around you could probably do better.

But no monitor. But if you want to spend almost what the iMac costs you can get a 10bit ultra swanky professional NEC monitor... Or you could just spend the £550 on the extemely nice Dell 27inch Ultrasharp and have a screen that will last you for two/three times the life of any graphics card and cpu. 

And so you end up with an equivalent or better system, a better screen which isn't built into the (faster aging) computer, and spend less money meaning that you can buy another lens or two, go on holiday, or just feel less broke. 

From someone who currently has about a dozen a Macs at work.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 11, 2013)

Thank you very much Syder for that infomation. Very interesting! 
I'm now not sure what I want to do, there are pluses and minuses to each. As I have said, the price difference is big, this is my main worry, but it's not an iMac haha 

Or maybe I go back to original plan and just get a decent screen like one of the Dells. My current system is not that bad but it could be better. A lot of thinking to do!


----------



## Ruined (Dec 11, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Thank you very much Syder for that infomation. Very interesting!
> I'm now not sure what I want to do, there are pluses and minuses to each. As I have said, the price difference is big, this is my main worry, but it's not an iMac haha
> 
> Or maybe I go back to original plan and just get a decent screen like one of the Dells. My current system is not that bad but it could be better. A lot of thinking to do!



The main question is, do you want to pay significantly more money for the same/less computer with the iMac? You would essentially be paying quite a bit more for the same/less internal hardware (the "guts"), but you get the exterior design of the Mac and the Mac operating system.

This is of course a personal decision no one on here can make for you!


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 11, 2013)

Ruined said:


> JPlendPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you very much Syder for that infomation. Very interesting!
> ...



I love the design of the iMac, the fact its an all in one and the 27" screen is beautiful. Also I am drawn to the Mac operating system.
If you where making the decision, knowing my current spec of Dell, what would you do? But yes I know no one can make the decision for me


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 11, 2013)

I would say that in Apple Mac lineup 'significantly less computer' is Mac mini (not iMac 27"). 

And I would also suggest to look at 'Mac mini with i7 processor + Thunderbolt Display' combo (or 'Mac mini + Dell WhateverSharp') as another possibility to get a Mac that's capable to do some photo-work. You can easily add/replace memory in Mac mini and add second Hard Drive/SSD. 

I used two Macs: Mac mini + Macbook setup for home and work since 2006. And I can definitely confirm that Mac minis are much easier to replace than iMacs, because you keep the display  My current Mac mini is the 5th I bought since 2006. (But 'the main' system in the setup is not the mini, but last year's Macbook Pro, the one with so-called 'Retina' display).

PS: You can install/run Windows on Macs too (unless it has a 'fusion drive' (?)). So, you still be able to run existing software while you purchasing or looking for their OS X replacements. (Apple's Aperture is also not totally useless RAW processing tool you can get for $80. LightRoom probably has more professional bells and whistles too it, but Aperture do allow at least to quickly sort through pictures, select keepers and reject the rest...)

And 'NO', I do not insist on getting Mac mini instead of iMac (if you can afford top iMac 27" without spending 'unreasonable' amount of income or if you think that Mac mini is too slow or too small).


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Dec 11, 2013)

I had the same curiosity a while back. Comparing current systems with like hardware and up to date OS, there is no visible difference in processing speed for both lightroom and photoshop. I ran my windows system which was a 3rd gen i7, 512 plextor ssd, 16gb ram, nvidia gt560 against my buddy's respective Mac system of similar spec. We tested import/export, raw file processing, and video processing which all showed no real advantage with either system. 

The only easily noticeable difference was the fact that the final tag on his system was almost $1,000 more than mine. The lack of difference in processing speed and price were enough to get me off the fence for considering the purchase of a Mac. 

There are plenty of PCs with different setups. If it is an iMac you want, there are PCs that are setup that exact same way + touchscreen for that matter. Windows 8.1 has also been very stable with a very functional pre-installed Windows Defender unlike the previous versions. 

What it really boils down to is how much you really like the idea of having a Mac and/or the operating system is that much nicer to you that it is worth the additional premium paid.


----------



## Botts (Dec 11, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> My head is still saying go with an iMac, but this is not going to be cheap. I now understand the best option is to go with the 256GB SSD/Flash option and go with USB 3.0 externals for storing things like photos, keeping things like the Lightroom catalogue on the internal storage.
> 
> In terms of future proofing I am sure getting near the top of the line model will do me for the next 5 years with no problems at all. The price of the following comes to £2,228.99:
> • 3.5GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz
> ...


*

Finally, there is a value on your happiness. If your heart is set on an Apple, then that's probably worth something, you'll just have to decide what it is. If you think you'll constantly think, "What if I had bought the iMac?", that may sway your final choice.

I think most the PC guys on here were suggesting buying a new PC vs upgrading yours. That would be my choice if I were to go the PC route in your shoes. I still think a Mac is better, but I wouldn't invest money into the current Dell. 



Zlyden said:



And I would also suggest to look at 'Mac mini with i7 processor + Thunderbolt Display' combo (or 'Mac mini + Dell WhateverSharp') as another possibility to get a Mac that's capable to do some photo-work. You can easily add/replace memory in Mac mini and add second Hard Drive/SSD. 
 That's definitely a good option to consider, especially if photos is your #1 job. The only thing that held me back from this option is that the Mac Mini only has integrated graphics, and not a discrete GPU. The Mac Mini also only has 2 RAM slots, so you're limited to 16GB of RAM, vs 32GB with the iMac. That said, you could always replace the Mac Mini as things progress technology wise. Certainly would get more value out of the big investment in an iMac which is the display.

