Topic: Which Mac for LightRoom 3 (Read 9106 times)

scott morrish · « **on:** April 15, 2010, 05:07:48 pm »

I work on a Mac Pro when at work, but need to set up something at home - just for Lightroom really. I don't need or want another tower... but i'd still like the best performance possible - specifically for LightRoom. I won't be running any other demanding applications at the same time.

Are there obvious 'best choices' between MacBookPro / iMac / Mac Mini? (FWIW, the mobility of a lap-top is not a big thing for me... so i'm only really looking for performance).

What is more important in light of the way LR3 works?
[1] Processor speed or processor type (i5 or i7)
[2] How much memory is actually used... bearing in mind i wont be running other heavy applications at the same time.

My files are always big... and i quickly discovered that the basic MacBook is all but useless for this!

Any advice is appreciated.
Scott

CoyoteButtes · « **Reply #1 on:** April 15, 2010, 10:54:04 pm »

I would recommend that you give a serious look to Lloyd Chambers' Mac Performance Guide for Digital Photographers and Performance Addicts site:

http://macperformanceguide.com/

I'd consider a MacBook Pro and a possible digitalLloyd/OWC upgrade.

Good luck,

Stan

Ken Bennett · « **Reply #2 on:** April 16, 2010, 07:43:59 am »

I faced a similar choice, and ended up with the new 27 inch iMac. I did not get the 4-core i5, instead opting to purchase a refurb and save some money. However, my needs may not be as heavy duty as yours. A couple of choices:

1. The quad-core i5 iMac appears to have better specs all around than any of the new Macbook Pro models, and it comes with a decent large monitor. (Yes, reflections in the glass are a pain, but manageable -- anyone remember when all monitors used to be highly reflective glass?) The major downside is expandability -- there is one FW800 port, which is your only option for data and scratch drives. It's going to be slower than eSATA or internal drives.

2. Macbook Pro 17-inch with i7 chip. This has a slot where you can insert an eSATA card, which will greatly speed up data and scratch drives. However, it is more expensive and you'll need to buy a monitor as well -- which will probably double the cost. I am not sure about the difference in processing power between a dual core i7 and a quad core i5.

In either case 8 gigs of RAM ought to be a good start.

larsrc · « **Reply #3 on:** April 20, 2010, 10:28:17 am »

Quote from: scott morrish

I work on a Mac Pro when at work, but need to set up something at home - just for Lightroom really. I don't need or want another tower... but i'd still like the best performance possible - specifically for LightRoom. I won't be running any other demanding applications at the same time.

Are there obvious 'best choices' between MacBookPro / iMac / Mac Mini? (FWIW, the mobility of a lap-top is not a big thing for me... so i'm only really looking for performance).

What is more important in light of the way LR3 works?
[1] Processor speed or processor type (i5 or i7)
[2] How much memory is actually used... bearing in mind i wont be running other heavy applications at the same time.

My files are always big... and i quickly discovered that the basic MacBook is all but useless for this!

Any advice is appreciated.
Scott

I'm looking at similar upgrades, and I'm zeroing in on the iMac, mainly because it'll give me a better monitor than what I have now, for free, but also because it seems to have almost as much power as the MacPro without the size and price. AFAIK, LR2 makes good use of the graphics card, which is one thing that's a lot better in the iMac than in the laptops and Mini.

I would very much like to know how much LR uses extra cores. One would think they could be used a lot in e.g. thumbnail updates and for long-running jobs, but is LR actually doing that? Anyone with many cores who can tell how the load is spread?

-Lars

markhout · « **Reply #4 on:** April 20, 2010, 03:35:59 pm »

I agree that it would make sense to get Lloyd Chambers involved.

I was in the same predicament and chose a cheap refurb MacPro early 2009 (relatively low-spec) over the iMac, if only for the complete design, accessibility and ease of future upgrading. Through fairly inexpensive memory, graphics and drive upgrades my PowerMac G4 MDD lasted for 7 years - only to be semi-retired because if the PowerMac vs. the modern Intel architecture. Still works great as an iTunes server.

But you have almost answered your own question: if a tower is a no-go, a light MacBook / Mini would be too skinny you really only have one of the iMacs to consider.

Mark

Scott Martin · « **Reply #5 on:** April 20, 2010, 04:25:24 pm »

IMO, machines with the i7 processor represent the value sweet spot. The MBP for portability and the top of the line iMac for the less mobile and more cost conscious. LR does a great job saturating several cores. RAM usage depends largely on the size of your camera files but also on the number of localized adjustments. At the current pricing and state of increasing utilization, I think it would be silly to have anything less than 8 gigs of RAM these days...

happyman · « **Reply #6 on:** April 21, 2010, 10:59:55 am »

All i can say is that my new 27" iMac (i7) is very fast building catalouges from folders with lets say more than 2,000 pictures. I am very happy with its performance. Folders with about 100 picts are rendered at the moment you click on the import button. The files are mixed RAW/TIF/JPG´s and are from a Nikon D3 / D3X / H3D39 / Leica M9.
Exporting portfolio pages for print is not that fast but i guess there is a lot of work for Lightroom to render those different file formats. The final pages are a perfect match to the previews on screen.
BTW, my iMac has only 4 GB at the moment...

natas · « **Reply #7 on:** April 22, 2010, 12:12:22 pm »

I just got the new iMac 27 i7 machine. Here are my results.

I came from a q6600 windows box overclocked to 3.2ghz running windows 7 64bit and had 8 Gigs of ram with 3 sata drives (internal). It died 3 weeks ago.

The mac is quicker in lightroom...much quicker. CS4 is a slow on the Mac compared to the windows machine but its very usable. This I expect to go away once I get cs5 from Adobe next week.

Some things to consider if you buy one:
Get the i7
Get at least 8Gigs of ram
Boot into 64bit mode, it really makes a difference
Get an external Firewire case (make sure its firewire 800)

I converted one of my SATA drives to Firewire 800 and the other to USB. The USB disk is dedicated to backup so speed is not a major concern. So far its been nice working on the Mac. The only thing that really bugs me now is that I have to run Vmware Fusion to get Qimage to run. Past that I have everything I had before including dual monitors.

scott morrish · « **Reply #8 on:** April 22, 2010, 01:21:30 pm »

Quote from: natas

Get an external Firewire case (make sure its firewire 800)

Thanks to everyone for the pointers.

For those who have experience of working LR off just one hard drive, whether it is in an Imac or a MacBookPro, what do you put on the external drive, if improving LR performance is the main issue?
Previews, or catalogue, or both, or...?
Scott

frugal · « **Reply #9 on:** April 22, 2010, 07:32:48 pm »

Quote from: scott morrish

Thanks to everyone for the pointers.

For those who have experience of working LR off just one hard drive, whether it is in an Imac or a MacBookPro, what do you put on the external drive, if improving LR performance is the main issue?
Previews, or catalogue, or both, or...?
Scott

I'd say just keep the external drive for backup, even FW800 is significantly slower than SATA so your internal drive is going to be the best performance.

Author Topic: Which Mac for LightRoom 3 (Read 9106 times)