Leaf and Mac for Xmass

[jeanlucco]

All, I know that there are thousands of info about it but here it goes: any advice for a couple MacBok Pro + IMac that can work well with my Leaf system. So far I am using my PCs high end graphic station built mainly for 3D modelling. I want both macPro and IMac to be able to shoot on location with the FW800 and work on the office with a dedicated IMac. Both computers will be dedicated 100% to the pictures processing: C1 and may be CS.
Budget foreseen: 12 to 15 kEur, incl. Raid storage based on thunderbolt.
Thanks in advance for any help. cheers, Jean-Luc

[pixjohn]

What is the question?

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook_pro

[jeanlucco]

Oppsss, question is: is there any better configuration than another for having a Macbook Pro and a IMac working properly with a LEAF AFI system? Macbook Pro to be able to shoot on location via the FW800 and the Imac dedicated to the pictures with the relevant Thunderbolt storage. Thanks JL

[Marlyn]

Personally I'd go a MacPro rather than an iMac.
I can't stand editing photo's on those glossy Apple screen for a start.   Prefer a wide-gammut, matt,  display such as an Eizo or NEC.

For comparison, spec's i'm looking at for a high end workstation for similar work as yours.

MacPro
 Dual Processor / 12 Core.
 64gb Ram.  (Buying 6gb with the machine from Apple, then getting replacment from OWC at 1/3 the price)
 SSD Hard drives.  Again 1 with the machine, the other 3 from OWC for 2/3 price on SSD drives.

I am also looking at a Bury Systems external raid array as the image library.


Regards

Mark

[EricWHiss]

Hi Jean Luc,
Do you want the iMac so its more transportable?  I can't imagine they are as powerful as a mac pro.  But Mac Pro's are big and heavy and not so great to move around.
Eric

[PdF]

The glossy screen of the iMac's can not be calibrated. For photo editing, it's an horror.

PdF

[jduncan]

The glossy screen of the iMac's can not be calibrated. For photo editing, it's an horror.

PdF

Is this still true? I believe it may be an anachronism. By the way is not that I am sure that there no longer true, but I have gotten numerous contradictory statements.


It's my understanding  the the over luminous screen issue is gone.

Please expand.

Thanks,

James
 

[mediumcool]

The Mac Pro is well overdue for updating, and may well be set for EOL; it’s certainly not fun to lug around!

Owing to the newer i-series chips, top-end iMacs test out faster for many operations than do Mac Pros, particularly when fitted with solid-state drives. I have a pre-Thunderbolt 21.5" iMac that I am quite happy with screen-wise, and find its LCD superior to my similar-vintage MBP’s screen (viewing angles in particular); I use the MBP with a large matte Dell in my office.

An out-of-left field option is to use a Mac mini with a decent screen; I have been eyeing the Server model (quad-core and with two hard drives).

Finally, make sure you use a calibration device that can handle LED backlighting if you use a display with this technology.

[ctz]

The Mac Pro is well overdue for updating, and may well be set for EOL; it’s certainly not fun to lug around!

Owing to the newer i-series chips, top-end iMacs test out faster for many operations than do Mac Pros, particularly when fitted with solid-state drives. I have a pre-Thunderbolt 21.5" iMac that I am quite happy with screen-wise, and find its LCD superior to my similar-vintage MBP’s screen (viewing angles in particular); I use the MBP with a large matte Dell in my office.

An out-of-left field option is to use a Mac mini with a decent screen; I have been eyeing the Server model (quad-core and with two hard drives).

Finally, make sure you use a calibration device that can handle LED backlighting if you use a display with this technology.

yes, a BIG +1.
At this moment, MacPro is not up to expectations, at least not for these kind of 5-7k money.
Don't forget that on any actual MacPros you cannot use SATA3 SSDs, just SATA2, so an iMac can run 550MBps per SSD, MacPro just under 300...
No good.
I understand that you use your machines for some 3D modelling. If this is more important for you, performance wise, better ask a 3D specialists forum (possibly you might need better grade video cards, in this regard iMac is indeed limited).
In my humble opinion for Aperture/Capture One/Photoshop at this very moment an i7 3.4 iMac with a RAID0 pair of SSDs is faster than a MacPro. And cheaper.
I had got to take the same decision this fall and I choose the iMac route.
At least untill Apple will decide to update the MacPro line (or choose to end it alltogether).

Also, compared to an iMac, MacPro plus a monitor is a PAIN to transport on location. I know what I am talking about, as I've used a (2007) MacPro for this kind of jobs untill I've switched to iMac.

IMO.

[mediumcool]

I understand that you use your machines for some 3D modelling. If this is more important for you, performance wise, better ask a 3D specialists forum (possibly you might need better grade video cards, in this regard iMac is indeed limited).

Sounds to me likely that jeanlucco will continue to use his PC for 3D work, and will deploy a Mac/Macs purely for photography (wait until he finds all the free apps!). But I could be wrong.  

[mediumcool]

Extremely relevant!

[Anders_HK]

I want both macPro and IMac to be able to shoot on location with the FW800 and work on the office with a dedicated IMac.

I process my 80MP AFi-II 12 files on my MacBook Pro 17", first generation aluminum body, Anti-glare, 4GB Ram, 2.93GHz Intel Core Duo, 256GB SSD.

Latest generations should be more powerful, yet what I have already works fine for my needs. Works fine tethered to C1.