PS: You can install/run Windows on Macs too (unless it has a 'fusion drive' (?)). So, you still be able to run existing software while you purchasing or looking for their OS X replacements. (Apple's Aperture is also not totally useless RAW processing tool you can get for $80. LightRoom probably has more professional bells and whistles too it, but Aperture do allow at least to quickly sort through pictures, select keepers and reject the rest...)
I'm an Apple Certified Pro and Trainer in Aperture. I love the photo management it has, but it lacks some editing features that LR5 has, including Lens Vingnetting and Distortion Correction. I do prefer the brushes in Aperture to LR5s local edits though. That said LR5 was clearly built to be paired with PS.
And 'NO', I do not insist on getting Mac mini instead of iMac (if you can afford top iMac 27" without spending 'unreasonable' amount of income or if you think that Mac mini is too slow or too small).

Click to expand...


One final comment on everyone suggesting the Dell Ultrasharps, when you consider everything, the ultrasharp vs the Apple Thunderbolt Display get pretty close in cost. The ATD also has decent speakers, FW800, Gigabit ethernet, and 3 USB 2.0 ports.*


----------



## Ruined (Dec 11, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > JPlendPhoto said:
> ...



Have you considered one of these? Same concept, much less money... and it has a touchscreen unlike the iMac:

http://www.dell.com/uk/p/xps-27-2720-aio/pd


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 11, 2013)

Botts said:


> The only thing that held me back from this option is that the Mac Mini only has integrated graphics, and not a discrete GPU.



That is not a big problem with last two Intel chips generations. (Sometimes I wish that my 2012 MBPR had only integrated card like new lo-end model -- this would seriously increase battery life and decrease cooler's RPMs proportionally.)



Botts said:


> The Mac Mini also only has 2 RAM slots, so you're limited to 16GB of RAM, vs 32GB with the iMac.



Not a big problem. If you just do PhotoShop + some RAW processing 16 GB are enough (especially with recent 10.9 OS X version that reduce swap file usage to zero). If you are in Movies, 3D and heavy gaming the story might be different...



Botts said:


> That said, you could always replace the Mac Mini as things progress technology wise. Certainly would get more value out of the big investment in an iMac which is the display.



Exactly! I change them every two years. That allows me to have most of all latest tech Apple can offer. But money-wise it makes more sense to buy the cheapest low-end Mac mini configurations (or high-end previous generation Mac mini with some discount). It works like that: you buy new lo-end Mac mini now for $500-600, two years later you sell it for $300-400. It accumulates to $100 per year of usage? Much cheaper than Adobe! 



Botts said:


> I'm an Apple Certified Pro and Trainer in Aperture. I love the photo management it has, but it lacks some editing features that LR5 has, including Lens Vingnetting and Distortion Correction.



I'm fine with current implementations of manual CA and Devignette corrections in Aperture. Geometry/Lens Distortion correction is the only thing I need Photoshop for...  (It looks like Apple software probably relies too heavily on Quartz engine, so doing non-affine transforms are difficult to implement with three lines of code in application...)

Sorry, I did not pay attention to LR since 2009. Maybe it became much better and much more usable in past 4-5 years...


----------



## lilmsmaggie (Dec 11, 2013)

Rofflesaurrr said:


> Alright, let's clear some things up...
> 
> As for RAM, just configure the iMac with the base amount, and buy RAM from OWC (Other World Computing). They specialize in Mac upgrades and it is cheaper this way. All 4 RAM slots are accessible from the rear of the 27" iMac.



+1 You might also want to check out diglloyd Mac Performance Guide. He works closely with OWC and offers Mac upgrade/configuration consulting: http://macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 12, 2013)

The mac mini is a very good idea:
Advantages – Small, upgradable RAM, cheaper than and iMac (depending on spec), thunderbolt display will be able to be kept as a second screen in the future

Disadvantages – Would want to upgrade sooner rather than later, to get a top spec mac mini + thunderbolt display I would only be saving a few hundred £, and this would still be less powerful than the iMac.

“Finally, there is a value on your happiness. If your heart is set on an Apple, then that's probably worth something, you'll just have to decide what it is. If you think you'll constantly think, "What if I had bought the iMac?", that may sway your final choice.” This is what’s making me lean towards Apple right now.


----------



## syder (Dec 12, 2013)

Botts said:


> One final comment on everyone suggesting the Dell Ultrasharps, when you consider everything, the ultrasharp vs the Apple Thunderbolt Display get pretty close in cost. The ATD also has decent speakers, FW800, Gigabit ethernet, and 3 USB 2.0 ports.



Apple Thunderbolt display is £899 from Apple. Dell 27 Ultrasharp is £535 from Amazon. That's a £364 difference. 

You're closer to getting 2 Dells to 1 Apple (£171 difference). Or you could spend some of the difference on some decent speakers (not rubbish built into your monitor). Or a new lens. Or anything else... 

Now lets look at specs... Apple display max brightness is 330cd/m2 Dell 350cd/m2 (both far brighter than you'd actually really want them to be). Apple 16.7 million colours Dell 1.07 billion colours (admittedly you need a pro graphics card to take advantage of this at present - but if you're looking at future proofing 10bit>8bit). Dell 4x USB 3.0 ports Apple 3x USB 2.0 ports. The Dell also has a 9 in one card reader. Although the Apple does have a FW800 port (which frankly aint of much use)... 

And the really important bits... Adobe rgb colour space coverage - Dell 99% Apple 76%. So for colour critical work like photo editing the Dell is a far better monitor for just over half the price.

So again... With Apple you pay more and get less.


