Do I REALLY need 5K?

danny_bhoy

danny_bhoy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,894
Name
Danny
Edit My Images
No
I'm about to convert totally to Apple next month by getting a Mac. I was pretty settled on getting a good used or refurbished 27" Late 2013 model (16-32GB, i5 etc) for about a grand-ish.

I'm being jazzed by the thought of going for a more recent 5K model though. Will I really see much benefit during LR & PS work? It won't be used much, if at all for video or browsing - just mainly post processing.

Will I see any/much benefit that'll justify spending another £500-£600?

Cheers.
 
It's not so much about the res. Any images just look so much better on the Retina display.

Not only images, but test is much crisper and easier on the eyes.

I have two 27" iMacs on my desk. One of them is an older non retina which I use as a second display on the new one. The difference is night and day.
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
Simple answer. Yes
Click to expand...
jbw said:
I agree
Click to expand...
ecoleman said:
It's not so much about the res. Any images just look so much better on the Retina display.

Not only images, but test is much crisper and easier on the eyes.

I have two 27" iMacs on my desk. One of them is an older non retina which I use as a second display on the new one. The difference is night and day.
Click to expand...

Apart from the retina display looking a bit better nobody is really convincing me to splash out another huge wad of cash here.

What can I do on the 5K version that I can't, or would struggle, to do on the non-retina?

From someone who only using a run-of-the-mill IPS display at the moment will the non-retina of the iMac not be a pretty decent step up anyway.
 
ecoleman said:
It's a better screen, what else do you expect it to do?
Click to expand...

Is it obvious that I'm desperately trying to talk myself out of wanting one.

I know the screen is better but as for how much better is, as said above, subjective really. I'd have to see them side by side and make judgement really. I don't doubt it's better though.

I believe the specs of the base 2015 retina models are a bit better than the older version too. Hybrid drives instead of HDDs for example.
 
minnnt said:
I went from a 1080p screen to a 1440p screen and the difference is incredible. Seriously. 5k will be awesome mate. If you have the cash then go for it, if you don't, then don't. Simple.
Click to expand...

Simplified like a boss.

It's looking like I'm going to be saving for a little while longer.
 
danny_bhoy said:
Is it obvious that I'm desperately trying to talk myself out of wanting one.

I know the screen is better but as for how much better is, as said above, subjective really. I'd have to see them side by side and make judgement really. I don't doubt it's better though.

I believe the specs of the base 2015 retina models are a bit better than the older version too. Hybrid drives instead of HDDs for example.
Click to expand...

Sure you'll probably get an updated CPU, hybrid or SSD drives but I'm sure you don't need us to tell you the benefit of those.
What I will say though is don't stump up the extra cash for the upgraded GPU. It still doesn't work very well with lightroom, and never buy RAM from Apple.

If I was you, I'd pop down to you nearest Apple Store, or Currys/pcworld and ave a look for yourself.
 
Last edited:
Do you need 5K. Probably not, at the moment. However the new 5K iMacs have the P3 display which is around the same colour space as Adobe RGB. I say around, as it's slightly smaller in some areas and larger in others. I will say the image quality is superb, having made the switch at this time last year. also lots of displays are now going 4/5K. so taking this option helps future proof your Mac. The cost difference is not that great if you look at it over the life of the Mac, which can easily be 5 years+I. I would though urge a bit of caution. There is a strongly rumoured update coming to iMacs early next year. New video cards are on the cards and what else nobody knows.
 
ecoleman said:
Sure you'll probably get an updated CPU, hybrid or SSD drives but I'm sure you don't need us to tell you the benefit of those.
What I will say though is don't stump up the extra cash for the upgraded GPU. It still doesn't work very well with lightroom, and never buy RAM from Apple.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I read it's still best to have GPU Acceleration turned off in LR. It'll be Crucial all the way for RAM too :)
 
Thanks for the advice and the heads-up too....

