Upgrading for photography - iMac vs laptop + external display

southernjessie

southernjessie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
607
Name
SJ
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been using a mid-2010 17" MacBook Pro and last year upgraded the HDD to a 500Gb SSD and RAM to 8Gb. It did make a big difference but I would like to upgrade later this year, mainly to use a larger screen.

I've looked at the 27" 5k iMac - in an ideal world it would be perfect but it's really expensive and I actually want to concentrate on photo editing. I can still use my MBP for storage of songs and other stuff so was thinking that I could pick up a 1-3 year old 13" MBP that has an SSD and good RAM and add an external monitor.

I have no idea about monitors...I've heard that the Dell Ultrasharp range is very good but don't know

1. is it as good as an Apple external monitor? What resolution should I be looking at - 1920 x 1200 or more?
2. Which Dell Ultrasharp should I go for? There are loads of models to choose from. Sizewise, 24" would probably be fine...is it worth paying extra for a 27"?

The other option would be a 21.5" retina iMac.

Any opinions would be appreciated - thanks :)
 
ive never rated apple displays, that horrible gloss. the thunderbolt displays are extremely unreliable in my experience. we now get dell rather than apple screens.

dell IPS every time. if you can stretch to the 27 then great but the 24 is also very good.
 
Last edited:
To me, there are several problems with apple's approach to building computers, particularly that it's not possible to optimise the bits you need without upgrading everything to the hilt, and that there is no upgrade path for current designs. IMO it would be better to spend less on the actual computer unit (compared to an iMac) and invest more in a good screen that will continue to be good after the original computer unit is no longer adequate.

I'm not up to date with current Dell monitors, but have been very happy with my Dell U2412M.
 
Thanks for all the helpful replies. I'll research a good quality monitor that will last even when I upgrade my laptop.
 
I'll echo Neil and say get a 27" and 2560x1440 if you can.
 
The latest iMac 5k screens are really rather nice if you can live with the gloss finish - much better colour that the first gen - and in comparison 1440 seems a bit meh...

Not to get into the Apple Tax debate but a 13" Macbook Pro that performs better than your current (quad core) Macbook will need to be one of the very latest models and more preferably a 15" model. Then, if you add a good 4k screen you are already in or beyond the price of a new 5k iMac.

If you don't actually need more than 8gb RAM (which will only help if you're editing mahoosive TIFF files) then I would probably just buy the best monitor I could, as tempting as a nice new laptop would be.
 
The dell U2515H monitors (25 inch) are also very nice.

Bear in mind an apple 'desktop' uses the same 'weaker' mobile components as their laptops.
 
Brazo said:
Bear in mind an apple 'desktop' uses the same 'weaker' mobile components as their laptops.
Click to expand...

Whilst true, my Core-M Macbook runs Lightroom and Photoshop reasonably well so it's clear that photography programs are not the most resource intensive which is why 'upgrading' to a 13" macbook won't make tooooo much difference unless you are RAM limited.
 
neil_g said:
disagree.

while you can get away with using a "mediocre" spec machine for editing, programs like Lightroom and Photoshop will thrive on high end kit.
Click to expand...


Not really, their multi-core execution isn't that optimised, not in my experience anyway. I use my lowly Macbook and a top of the range (non-custom) 2015 iMac, considering the spec difference the difference in actual performance isn't as big as you might expect.

Yes, if you're exporting hundreds of raws, generating full size smart previews or stitching massive panos it helps but in every day usage the differences aren't as massive as I'd expected.

Video encoding, yes, it makes a huge difference.
 
still disagree. in my experience lightroom thrives on a fast CPU and disk, especially when batch processing but also when moving between photos and performing basic edits. photoshop thrives on fast CPU and high amounts of RAM.

like i say you can get away with a lower spec, but to say neither benefit from high spec machines would be misleading.
 
We are all different and what suits one does not suit another go and look at the different options. It is a pain to do but a least you won't have any regrets later
 
Nawty said:
Whilst true, my Core-M Macbook runs Lightroom and Photoshop reasonably well so it's clear that photography programs are not the most resource intensive which is why 'upgrading' to a 13" macbook won't make tooooo much difference unless you are RAM limited.
Click to expand...
I too disagree. After switching from a Mac book pro to a custom built PC. The difference in Lightroom performance with only 24meg files is extremely noticeable. This includes an almost instantaneous 1:1 preview render, something that would frustrate me on my Mac. I couldnt consider a Mac for higher file sizes, the Sony 42 meg files for example do not run smoothly on even the best Mac.
 
I can't see you specifying what camera you are thinking of using over the next few years, nor the editing software you intend to use.

Like Neil states, Lightroom demands good CPU & fast disks. Particularly so with large file sizes of something like a D810.
Waiting for several seconds to move between images or to see the results of a click of the mouse or draw of a pen on a tablet gets frustrating very fast.
 
+1 for the dell u2515h
i spent ages looking specs from all different brands hoping to get more or the same for less, the dell couldn't be bettered for the money.
 
Apple displays are a bit long in the tooth, maybe we'll see an announcement about a new one in June, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I would agree a Dell screen would probably be the best option at a good price. I ran a MacBook Pro via an external monitor several years ago. It worked but was a bit of a pain. In order to not have it in front of the display ( which made things awkward ) it had to be on one side. You then really need an external keyboard and mouse ( not a problem as I had a spare of each). But you then have to Plug in the power, plug in the monitor, plug in keyboard and mouse, plug in external drives. I only did this for a few months, but had it gone on longer I think I would have looked at a dock. However this was a few years ago and Docks for Mac's were not as neat as they are today. If you go down this route look at the Henge docks,. neat and slim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top