----------



## cocopop05 (Dec 12, 2013)

HP ZBook 15 or 17 with Thunderbolt and 30-bit DreamColour display. Nothing else comes close to these bad boys if you are interested in working faster and more accurately.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 12, 2013)

So it has come down to these 4 options:

Option 1 – Keep current Dell PC
Buy a Dell 27” (£535)
Buy an i1 Display Pro (£160)
Upgrade parts another time
= £695

Option 2 – Start again, build a new computer
Sell current Dell PC
= ?

Option 3 – Sell current Dell PC
Buy a Mac Mini (Depending on spec from £860 to £1280)
Buy a Dell 27” (£535)
Buy an i1 Display Pro (£160)
= From £1555 - £1975

Option 4 – Sell current Dell PC
Buy an iMac Depending on spec from £1760 to £2100)
Buy an i1 Display Pro (£160)
= From £1920 to £2260


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 12, 2013)

syder said:


> Botts said:
> 
> 
> > One final comment on everyone suggesting the Dell Ultrasharps, when you consider everything, the ultrasharp vs the Apple Thunderbolt Display get pretty close in cost. The ATD also has decent speakers, FW800, Gigabit ethernet, and 3 USB 2.0 ports.
> ...



Very convincing arguments by the numbers.
If I wasn't using both systems I might buy it.
As is it just sounds like salesman hype.
Knowing what it cost to keep both systems up and running the apple system is far cheaper overall.
The apple hardware just cost a bit more.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 12, 2013)

_"Knowing what it cost to keep both systems up and running the apple system is far cheaper overall."_

So what makes it a cheaper system overall?


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Dec 12, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> _"Knowing what it cost to keep both systems up and running the apple system is far cheaper overall."_
> 
> So what makes it a cheaper system overall?



I too was wondering about that.


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 12, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> _"Knowing what it cost to keep both systems up and running the apple system is far cheaper overall."_
> 
> So what makes it a cheaper system overall?



Apple and Mac are not about the 'price'. It's the 'overall user's satisfaction' that keeps these in business for last 30 years 

As for: "So again... With Apple you pay more and get less." -- the same could be said about every major brand. Including Dell. (And probably it's more true about Dell than about any other computer brand...)

PS: Did anyone mention Eizo displays? They are really good...


----------



## Fella_OP (Dec 12, 2013)

Ever consider building a Hackintosh?


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 12, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> _"Knowing what it cost to keep both systems up and running the apple system is far cheaper overall."_
> 
> So what makes it a cheaper system overall?



I set up my server at home using my mac pro as the server, mac air and just file shared all the computers.
A few clicks of the mouse everything is linked together and working. 
I have about 10TB of storage total. It will do anything my work system will do, and that includes running windows.
I never had to hire or have an IT guy once do anything to the system

At work a small business with just a few more people on the computer and server. 
Working with high end dell computers, a server with much less storage ability.
By the time the IT guys bill gets paid every year for trouble shooting bugs, trying to figure out how to load programs and everything that goes along with it, not only does it make the Dell system more expensive I could have paid for the apple system.

A persons time is money, if a system takes up more labor and time than the system cost the system is not the cheapest alternative.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 13, 2013)

If I were you, I'd upgrade the computer. Now if I was to get a new system, get a mac if your willing to be boxed in and pay premiums but have a huge safety net of people behinds you

Or

Build/buy a PC that would crush a mac for $$$/speed and have massive software support but sacrifice a large support center for your hardware. 

I ditched apple in 2006 and never looked back and others have ditched Microsoft and never looked back. My current rig is over your price range but if your interested in PC land...

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,18155.0.html


----------



## Ruined (Dec 13, 2013)

Zlyden said:


> Apple and Mac are not about the 'price'. It's the 'overall user's satisfaction' that keeps these in business for last 30 years



You realize that Microsoft had to rescue Apple just months before bankruptcy in 1997, right? 



> As for: "So again... With Apple you pay more and get less." -- the same could be said about every major brand. Including Dell.



The difference with Apple is you end up getting the same CPU, same amount of RAM, same amount of hard drive space, less upgrade flexibility, but have to pay 30-40% more. That is a fact. For some people the OS and stylish cases are worth the premium, others not.



> (And probably it's more true about Dell than about any other computer brand...)
> 
> PS: Did anyone mention Eizo displays? They are really good...



Dell you pay more for less? No, if you pay more, you get more 

Dell 24" 4k Monitor - 3840x2160 $1399
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/171891-dell-up2414q-the-24-inch-3840x2160-monitor-that-finally-brings-4k-to-the-desktop-pc


----------



## Botts (Dec 13, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> So it has come down to these 4 options:
> 
> Option 1 – Keep current Dell PC
> Buy a Dell 27” (£535)
> ...



In my opinion, if you choose option 3, I'd go with the most basic model you can, just add the SSD. The beauty of that system, is you can choose to not pay the "early adopter fee" and use mainstream parts, vs "enthusiast" parts. You just sell it every 2-3 years, and upgrade to the new mainstream.

*One thing that hasn't been brought up yet is the great Apple Refurbished options!! As an Apple tech, I can assure you that the refurbs are if anything, less likely to fail than standard hardware. Refurbs will always have a new display, new HDD, new enclosure, and where applicable, new battery. Click here for the UK refurb page.*



syder said:


> Botts said:
> 
> 
> > One final comment on everyone suggesting the Dell Ultrasharps, when you consider everything, the ultrasharp vs the Apple Thunderbolt Display get pretty close in cost. The ATD also has decent speakers, FW800, Gigabit ethernet, and 3 USB 2.0 ports.
> ...