Chappers said:
......I would though urge a bit of caution. There is a strongly rumoured update coming to iMacs early next year. New video cards are on the cards and what else nobody knows.
Click to expand...

Buying a new iMac would be financially out of the question so this would really only benefit me by driving down the price of 2015 refurb models a bit.
 
I have a mid 2011 27" iMac, process images from 24Mp cameras and frankly have not even considered an upgrade. I fully accept that the newer screens are superior, but 'better' and 'necessary' are two entirely different issues. Get the best you can within your budget. You may be assured that there will always be something better out there whatever you spend. Interestingly my photographer friends, most of whom have PC monitors, always marvel at the clarity of my screen, so why should I worry?
 
FWIW I use a late 2012 Mac 27, find the screen to be fine for anything I need and certainly have no current interest in upgrading to a 5K version.
 
I went from a 2011 to a 2015 27" and my view is that 5k is something that you'll only miss if you've seen it. The 2011 is still plenty of screen space and higher resolution that a lot of other large monitors people still swear by. Also, for me I think it is the colours rather than the resolution that is what impresses, they are noticeably nicer on the 5k but only if you view them side by side.

On the other hand, if you've a hankering for 5k then you will always be wondering 'what if' and if you need some points for moral licensing then the newer ones are much more efficient and stay much cooler.
 
Chappers said:
Do you need 5K. Probably not, at the moment. However the new 5K iMacs have the P3 display which is around the same colour space as Adobe RGB. I say around, as it's slightly smaller in some areas and larger in others. I will say the image quality is superb, having made the switch at this time last year. also lots of displays are now going 4/5K. so taking this option helps future proof your Mac. The cost difference is not that great if you look at it over the life of the Mac, which can easily be 5 years+I. I would though urge a bit of caution. There is a strongly rumoured update coming to iMacs early next year. New video cards are on the cards and what else nobody knows.
Click to expand...
Pretty much what he said. Do you NEED it for photo editing? Not really, for example plenty of people still edit at 1440 as there are still excellent screens at that res. If you have the spare money then why not, but personally I don't think it's worth overstretching the budget for.

Personally I'm never a fan of mac displays anyway, that gloss can be a nightmare to work on (coming from managing a floor of Macbook and apple displays, where we eventually moved to 27" dell for a few reasons). Any reason why you don't consider a Macbook pro refurb and a good external display?
 
Last edited:
I cant criticise the 5k screen but be aware that you'll be stuck with the weedy pc that they strapped to the back of it for the life of the screen which could be some time!
 
danny_bhoy said:
Yeah, I read it's still best to have GPU Acceleration turned off in LR. It'll be Crucial all the way for RAM too :)
Click to expand...
Depends on your GPU. I have mine turned on and works fine. here's a link to the Adobe FAQ on the subject. Mine says "Passed"
 
neil_g said:
Pretty much what he said. Do you NEED it for photo editing? Not really, for example plenty of people still edit at 1440 as there are still excellent screens at that res. If you have the spare money then why not, but personally I don't think it's worth overstretching the budget for.

Personally I'm never a fan of mac displays anyway, that gloss can be a nightmare to work on (coming from managing a floor of Macbook and apple displays, where we eventually moved to 27" dell for a few reasons). Any reason why you don't consider a Macbook pro refurb and a good external display?
Click to expand...

Coming from a matt screen I am a bit trepidatious about the glass screens, especially as I work next to a window.

I have a macbook pro which I suppose I could hook up to a good display but I've always seen that as a bit of a workaround - I think I'd rather have a dedicated editing machine and keep the Macbook for when I'm out and about.
 
Brazo said:
I cant criticise the 5k screen but be aware that you'll be stuck with the weedy pc that they strapped to the back of it for the life of the screen which could be some time!
Click to expand...

