Considering buying new 24" iMac

[Allan Bell]

14 hours ago, MDM said:

There is a long waiting time at the moment even after you order - the M2 MacBook Pros are early August and the M2 MacBook Airs are not yet available to order at all. You will probably find that you will need to order direct from Apple or Jigsaw 24 (as with the drives) if you want a 24GB machine. I have bought from Apple and Jigsaw 24 in the past with no problems at all. John Lewis tend to only sell standard consumer models. Jigsaw also do quality monitors. I can give you some advice about monitors if you decide to go that way.

 

 

 

There is a STORMFRONT store in Lincoln so I think I would go there when buying and/or exchanging a new m/c.

 

Allan

 

[MDM]

Never heard of it. The only thing that comes up in a search is for a white supremacist group. 🤫 

Edited June 30, 2022 by MDM

[Nigel Kirby]

3 hours ago, MDM said:

Never heard of it. The only thing that comes up in a search is for a white supremacist group. 🤫 

Stormfront now rebranded as Select.

 

https://www.rli.uk.com/stormfront-rebranding-as-select/

 

Nigel

[spacecadet]

53 minutes ago, Nigel Kirby said:

Stormfront now rebranded as Select.

 

https://www.rli.uk.com/stormfront-rebranding-as-select/

 

Nigel

Not the white supremacists! Although that name might make sense of a sort.............

[Allan Bell]

1 hour ago, Nigel Kirby said:

Stormfront now rebranded as Select.

 

https://www.rli.uk.com/stormfront-rebranding-as-select/

 

Nigel

 

Thanks Nigel I did not know they were changing their brand name.

 

Allan

 

5 hours ago, MDM said:

Never heard of it. The only thing that comes up in a search is for a white supremacist group. 🤫 

 

Sorry to have mislead you. We now have a SELECT store in Lincoln which is an Apple reseller.

 

Allan

 

[Marianne]

On 29/06/2022 at 09:15, MDM said:

All of the M1 Macs are really excellent and 8GB of RAM is fine unless you are doing stuff that really needs more RAM (layered Photoshop files, high MP images, certain video editing activities). It's all about future proofing as I said when you were buying the MacBook Air. The minimim RAM for Lightroom and Photoshoop is currently 8GB - how long will it be before it is 16GB and you can't run the Adobe software? Hopefully a few years at least but it will happen eventually.

 

I'm finding that if I'm working in PS with just a few layers (3-4) using images from my 61mp Sony A7riv, my MacBook Pro (late 2018 model purchased in Feb 2019 with i9, dual graphics card, 32GB RAM) will slow down & give me the beachball of death at times- those extra megapixels make things much slower than when I work with images from my 42mp A7rii - and Apple just replaced the battery on my MacBook so it should be at peak performance. Thus, the Mac mini doesn't seem like an option, even though I'm not processing video, since my files are still quite huge. I even have a noticeable wait each time I ask LR to make a virtual copy of one of those large files. 

 

The move to such a high megapixel camera seemed wise when I started working with agents who sell large prints of my work to hospitals, but even shooting compressed RAW files, they are still huge. My RAM usage is usually hovering around 28GB.  So 16GB unified RAM even if it's equivalent to 32GB regular RAM would barely be sufficient for now, let alone future-proofing. 

 

My initial thought in getting my current MacBookPro was to use my old iMac as a monitor and eventually replace it with a new monitor and just have one computer. It was blazing fast until recently but now seems to be slowing down too often. Laptops just don't have the longevity of a desktop and cost so much more, which is why I was rethinking my plan after 3 1/2 years and considering a new iMac or Studio, but the MacBooks really have everything I want, so maybe my initial decision was the right way to go. With my daughter halfway across the country and travel starting to become more feasible again, having a powerful computer on the go is worthwhile.

 

Another thought is getting an iPad Air for email and web browsing, to give my laptop a break. Chrome is so power-hungry but I can't go back to Safari or Firefox. And I need it open when I'm keywording since I'm usually researching some new plant or someplace I've travelled to in order to improve my keywords. A monitor and iPad together will probably cost less than a new iMac.  And I feel like the only person in America who's never owned an iPad. 

 

[MDM]

19 hours ago, Marianne said:

I'd love a Mac studio and a Ben-Q monitor but at $7,200+ for the Mac studio alone, it's beyond my current budget. Probably more power than I need too even with large photo files since I don't do video. Edit: It's about $5,000 if you opt for 1 or 2TB - the price I quoted is for 8TB SSD - overkill

 

I'm finding that if I'm working in PS with just a few layers (3-4) using images from my 61mp Sony A7riv, my MacBook Pro (late 2018 model purchased in Feb 2019 with i9, dual graphics card, 32GB RAM) will slow down & give me the beachball of death at times- those extra megapixels make things much slower than when I work with images from my 42mp A7rii - and Apple just replaced the battery on my MacBook so it should be at peak performance. Thus, the Mac mini doesn't seem like an option, even though I'm not processing video, since my files are still quite huge. I even have a noticeable wait each time I ask LR to make a virtual copy of one of those large files. 