You sure? I just checked on Dell.ca, admittedly different pricing than Dell UK, but this is what I found:

27" Dell UltraSharp U2713HM -> $699 CAD. Covers 99% of *sRGB.* Covers 79.73% aRGB.
Apple Thunderbolt Display -> $799 CAD refurbed, $999 CAD new. >99% sRGB coverage. Covers 76.1% aRGB. Functionally identical to Dell.

You may be thinking the U2711 (replaced with U2713H), which is $1,049 CAD.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Dec 13, 2013)

I am about to get an iMac for my LR editing so I had a look at how to configure it. Fast HDD and lots of memory will be of benefit. However, the upgrade from i5 to i7 might not be worth it. It seems LR doesn't benefit from the hyper threading, google it, I read it at a couple of different sources. Thos is gopd news as I then can use that money to max out the the graphics memory.

Good luck!


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 13, 2013)

I decided to buy Adobe 5 with the last sale.
It arrived yesterday so I started loading it on an IMac I bought a few years back.

I found out that Adobe 5 will not work with Snow Leopard, bad thing right. Lion came out just a few weeks after I bought this machine.

No problem, I go to Apple's website to see about upgrading. Uploading past Lion, Mountain Lion to Maverick cost exactly $0. It is free. Microsoft you will pay for each and every upgrade so no savings there in a few years.

I started loading the new system at 8:00 my time. In less than 1 hour the new system was downloaded from online and I had it installed and running. In the last three hours since I started uploading the new system I have already uploaded 1600 files over a wireless connection in to Lightroom 5 and have been editing them. No fuss, no fight and no problems. 

Lightroom is opening in less than a second. The machine is restarting in just a few seconds. It is an i5, 2.7 ghz and 4GB and has enough power you will not notice Lightroom. It is limited by its wireless connection to the other computers only.

You can buy a Dell, but how I spent my day at work today was troubleshooting problems on my $2500 Dell Laptop that is only a few months old.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 13, 2013)

Arctic Photo said:


> I am about to get an iMac for my LR editing so I had a look at how to configure it. Fast HDD and lots of memory will be of benefit. However, the upgrade from i5 to i7 might not be worth it. It seems LR doesn't benefit from the hyper threading, google it, I read it at a couple of different sources. Thos is gopd news as I then can use that money to max out the the graphics memory.
> 
> Good luck!



That is true. Actually your biggest speed benefit will have little to do with your processor and only some about memory. 
If you are like many of us you have an extensive library which limits your ability to store your photos on the same machine that you use. IMO you need the fastest hard drive and the fastest connections you can get. The transfer of data is the biggest bottle neck.

The exception would be if you only have enough pictures that you can work on your hard drive. Sometimes I can do that, but more often I find myself pulling files off an external.


----------



## Botts (Dec 13, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> I decided to buy Adobe 5 with the last sale.
> It arrived yesterday so I started loading it on an IMac I bought a few years back.
> 
> I found out that Adobe 5 will not work with Snow Leopard, bad thing right. Lion came out just a few weeks after I bought this machine.
> ...


Yup.
This is one of the justifications to the Apple premium. 
That said, if you can command a Windows machine with expertise, and don't mind the time, this may be mitigated.



takesome1 said:


> Arctic Photo said:
> 
> 
> > I am about to get an iMac for my LR editing so I had a look at how to configure it. Fast HDD and lots of memory will be of benefit. However, the upgrade from i5 to i7 might not be worth it. It seems LR doesn't benefit from the hyper threading, google it, I read it at a couple of different sources. Thos is gopd news as I then can use that money to max out the the graphics memory.
> ...


This is the key. Your limitations will be drive speed for LR use. PS and video work will tax CPU/GPU, but Aperture/LR are really glorified database software for most of their work, so read/write speed is the crucial part.
Keeping your catalogs on SSD and your masters on an external is a *great* compromise!


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 13, 2013)

Botts said:


> That said, if you can command a Windows machine with expertise, and don't mind the time, this may be mitigated.



Well said.
After 20 some years of Windows I have already put in my time playing with the system to get it to work.


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 13, 2013)

By the way, did anyone have a chance to play with large RAW files like 36-40 MP in LightRoom/PhotoShop/Aperture?

I just wonder what CPU/RAM configurations are needed to perform such task reasonably fast?

In my experience: to work with 10-18-20 MP RAWs 8 GBs of RAM are fine, Core2Duo is enough for 10 MP files, i5 and i7 are OK for 18-20 MP...


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 13, 2013)

Opinion is very much divided on this topic, some people love PC’s some love Mac’s, some people hate PC’s some hate Mac’s…

I definitely think the first thing I need to do is calibrate my monitor, the i1 Display Pro seems to be the one to go for. This can then be used with future monitors whatever they may be.

RLPhoto, your current setup is VERY impressive, but that is DEFINITELY overkill for my needs. Yes if was rich, why not haha 
I am only really in the early stages of setting up my photography business, so in terms of massive Hard Drives, well I do not see the point of them for me. So if I went down the route of iMac, a Fusion drive makes sense and if I want to go SSD in the future I’ll buy external storage. As said before, keeping things like the Lightroom catalog on the SSD/Flash part will speed things up.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 13, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Opinion is very much divided on this topic, some people love PC’s some love Mac’s, some people hate PC’s some hate Mac’s…
> 
> I definitely think the first thing I need to do is calibrate my monitor, the i1 Display Pro seems to be the one to go for. This can then be used with future monitors whatever they may be.
> 
> ...



That's the nice thing about PCs. You can always upgrade just about anything. You could just spec a PC out with a 4930k, SSD, 16 of ram, a decent video card and a ultrasharp. If your needs become overburden some then expand your memory, add a beefy video card, or add storage or upgrade processors. You can get what you need now and upgrade as you go. 