The 5K macs I've been eyeballing have got 256Gb SSD's and 8GB RAM - I'm assuming the RAM is as easily upgradable as it is on the earlier models in which case I'd bump it up to 32GB.
 
danny_bhoy said:
I have a macbook pro which I suppose I could hook up to a good display but I've always seen that as a bit of a workaround - I think I'd rather have a dedicated editing machine and keep the Macbook for when I'm out and about.
Click to expand...
essentially the imac has laptop components within it, so depending on the spec of the macbook it shouldn't cause too much of an issue.
 
neil_g said:
essentially the imac has laptop components within it, so depending on the spec of the macbook it shouldn't cause too much of an issue.
Click to expand...

It's an option but I still think I'll go down the iMac route.

After watching this youtube review however I'm very much leaning towards getting a 2013 non-retina version with SSD and pimping it out for what will essentially be less money than a low-mid spec 5K machine.
 
Chappers said:
Depends on your GPU. I have mine turned on and works fine. here's a link to the Adobe FAQ on the subject. Mine says "Passed"
Click to expand...


Yes, but if you actually do any real world benchmarks I have always found it is quicker with GPU acceleration off, even with the m395x iMac.
 
danny_bhoy said:
The 5K macs I've been eyeballing have got 256Gb SSD's and 8GB RAM - I'm assuming the RAM is as easily upgradable as it is on the earlier models in which case I'd bump it up to 32GB.
Click to expand...
And that's fine but also consider the cpu/gpu as being important components.
 
Brazo said:
And that's fine but also consider the cpu/gpu as being important components.
Click to expand...


I'm sure most people are tired of me saying and some disagree but in my experience PS and LR are not really that CPU intensive, any 5 year old iMac will have more than enough CPU grunt.
 
danny_bhoy said:
It's an option but I still think I'll go down the iMac route.

After watching this youtube review however I'm very much leaning towards getting a 2013 non-retina version with SSD and pimping it out for what will essentially be less money than a low-mid spec 5K machine.
Click to expand...

Do whatever suits you...however, I'll just say this, I noticed a step change in the quality of my processed images after I got the 5K. If 'absolute quality' enters any part of your processing vocabulary, then trying to process on a sub-optimal screen, is just one more aspect of the image making process where you are compromising the final image. Just a thought.
 
gregww1 said:
Do whatever suits you...however, I'll just say this, I noticed a step change in the quality of my processed images after I got the 5K. If 'absolute quality' enters any part of your processing vocabulary, then trying to process on a sub-optimal screen, is just one more aspect of the image making process where you are compromising the final image. Just a thought.
Click to expand...

While I don't doubt that the 5K screen offers better resolution I'm having a hard time believing that my images will be 'compromised' if I don't process them on a 5K screen. Especially in the eyes of Joe Public who'll 99% of the time be viewing them on their laptop, mobile phone or run of the mill desktop screen.
 
danny_bhoy said:
While I don't doubt that the 5K screen offers better resolution I'm having a hard time believing that my images will be 'compromised' if I don't process them on a 5K screen. Especially in the eyes of Joe Public who'll 99% of the time be viewing them on their laptop, mobile phone or run of the mill desktop screen.
Click to expand...

Like I say, do whatever suits you. I'm only speaking with a little experience. ;)
 
Nawty said:
I'm sure most people are tired of me saying and some disagree but in my experience PS and LR are not really that CPU intensive, any 5 year old iMac will have more than enough CPU grunt.
Click to expand...
Having tried LR on a number of cpus including Apple Mac laptop components and heavy weight desktop i7's in my experience the difference was night and day. We're talking 5-8 seconds to fully render a 1:1 image vs practically instant. For me that's important.
 
Brazo said:
Having tried LR on a number of cpus including Apple Mac laptop components and heavy weight desktop i7's in my experience the difference was night and day. We're talking 5-8 seconds to fully render a 1:1 image vs practically instant. For me that's important.
Click to expand...

From my experience with a crappy core-m Macbook and a 3.3ghz 5k iMac, the difference is minimal. What I surmise is that a fast HD is more important to the overall experience that a lightning CPU. Of course, it could just be a Mac thing.

