Spec me an iMac

bloodhunter · 19 Mar 2016 at 16:27

OK i am going to up upgrade all my photography equipment soon and will be getting an iMac for PHOTO EDITING ONLY.
I want one of the current 27inch 5k offerings but is 8gb of ram enough or would you go for 16gb?

Thanks.

spudbynight · 19 Mar 2016 at 17:40

I'd certainly recommend 16GB for photowork. Don't buy it from Apple though, they will charge you an arm and a leg.

deaglecat · 19 Mar 2016 at 19:29

spudbynight said:
I'd certainly recommend 16GB for photowork. Don't buy it from Apple though, they will charge you an arm and a leg.

.. you mean the extra memory. The computer is best bought from Apple direct for a variety of reasons (BTO and better repair support).

Ninco! · 19 Mar 2016 at 20:40

I agree, purchase your iMac with the standard spec memory (8GB) and upgrade later. I purchased an iMac and bought extra RAM from a reputable company and now running 24GB. It is very easy to install and to date (touch wood) there is no detriment to the performance experienced. Upgrading extra RAM from Apple, as previous posters allude, costs a fortune for no derivable benefit compared with aftermarket RAM.

The only tip is if for any reason, you need to take your iMac to be repaired, remove the after market RAM.

bloodhunter · 20 Mar 2016 at 09:57

Thanks for the advice, I thought it seemed expensive too but was not aware that more could be added by the user. I'm not sure whether to go for the i7 instead of the i5 however but I doubt there will be much difference for photo editing, this might be a viable option though as I like to do a bit of video editing too.

Billies Bangers · 20 Mar 2016 at 16:04

In all honesty I wouldn't advise anyone to buy a new iMac until Apple goes back to making them upgrade friendly and stops using outdated components. The present system is just ripping off the customer.

I'm sure lots of people will come along and defend Apple even though in their heart of hearts they know that what I write is true. They really used to have their finger on the technology pulse but now their fingers are simply on your wallet.

lamboman · 20 Mar 2016 at 16:38

Billies Bangers said:
In all honesty I wouldn't advise anyone to buy a new iMac until Apple goes back to making them upgrade friendly and stops using outdated components. The present system is just ripping off the customer.

Why you say this I don't know. Apple aren't going to suddenly change their entire strategy to cater for a minority.

However, you're absolutely right, you're now paying a huge premium for rather old hardware.

OP, unless you specifically want a Mac, why not use your current system?

dlite · 20 Mar 2016 at 19:13

Well, considering that there is nothing for PC's that matches the display of 27" iMac (DCI-P3 colorspace coverage and 5K resolution), it is a viable option. It also comes with Skylake and has user upgradeable memory...

Cheapest iMac worth buying is imo. the mid-level machine and ordering 2x8GB memory so-dimm memory kit from reliable retailer.

Mid-imac comes with 1TB Fusion drive, which is a huge upgrade compared to HDD only, though a proper SSD would have course be nice. Upgrading to 2TB fusion drive bumps the size of the SSD cache from 24GB to 128GB, which might be worth it. Or maybe choosing the 256GB SSD or even 512GB SSD if you can afford it is also viable.

i7 upgrade might also worth it for you, if you do transcoding of videos or complex photoshop / lightroom tricks etc. For image editing purposes the high-end iMac is imo. not worth it, as it still comes with only Fusion drive and the extra GPU upgrade is hardly worth it unless you plan to game on it. And if gaming is your target, iMac is probably not worth it.

All of these are "nice to have" upgrades, as the mid-model iMac is already pretty decent as it is if you buy the memory upgrade separately. Low end IMac is imo just horrible and not worth the money, due to the lack of any SSD.

In PC side you need to pay boatloads of money to get a wide-colorspace monitor and calibrator, though if colour management is crucial for you, that is the only way to get proper AdobeRGB output. And regardless of how much you pay, you won't find the same combination of resolution and colourspace that iMac has.

Billies Bangers · 20 Mar 2016 at 23:01

dlite said:
Well, considering that there is nothing for PC's that matches the display of 27" iMac (DCI-P3 colorspace coverage and 5K resolution), it is a viable option.

Except - Dell UP2715K - around £750 if you shop around. Put the rest of the components of your choice together in a box of your own choosing and whilst it may work out quite expensive at least it will be 'what you want' and is completely upgradable.

5400 rpm fusion drives - really!

dlite · 20 Mar 2016 at 23:37

Ah, I was under impression that Dell 5K didn't reach wide colour spaces, but I was obviously wrong. So indeed, there is a reasonably priced option available. Cheaper it is not, but arguably comparable in pricing. It requires dual-cabling to work, so it limits the selection of Graphics cards as you need to use it as MST monitor (ie. doesn't work from laptops) etc. but it is indeed an viable option.

Upgradability is nice, but you still need to give up OSX.

Combat squirrel · 21 Mar 2016 at 20:48

dlite said:
Ah, I was under impression that Dell 5K didn't reach wide colour spaces, but I was obviously wrong. So indeed, there is a reasonably priced option available. Cheaper it is not, but arguably comparable in pricing. It requires dual-cabling to work, so it limits the selection of Graphics cards as you need to use it as MST monitor (ie. doesn't work from laptops) etc. but it is indeed an viable option.

Upgradability is nice, but you still need to give up OSX.

The imac doesn't reach wide colour spaces either, my years old Dell 3008 still destroys it in this department (100% ARGB), also retina isnt really that useful for photography, your better having a more accurate monitor and less pixels.

antc · 22 Mar 2016 at 09:37

Combat squirrel said:
The imac doesn't reach wide colour spaces either, my years old Dell 3008 still destroys it in this department (100% ARGB), also retina isnt really that useful for photography, your better having a more accurate monitor and less pixels.

Completely agree with this. I have just gone the route of getting one of the new Benq photo monitors and its pretty kick ass! 99% ARGB coverage and if you calibrate it properly will be much more useful in my opinion than a 5k screen. I have it hooked upto an MBP for my editing.