This was the beef people have with the new mac pro. You used to be able to upgrade your hardware with sound cards or whatever you wanted. This also demonstrates you'll be at the mercy of apple to do whatever they see is good. 

But if you want a safe experience and are willing to pay for it, apple is the best at that.


----------



## Botts (Dec 13, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Opinion is very much divided on this topic, some people love PC’s some love Mac’s, some people hate PC’s some hate Mac’s…
> 
> I definitely think the first thing I need to do is calibrate my monitor, the i1 Display Pro seems to be the one to go for. This can then be used with future monitors whatever they may be.
> 
> ...



I'd definitely take a look at the Apple Refurb page.


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 13, 2013)

I ought to mention that in this discussion I was surprised at least by two things:

1) Not everyone use notebooks as primary work-tools!
- I kind of expected that most of photographers few years ago switched to notebooks for both field and studio work.

2) There are still a lot of people who know how to (and love to) configure their computers with latest components (and even remember 'hi-tech thingies' like differences between graphic boards with various model numbers).
- I assumed before that only gamers still worry about such stuff.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 13, 2013)

I think I am close to deciding I want to move on from Windows, but I'm now not sure if this is the right time. I love technology and learning new things, learnt a lot just from what everyone has had to say!

Sadly there are no iMacs and only 1 Mac mini on the Apple refurb page.


----------



## TexPhoto (Dec 13, 2013)

Botts said:


> Did you build your own Fusion Drive? It seems like you must have opened your iMac as that config isn't available as a BTO. I would caution others against this route, as:
> a) It is currently untested, and slightly unstable. At the Apple Store we had some serious grief maintaining even Apple supported implementations of Fusion Drive.
> b) You have to cut the adhesive holding the display in place.
> c) Totally voids any semblance of AppleCare you ever had.



Yes I did.
A. My drive is untested and unstable? or all fusion drives? 
B. Uh? Nope.
C. My iMac totally voided any semblance of AppleCare I ever had all by itself when it reached the age of 12 months. They should teach you guys this stuff.


----------



## Botts (Dec 14, 2013)

TexPhoto said:


> Botts said:
> 
> 
> > Did you build your own Fusion Drive? It seems like you must have opened your iMac as that config isn't available as a BTO. I would caution others against this route, as:
> ...



A. All Fusion Drives, at least when compared to a standard HDD or SSD setup. They have certainly gotten better, but we're eagerly awaiting 10.9.1 updates.

B&C -> I had assumed you were running a late 2012 or newer iMac. Which would have had AppleCare still and had the adhesives. 

If you have a "thick" unibody iMac, then you don't have to worry about adhesive, but you do have to get the glass clean, which is probably worse. I hated working on unibody iMacs for that reason alone.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 14, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> I think I am close to deciding I want to move on from Windows, but I'm now not sure if this is the right time. I love technology and learning new things, learnt a lot just from what everyone has had to say!
> 
> Sadly there are no iMacs and only 1 Mac mini on the Apple refurb page.



Buy windows 7 and put it on Boot. Then you will have a machine that will run in either platform.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 14, 2013)

Will probably get the x-rite i1 Display Pro soon, the cheapest I have found is £159 on Amazon. 
Could someone tell me if there is any difference between the dell u2413 and u2713h? Is it just the screen size which is different?


----------



## Ruined (Dec 14, 2013)

Regardless of if you go MAC or PC I think the 1TB Fusion drive is a huge mistake, you should get the Crucial M500 960GB SSD. M500 is 10x faster, the Fusion drive will bottleneck your system.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 14, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Regardless of if you go MAC or PC I think the 1TB Fusion drive is a huge mistake, you should get the Crucial M500 960GB SSD. M500 is 10x faster, the Fusion drive will bottleneck your system.



But how do you use it when the Crucial M500 is an internal drive? Would a dock like this work: 
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B00D1NR9MA/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?qid=1387044922&sr=8-4&pi=AC_SX110_SY165


----------



## Ruined (Dec 14, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless of if you go MAC or PC I think the 1TB Fusion drive is a huge mistake, you should get the Crucial M500 960GB SSD. M500 is 10x faster, the Fusion drive will bottleneck your system.
> ...



If you buy the PC, its easy enough obviously just clone the drive to the m500 and open case to replace. Paragon hard disk manager 14 makes this easy.

With iMac it is still doable, though a much bigger pain in butt; one of downsides of fancy looking system is any type of upgrade is a hassle. But you still can. Buy system with cheapest hard drive they offer, then clone to the M500 and replace as shown in this video:
How To: Intel iMac Hard Drive Replacement

You can use a cable like this to hook up the M500 outside of the PC/MAC when cloning:
http://www.amazon.com/Anker%C2%AE-Converter-Adapter-Cable-included/dp/B005B3VO24/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1387046073&sr=8-4&keywords=sata+usb+cable

The 1TB fusion drive by default only includes 128gb of SSD which is not nearly enough if you are going to be doing a lot of RAW work, meaning most of your files are going to be stuck on the slow HDD. The idea is to get everything on the 960GB SSD, then you will have no bottleneck. Given your type of work with large files, I still feel your current dell upgraded to 16GB RAM and the 960GB SSD will destroy the iMac with the Fusion drive despite your PC's slower processor! Lightroom/Photoshop are much more bottlenecked by RAM and Disk I/O than processor speed.


----------



## Botts (Dec 14, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Regardless of if you go MAC or PC I think the 1TB Fusion drive is a huge mistake, you should get the Crucial M500 960GB SSD. M500 is 10x faster, the Fusion drive will bottleneck your system.