Was sold on Mac when could browse RAW files from my prior 28MP Leaf over USB from a harddrive on an even older Mac...

To save $$, perhaps consider/test a top spec MacBook Pro to as starter connect to desktop display to see if you will be content without desktop Mac?

Best regards
Anders

[mediumcool]

To save $$, perhaps consider/test a top spec MacBook Pro to as starter connect to desktop display to see if you will be content without desktop Mac?

Best regards
Anders

Thunderbolt has changed the laptop equation again, as when Apple introduced FireWire. Connecting a MBP (or even a MBA) to a external TB monitor and drives when at the home base is practicable. But if you have the cash, a hunky iMac is very desirable too.

[DeeJay]

Really depends on what you want to do.

iMacs. You can't expand them, you can't upgrade them beyond what they are already, you're stuck with a pretty looking but useless screen.

An iMac with 16GB of RAM is a major drain on time, resource and sanity if you are doing heavy retouching of large files. I have a Mac Pro with 48GB of RAM that I could not do with out, i will be at some stage moving to 64GB of RAM. Photoshop is all about RAM.

EOL Mac Pro is a rumor and I don't think it's going to happen.

[mediumcool]

Really depends on what you want to do.

And can afford; not everyone has deep pockets.

iMacs. You can't expand them, you can't upgrade them beyond what they are already, you're stuck with a pretty looking but useless screen.

Not so, as has been repeatedly stated in this thread, and others.

An iMac with 16GB of RAM is a major drain on time, resource and sanity if you are doing heavy retouching of large files.

It’s your right to have an opinion; but does this help the OP?

I have a Mac Pro with 48GB of RAM that I could not do with out, i will be at some stage moving to 64GB of RAM. Photoshop is all about RAM.

Good for you.

EOL Mac Pro is a rumor and I don't think it's going to happen.

Given that you have as much information on this as anyone else, let’s wait to see what happens.   

[ctz]

An iMac with 16GB of RAM is a major drain on time, resource and sanity if you are doing heavy retouching of large files. I have a Mac Pro with 48GB of RAM that I could not do with out, i will be at some stage moving to 64GB of RAM. Photoshop is all about RAM.

Hey, DeeJay
If you have time and wanna have fun with your MacPro take this benchmark:
http://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshopCS5-Benchmarks.html
(I've done it and obtained about 20 sec on medium, 190 sec on "huge" setting. On my iMac 3.4)
RAM is as relevant as a fast scratch for Photoshop. Well, I have a 1000MBsec scratch disk on my iMac. Do you, on MacPro?

Later Edit:
I don't want to prove anything important with this benchmark.
But you still can do it, just for fun.

[DeeJay]

And can afford; not everyone has deep pockets.

Not so, as has been repeatedly stated in this thread, and others.

It’s your right to have an opinion; but does this help the OP?

Good for you.

Given that you have as much information on this as anyone else, let’s wait to see what happens.   

Good grief, what ever. I can't even be bothered having a conversation with you.

[design_freak]

The new mac pro is just behind the corner 


just wait, unfortunately, a guy with a bag of councils can not deliver it on time;)

[mediumcool]

Good grief, what ever [sic]. I can't even be bothered having a conversation with you.

Isn’t the above part of a conversation?   

whatever

[DeeJay]

Hey, DeeJay
If you have time and wanna have fun with your MacPro take this benchmark:
http://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshopCS5-Benchmarks.html
(I've done it and obtained about 20 sec on medium, 190 sec on "huge" setting. On my iMac 3.4)
RAM is as relevant as a fast scratch for Photoshop. Well, I have a 1000MBsec scratch disk on my iMac. Do you, on MacPro?

Later Edit:
I don't want to prove anything important with this benchmark.
But you still can do it, just for fun.

Hi ctz,

macperformance guide is a really great site. I read that start to finish to make my decision when I went with my system. The author is big on Mac Pro and says the same thing about iMacs being a dead end. Good up to a point but if you work on large files, like I imagine the OP is, it can't keep up. The more RAM you can throw at photoshop the better and you're better off with the 4 core Mac Pro (which is what photoshop can utilize effectively at this point) piled with RAM and an SSD and/or RAID0 drive. The screen on an iMac is a no go for me too. I spent years using iMacs and just constantly ran into problems at print. Also can you can easily upgrade the processors on a mac pro for future. You can't do this on a iMac.

I have a 6 core MP which was touted a sweet spot for photoshop. 2x SSD Raid0 Scratch, which photoshop calls on when the RAM is exhausted. But with 48GB RAM it doesn't use it that much, I don't have many page outs. RAM is still faster than scratch. I also have a 4x 3tb Raid0 Drive as my storage. As said I use a 2x Raid0 SSD for scratch and boot. It does in seconds what my old computer took minutes to do.

I haven't yet done the macperformanceguide bench mark but probably should when I get the chance. My geek bench score is 16397.

Since Jean-luc has 12-15K budget I think the Mac Pro is the better option and if he can hold off a short while the new model with Thunderbolt will make sense. Otherwise the current 6 core smokes my heavy workload. If you want to save further check out apple refurb for big savings.

I really do believe that the rumour of Mac Pro EOL is a hype building exercise by the marketing genius of Apple. You create an emotional attachment when you take something that is needed from people. Then you give it back. Ka-ching.