 

The move to such a high megapixel camera seemed wise when I started working with agents who sell large prints of my work to hospitals, but even shooting compressed RAW files, they are still huge. My RAM usage is usually hovering around 28GB.  So 16GB unified RAM even if it's equivalent to 32GB regular RAM would barely be sufficient for now, let alone future-proofing. 

 

Yes by all means go for a Studio but the very high price you quoted for the Mac Studio was for the Ultra version. The Max version is a lot cheaper - you would get plenty of change from $3000 for a 64GB, 1TB drive which is more than adequate for most high end video use, never mind photo editing. This is the same chip as in the 2021 MacBook Pros (14 and 16") and these are blindingly fast. The Ultra just doubles the chip (there are two linked side by side).

 

Apple are charging very high prices for internal storage - $400 for an extra 1TB is a crazy price as external SSDs are as fast as makes no difference as the internal drives to use as working drives (for video or photo editing). A 1TB internal drive is more than enough, especially for a desktop. I would save on the internal storage and get a few external SSDs. For a monitor check out the price of an Eizo - (they seem to have come down in price to about the same as the BenQs and are even better in my experience) and you are all set for several years of happy editing.

 

You can't judge the M1 machines against the Intel machines in terms of Photoshop memory usage though and you can't quantify it in a simple equation. I had no trouble editing 45MP Nikon files on an M1 16GB MacBook Pro in Lightroom and Photoshop. These silicon Macs do things differently. 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2022 by MDM

[Marianne]

I'm going to stick with my current MacBook Pro & get a new monitor. Then I'll get a new MacBook Pro when it dies and figure out the specs then. Good to know 16GB was okay for 45MP - my 61MP files are twice the size and my current 32GB RAM machine is slower when I'm in Photoshop and slow making virtual copies in LR compared to when I work with 42MP files, so I think 32GB RAM is necessary for me even with the new machines. 

 

Glad you have convinced me not to get a 24" iMac. Thanks. 

Edited July 3, 2022 by Marianne

[Marianne]

@Allan Bell Sorry I didn't mean to highjack this thread

 

For you: If you can trade in your old MacBook and get a $$$ toward a new one and then get a monitor to use with it, that seems like the best choice - you get the laptop for travel and even for going to a coffee house if/when we get past Covid and for sitting outdoors this summer, then have a monitor for critical editing on your desk. You should be able to use the wireless keyboard from your iMac and work with the iMac closed or use it as a second screen. My understanding is that a good monitor will last you 10 years. I did a ton of research on them recently and it's a whole other headache to decide - especially since most of the recommended ones are no longer available. Everything in tech changes so fast. I started another Monitor thread asking about brands other than BenQ & Eizo that I'm considering which might interest you if anyone here has other than those prefered brands.

Good luck with your new Mac!

[MDM]

6 hours ago, Marianne said:

Sorry I didn't mean to highjack this thread My understanding is that a good monitor will last you 10 years. I did a ton of research on them recently and it's a whole other headache to decide - especially since most of the recommended ones are no longer available. Everything in tech changes so fast. I started another Monitor thread asking about brands other than BenQ & Eizo that I'm considering which might interest you if anyone here has other than those prefered brands.

Good luck with your new Mac!

 

You didn't hijack the thread Marianne - it's all on topic and relevant to Allan's original quesion. I think you should keep any monitor discussion in here as well as it gets confusing if there are two very similar threads running at the same time. I don't think you would get much about monitors from the Alamy Forum anyway as there is nobody since David K left with a broad and accurate view of products on the photographic market in general.

 

To my knowledge, there really are only two brands left in the colour-accurate monitor market right now - Eizo and BenQ. For quality control then Eizo is the best but BenQ is also very good. You might get opinions on somebody's favourite monitor brand but for up to date objective info you need to be looking at professional reviews. If I was in the market for a new monitor then the best up to date resource by far in my opinion is Image Science Australia . The prices are in Aussie dollars so keep that in mind if you are looking there.. 

Edited July 3, 2022 by MDM

[Allan Bell]

5 hours ago, Marianne said:

@Allan Bell Sorry I didn't mean to highjack this thread

 

For you: If you can trade in your old MacBook and get a $$$ toward a new one and then get a monitor to use with it, that seems like the best choice - you get the laptop for travel and even for going to a coffee house if/when we get past Covid and for sitting outdoors this summer, then have a monitor for critical editing on your desk. You should be able to use the wireless keyboard from your iMac and work with the iMac closed or use it as a second screen. My understanding is that a good monitor will last you 10 years. I did a ton of research on them recently and it's a whole other headache to decide - especially since most of the recommended ones are no longer available. Everything in tech changes so fast. I started another Monitor thread asking about brands other than BenQ & Eizo that I'm considering which might interest you if anyone here has other than those prefered brands.

Good luck with your new Mac!

 

2 hours ago, MDM said:

 

You didn't hijack the threae Marianne - it's all on topic and relevant to Allan's original quesion. I think you should keep any monitor discussion in here as well as it gets confusing if there are two very similar threads running at the same time. I don't think you would get much about monitors from the Alamy Forum anyway as there is nobody since David K left with a broad and accurate view of products on the photographic market in general.