The 960GB SSD would be the quickest option, but you're screwed when you pass 960GB in total space used.

The 256GB + USB 3.0 externals would give you the ability to keep your libraries on the fast internal SSD, and keep your ever ballooning photo library on far cheaper external drives. You'd still see a major performance increase.

That said, down the road, if you ever wanted to, or SSD costs decreased enough, you could buy and put that 960GB SSD into an external and get the same benefits as having it internal. Thunderbolt could easily handle an SSD with up to ~900MB/s read/write speeds.



JPlendPhoto said:


> Will probably get the x-rite i1 Display Pro soon, the cheapest I have found is £159 on Amazon.
> Could someone tell me if there is any difference between the dell u2413 and u2713h? Is it just the screen size which is different?



The resolution difference between the 2413 and 2713 is substantial.
1920x1200 (24) vs 2560x1440 (27)

Aspect ratios are slightly different at 16:10 (24), and 16:9 (27).

Other specs are almost identical.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 14, 2013)

Well if I was to go down the route of iMac, which I am now thinking this is not the right time to do so, I would not want to attempt to change the hard drive!

Can someone please point me in the direction of external SSD's!?

I do like the Dell U2713H! Just out of interest, the Apple Thnderbolt displays 16.7 million colours, compared to the 1.7 billion of the Dell U2713H, does this mean the 27" iMac also displays the same 16.7 million colours as the thunderbolt?


----------



## Ruined (Dec 14, 2013)

> Well if I was to go down the route of iMac, which I am now thinking this is not the right time to do so, I would not want to attempt to change the hard drive!



That is part of the problem. The one you are mentioning in the Mac is not impressive to begin with, and it is a pain in the butt to change (plus voids your warranty).

By not having the main drive as SSD, you kind of defeat the purpose of an SSD.

But, you can put any SSD in one of these, though it won't be as fast as if it is hooked to motherboard:
http://www.amazon.com/Vantec-2-5-Inch-External-Enclosure-NST-200S3-BK/dp/B0058YY202/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1387062813&sr=8-2&keywords=2.5%22+enclosure+vantec+3.0


----------



## Ruined (Dec 14, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> I do like the Dell U2713H! Just out of interest, the Apple Thnderbolt displays 16.7 million colours, compared to the 1.7 billion of the Dell U2713H, does this mean the 27" iMac also displays the same 16.7 million colours as the thunderbolt?



You are getting caught up in marketing specs. Read reviews on the devices instead.

But, either one of these brand new Dell displays will massacre either of the ones you listed handily:
http://www.macrumors.com/2013/12/02/24-inch-4k-display-from-dell-priced-at-1399-28-inch-4k-model-coming-at-under-1000/


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 14, 2013)

Ruined said:


> > Well if I was to go down the route of iMac, which I am now thinking this is not the right time to do so, I would not want to attempt to change the hard drive!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So I guess it's a case of, SSD replacing my current Hard Drive in my Dell, or going with 256gb flash storage in the iMac then using external SSD's


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 14, 2013)

Ruined said:


> JPlendPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I do like the Dell U2713H! Just out of interest, the Apple Thnderbolt displays 16.7 million colours, compared to the 1.7 billion of the Dell U2713H, does this mean the 27" iMac also displays the same 16.7 million colours as the thunderbolt?
> ...



The reviews seem good for both dell and apple monitors. Maybe it is an idea to wait until next year and see what happens


----------



## Botts (Dec 15, 2013)

JPlendPhoto,

Does your Dell have USB 3.0? If it does, that may be a quicker connection than your motherboards SATA2 port.

SATA2 peaks at 3.0Gbps, USB 3.0 is at 5.0Gbps. 

This is why I'd save up vs upgrading the Dell. Either a new PC, Mac Mini, or iMac, would have way way quicker read/writes, as they have SATA @ 6Gpbs, TB @ 10Gbps, or USB 3.0 @ 5.0Gbps.

With regards to display, the iMac matches the Thunderbolt Display exactly. The Dell H monitors **NOT HM** have a wider colour gamut if that's needed for your work.

You can make any SSD an external. You just need a good external enclosure. I'd stick with this enclosure.. It's got USB 3.0 and eSATA 6Gbps, so it'll rock with any PC or Mac you buy in the future.



Ruined said:


> > Well if I was to go down the route of iMac, which I am now thinking this is not the right time to do so, I would not want to attempt to change the hard drive!
> 
> 
> 
> That is part of the problem. The one you are mentioning in the Mac is not impressive to begin with, and it is a pain in the butt to change (plus voids your warranty).



The iMac's SSD is ridiculously good. One of the best on the market.


----------



## Ruined (Dec 15, 2013)

Botts said:


> The iMac's SSD is ridiculously good. One of the best on the market.



Might be fast, but 128gb-256gb isn't even enough for my OS/Programs drive, nevermind adding in lightroom/ps/working image space etc. Which again, why I feel 960GB Crucial M500 is best bet given the task at hand.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 15, 2013)

Botts, how can I find out if my Dell has USB 3.0?

So would you say that wide colour gamut displays would be for people doing colour critical work? Many professional photographers use calibrated iMacs/thunderbolt displays with no problems and that does not have a wide colour gamut.

Thank you for the link to the enclosure. 