Granted, not sure how the Macbook would drive a 5k screen but it is plenty good enough with it's own high res screen for normal usage on LR and PS, which I attribute to the laptop's high burst speed and Adobe's crap multi-core utilisation which renders mega processors a bit redundant - a 3.1ghz burst is more than enough for most photo tasks. For large batch tasks it sucks but if I'm travelling and am doing a large batch task I can probably grab a beer whilst I wait.

If I were building an editing PC I would focus on a fast PICe HD or whatever the fastest disk setup I could achieve.
 
Nawty said:
From my experience with a crappy core-m Macbook and a 3.3ghz 5k iMac, the difference is minimal. What I surmise is that a fast HD is more important to the overall experience that a lightning CPU. Of course, it could just be a Mac thing.

Granted, not sure how the Macbook would drive a 5k screen but it is plenty good enough with it's own high res screen for normal usage on LR and PS, which I attribute to the laptop's high burst speed and Adobe's crap multi-core utilisation which renders mega processors a bit redundant - a 3.1ghz burst is more than enough for most photo tasks. For large batch tasks it sucks but if I'm travelling and am doing a large batch task I can probably grab a beer whilst I wait.

If I were building an editing PC I would focus on a fast PICe HD or whatever the fastest disk setup I could achieve.
Click to expand...
Your right there is minimal difference between a MacBook and an iMac and that is because they are the same thing as they use the same laptop components so don't expect any better performance. An iMac is a laptop is an iMac is a laptop. Most of them share identical cpus and heat often becomes the limiting factor over cpu performance in such tight cases.

Now before somebody corrects me yes I know the iMac 5k has a desktop quad core cpu but it's so 'gimped' as to be not worthy of the title.

For those not in the know a cpu's performance is limited by heat (and voltage) and in a laptop or iMac where airflow is at best minimal heat becomes an issue and starts to throttle or slow the cpu. It also dictates when and how often a cpu spins up to its turbo speed and also how many cores are capable of hitting turbo. Don't think they all do, Generally it's one to two cores at the most that will hit the headline figure and the others will stay at the lowly base rate.

In my desktop cpu I simply set all four cores to 4.8ghz all of the time, increase the voltage to cope and the water cooling keeps the cpu from throttling. That will yield a significant difference in outright cpu speed over a laptop or iMac (same thing).

I also have a pci based nvme Samsung 950 pro ssd drive in a 4 x 3.0 slot and to be honest it does b****r all speed wise in comparison to a regular ssd unless benchmarking.

Now going back to Lightroom once the image is loaded into the ram, it's only the cpu and ram that become important the ssd is not in use and you are entirely at the mercy of the cpu.

Lightroom is cpu bound not I/O bound.
 
There was a thread a few years back which tested lightroom and found it thrived on systems with fast cpu and disk (the cat and working files on a SSD for example). Lightroom does or did a surprisingly amount of disk access.

Photoshop on the other hand loves cpu and memory.

Edit - https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/ssds-and-lightroom.417126

Bare in mind the thread is a little old now but I think the advice still stands that lightroom benefits from cat and at least your working files being on ssd.
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
I have the top spec iMac with the top spec GPU and run LR with GPU accelerations turned off because it's smoother for brushing etc.
Click to expand...
Hi Elliot, if I move from a Windows machine to Apple, can I have two monitors? Albeit different sizes most likely! Couldn't afford two 27" 5k for sure :)
 
Norkie said:
Hi Elliot, if I move from a Windows machine to Apple, can I have two monitors? Albeit different sizes most likely! Couldn't afford two 27" 5k for sure :)
Click to expand...

Sure. I actually have three screens. The main screen, my second screen is my old iMac and I have a third screen which is a cheap 18" Acer.

No problem have multiple screen of differing sizes. You will need to buy some adapters to convert your screens connectors to that of the Mac.
 
Many thanks indeed Elliot :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top