Ruined, if I was to go Mac then I would keep the programs and the Lightroom catalog on the internal 256gb drive which will be fast, and then put a 960GB Crucial M500 drive into a USB 3.0 enclosure like the OWC Mercury Elite Pro mini, I wouldn’t have thought there would be much of a drop in speed in doing this. Anything is faster than my Dell!
I don’t know how accurate this is, but I downloaded a free program which read the speed of my current drive: 
Write Speed = 100MB/s Read Speed = 110MB/s
So I would be getting a MASSIVE increase in speed on the iMac. What would you think the speed of the 960GB Crucial M500 would be if put into my Dell?


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 15, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> So would you say that wide colour gamut displays would be for people doing colour critical work? Many professional photographers use calibrated iMacs/thunderbolt displays with no problems and that does not have a wide colour gamut.



'Wide gamut' and 'calibrated monitors' make more sense for prepress proofing (especially for jobs with Pantone inks or other spot colors, packaging/label printing, etc.).

And yes, they require a room with proper lightning (5000K lamps, light box, no windows) and proper calibration (that's better to be implemented inside the display, Eizo ColorEdge series usually is the most recommended here).

In other cases 'wide gamut' displays is mostly 'a marketing hype' without much practical sense. If you plan to use this system for other things (like Internet browsing), I would rather recommend to use a display with gamut that is 'reasonably close' to sRGB.

In Mac OS/OS X built-in software calibrator is good enough tool in most cases (you just need to check display gamma and make gray tones neutral). 

Hardware calibrator (or rather: spectrophotometer) of course will be a necessity to create proper ICC profiles for printer (depending on type of your printer, it's RIP software, paper you use, etc). But to calibrate LCD screen with spectrophotometer is not the best idea and with 'wide gamut' display you may have even more problems doing it...


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 15, 2013)

Zlyden said:


> JPlendPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > So would you say that wide colour gamut displays would be for people doing colour critical work? Many professional photographers use calibrated iMacs/thunderbolt displays with no problems and that does not have a wide colour gamut.
> ...



I had been thinking of the Dell U2713H, but as I would like two monitors and my current Samsung is 23”, the Dell 27” might look too big next to the Samsung. That leaves the Dell U2413 which should fit nicely on my desk next to my 23” Samsung, but the Dell 24” is 16:10 where as my Samsung is 16:9.
So it’s either have a bigger monitor than the other but both are 16:9, or have one nearly the same size which is 16:10.

_If you plan to use this system for other things (like Internet browsing), I would rather recommend to use a display with gamut that is 'reasonably close' to sRGB. _What would you recommend then?

I plan on buying the X-rite i1 Display Pro.


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 15, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> _If you plan to use this system for other things (like Internet browsing), I would rather recommend to use a display with gamut that is 'reasonably close' to sRGB. _What would you recommend then?



Sorry, I would refrain from making specific model suggestions based purely on specs (without first-hand experience with the actual equipment)  

Brand recommendation are just like everyone else's:

Apple displays are OK, Dell and NEC monitors should be fine. I would stay away from LG, Samsung or Asus. 

Be cautions about products that boast 'ultra wide gamut', 'extra brilliant colors' (not to mention: 'best gaming experience'). Unless these comes from a company like Eizo that knows something about stuff like 'proofing'. It could be safer to buy some cheap BenQ monitor in such cases.

If you pan to use two monitors, it will be easier if they have similar or identical brightness/luminance and color space...



JPlendPhoto said:


> I plan on buying the X-rite i1 Display Pro.



Do you plan to calibrate/profile/check printers too? 
Or the main idea is to try to make two display screens similar in color?


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 15, 2013)

Well how are you meant to buy any tech then, most of the time you can't always see what you want. So in my case I have to go by specs and reviews. My top two are Dell and Apple.
I am pretty sure that a wide gamut monitor will be better quality visually than a standard monitor, especially evident when you read the reviews on say TFT Central. 

At this stage I am not into colour critical work, but of course calibrating a monitor for any photographer is essential. I have chosen the i1 because of its pro features, which I'll learn over time, it's popular and well rated, also if I was to go down the Dell route, some of their monitors only calibrate with the i1, like both 27 and 24 inch monitors.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 15, 2013)

Just read this on TFT Central which is a bit of a pain:
_Important note for Mac OS users - At the moment the Dell Color Calibration Solution software is only available for Windows Operating Systems. As such, you will not be able to carry out a hardware level calibration on a Mac computer at the moment. _


----------



## Botts (Dec 15, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Botts, how can I find out if my Dell has USB 3.0?
> 
> So would you say that wide colour gamut displays would be for people doing colour critical work? Many professional photographers use calibrated iMacs/thunderbolt displays with no problems and that does not have a wide colour gamut.
> 
> ...



Typically USB 3.0 ports on non-Apple computers have blue plastic inside the port. They're also usually marked SuperSpeed or SS. You could likely also check through "Device Manager" I believe on Windows. On Mac you'd check under System Information.

With regards to benefit from wide-gamut, it'll depend how you print. My Canon Pro 9000 MK2 only hits about 40% of aRGB, the Pro 9500 MK2 hits 62%. If you're having a pro print shop doing your printing it may be useful for you. For my work, I'm often working in CMYK as I output to press usually. I'd give this a read before you buy a monitor Understanding ProPhoto RGB. I don't find I need a wide-gamut display; I used them lots at university in our labs, but personally, I'm achieving good enough for me results with a calibrated iMac and rMBP. It all comes down to your work and destinations. If you're a hobbyist, narrow gamut is probably more than enough.

The max theoretical speed your Dell would achieve with any drive is 375MBps. With regards to your question about putting the SSD in a USB 3.0 external, max theoretical speed would be 625MBps. With Thunderbolt the max would be 1250MBps.
I'd first try running Lightroom Catalogues off the internal SSD with a USB 3.0 attached hard drive, then if it isn't fast enough invest in the SSD. I wouldn't invest the capital on the large SSD without trying the other option first.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 15, 2013)

I'll have a look, but I don't think my Dell has USB 3.0, I'll be surprised if it is.
Thanks I'll read that later.
What is the gamut for the 27" iMac?


----------



## jonathan7007 (Dec 15, 2013)

The "requirement" or "need" for color calibrated monitor and image delivery depends on the kind of client you have now or plan to have in the future. To "want" good control over color might be a personal path you choose. In the large urban market I used to work in there were many who would care but where I am now people would look at me funny if I made a fuss over the color except that it be exciting and bright. Monitors around the world are all over the place as display devices. However, pre-press still revolves around certainty and the people serving that flow have to guarantee pages' color so there's extra money to those who can be part of a consistent managed flow. Good product photography would drive color management certainty, depends on a lot of factors.

I do lots of things to make pictures better that are for me and the other photographers watching. Clients won't pay for extra steps very often. I do have a color Munki and a wide-gamut Asus PA246 monitor. A lot of my sales efforts go toward finding those that are picky! They are more likely to understand why I work so hard at it. 

For print output there is such a good argument for a complete managed loop as there is too much time and wastage without it. "Botts'" post sure is a reminder of how limited all but the best printers are. I have one of those Canon9000's and wish it could step out further! Despite a lot of time doing this I still have lots to learn about color management.

Welcome to professional work! I applaud your effort to get this right. I suggest (advice worth what you are paying for it...) that you pick a solution in the next 24 hours and get on to selling like a banshee, whatever else it takes for you to [we call over here]hang out the shingle. Jump into work for clients even if that means using the rig you have. Switch if you must "in the background" so the new gear and workflow are 100% ready when you use them for client work for the first time. (I have been known to screw this up myself.)

Best of luck and have fun!

jonathan7007


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 16, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Well how are you meant to buy any tech then, most of the time you can't always see what you want. So in my case I have to go by specs and reviews. My top two are Dell and Apple.



It's OK _to make purchases_ based on specs and reviews (assuming that these reviews are made by those who have some actual experience with the equipment). Of course, visiting some dealer with such equipment who has a show room is a better idea.

But it could be wrong _to make recommendations_ to other people that are based solely on specs. Like: "I looked at specs of these three models, and I think that you should spent your money on this one."



JPlendPhoto said:


> I am pretty sure that a wide gamut monitor will be better quality visually than a standard monitor, especially evident when you read the reviews on say TFT Central.



It depends. You may end up with images that look very bright and shiny on your screen, but no one else sees them like that on their sRGB-standard monitors (and no such colors could be printed an any existing equipment). 



JPlendPhoto said:


> At this stage I am not into colour critical work, but of course calibrating a monitor for any photographer is essential. I have chosen the i1 because of its pro features, which I'll learn over time, it's popular and well rated, also if I was to go down the Dell route, some of their monitors only calibrate with the i1, like both 27 and 24 inch monitors.



Well, it's really a good idea to calibrate (or profile) wide gamut monitors. Or if you have problems with your monitor, you should definitely try to calibrate it.

I probably will not agree with: 'of course calibrating a monitor for any photographer is essential', especially if you mainly send your RGB images for magazine publications (people who do prepress work at publishing houses will separate these according to their standards and inks SWOP/ISO/Newspaper, doing all necessary gray tones, skin tones, blue sky, etc. color correction). 

i1Display Pro should be reliable and easy to use tool. It's not too expensive, and you will probably find some usage for it anyway. (I'm more used to deal with X-rites 'normal' i1s -- to measure/check prints and build occasional printer ICC profiles, not to calibrate displays.)


----------



## Botts (Dec 16, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> I'll have a look, but I don't think my Dell has USB 3.0, I'll be surprised if it is.
> Thanks I'll read that later.
> What is the gamut for the 27" iMac?



All the Apple Displays are 100% sRGB, and ~75% of aRGB, so standard gamut.


----------



## Ruined (Dec 16, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> I'll have a look, but I don't think my Dell has USB 3.0, I'll be surprised if it is.
> Thanks I'll read that later.
> What is the gamut for the 27" iMac?



You can add USB 3.0 easily with a Pci-e expansion card:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Inateck-Superspeed-Ports-PCI-E-Expansion/dp/B00B6ZCNGM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1387176298&sr=8-1&keywords=dell+pci-e+usb+3.0

If you are going to spend a lot on display why not get the new Dell 4k Premier Color 24"/28" monitor?
http://dcse.dell.com/us/en/gen/peripherals/dell-up2414q/pd.aspx?refid=dell-up2414q&s=gen

iMac 27": 2560x1440 = 3.69 million pixels
Dell 4k 24"/28": 3840x2160 = 8.29 million pixels
DSLR Camera file: ~5300x3500 = 18.6 million pixels

The Dell will far better reveal the detail of your high resolution DSLR files, while the iMac is exponentially less detailed.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 16, 2013)

I think I have decided to save up my money and decide what to do at a later date. I am still very keen on an iMac (especially after being into the Apple Store today) and by the time I decide what to do there could be a new iMac, one with a retina display, hopefully. As mentioned Dell’s new monitors look very interesting, I’ll be interested to see how they do.

My current Dell is not bad, so sticking with it for now seems like the best option for me. Thank you VERY much to everyone who has helped me/answered my questions, I appreciate your help! There is a lot here for me to think through! I’m sure I’ll come back and read through this topic in the future


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 16, 2013)

Very reasonable choice!

(And do not forget that meanwhile you can get Macbook Pro for 'field work' that will also allow you to explore Apple's options...  )


----------