 

To my knowledge, there really are only two brands left in the colour-accurate monitor market right now - Eizo and BenQ. For quality control then Eizo is the best but BenQ is also very good. You might get opinions on somebody's favourite monitor brand but for up to date objective info you need to be looking at professional reviews. If I was in the market for a new monitor then the best up to date resource by far in my opinion is Image Science Australia . The prices are in Aussie dollars so keep that in mind if you are looking there.. 

 

What Mick said.😃

 

I like the look of the BenQ monitors and they appear to be a bit cheaper than the Eizo even if their prices have come down.

 

Allan

 

[MDM]

17 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

 

What Mick said.😃

 

I like the look of the BenQ monitors and they appear to be a bit cheaper than the Eizo even if their prices have come down.

 

Allan

 

 

I've not checked exact prices but some of the Eizos come with built-in calibrators which can save a few hundred £££ so worth considering when comparing prices. There is no point in buying a medium to high end monitor and not calibrating it properly. 

[Allan Bell]

4 hours ago, MDM said:

 

I've not checked exact prices but some of the Eizos come with built-in calibrators which can save a few hundred £££ so worth considering when comparing prices. There is no point in buying a medium to high end monitor and not calibrating it properly. 

 

Thanks Mick, I have an x-rite i1 display Pro calibration system already so a BenQ SW2700PT Quad HD LED monitor with 2560 x 1440 display would be the better bet at £575.

 

Also as Marianne said I would trade in my existing laptop m/c Mentioned earlier for a new 13" MacBook Pro M2 with 256GB SSD Flash storage, as that is all I need after looking at the usage my existing 500GB storage gets, with 24GB memory.  Total £2,274 minus trade in price. ???

 

The existing 27" iMac screen cannot be used with the 13" MacBook Pro M2 version.

 

Allan

 

 

Edited July 3, 2022 by Allan Bell

[MDM]

1 hour ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Thanks Mick, I have an x-rite i1 display Pro calibration system already so a BenQ SW2700PT Quad HD LED monitor with 2560 x 1440 display would be the better bet at £575.

 

Also as Marianne said I would trade in my existing laptop m/c Mentioned earlier for a new 13" MacBook Pro M2 with 256GB SSD Flash storage, as that is all I need after looking at the usage my existing 500GB storage gets, with 24GB memory.  Total £2,274 minus trade in price. ???

 

The existing 27" iMac screen cannot be used with the 13" MacBook Pro M2 version.

 

Allan

 

 

 

Monitor sounds good Allan except that one is no longer made. It has been replaced by this I think (link to WEX). 256GB is a very small internal drive, especially for anyone editing graphics of any kind. I wouldn't go for less than 500GB given that it is very unwise to ever fill a drive, especially the OS drive more than say 3/4 full. Keep in mind that these Macs are not upgradeable at all. 

[Marianne]

@MDM Since you suggested it I've moved my monitor questions here - & thanks for that link - it looks to me like BenQ & Eizo aren't the only games in town, but they are certainly at the top of the list. Unfortunately, a good Eizo is out of my price range and the BenQ that's in it is unavailable. I can't even order one. After reading all the monitor discussions here and a ton online, I still have questions about display size & other also recommended but previously unknown to me brands. Hopefully someone here has experience:

 

I'm considering the ASUS ProArt PA329C 32" which is 4K at 3840x2160. I understand that 3840x2160 on a 32" monitor is a better fit to the Mac's native resolution that on a 27" 4K monitor. It is adjustable 5"+ in height so the top will be at a good level for my eyes. (I wanted a 24" originally because I didn't realize they were height adjustable, unlike my iMac)

 

I've been selling large prints lately so a 32" screen will let me see my photos almost as large as they are often printed (usu 20" x 30", sometimes up to 7 feet long). I often have to convert to sRGB for various labs but I still do my initial processing in AdobeRGB and assume wide gamut monitors will become the norm. 

 

The "budget" 27" Eizo is $1,300 and got poor reviews. This ASUS (at 32" and $1,077) got excellent reviews but all I've heard about in terms of photo monitors is to go with Eizo or BenQ and also that I should be editing at Quad not Ultra HD - however, given that I'm editing files that are 9504 x 6336 pixels, is this advice still correct?  And won't most art consultants and interior designers be viewing my files on their 4K monitors? I'm afraid that with a lower resolution screen even the Quad BenQ 27" (currently unavailable anyway), I'll end up oversharpening my files which given their size would probably be worse than undersharpening. Thoughts?

 

I usually get good advice from B&H but they kept sending me to the computer folks, the first said I didn't need wide gamut and recommended a budget-friendly 100% sRGB BenQ; the second recommended a Lenovo which got mixed reviews. 

 

The ASUS ProArt 32" is $1,077 so it's a substantial investment. If I have to run it at Quad rather than 4K I might wait for the BenQ to be back in stock, though the ASUS got better reviews and would give me more real estate to view my large files. 

 

I was also looking at ViewSonic - anyone know about them? They've gotten good reviews although there was some question about whether they work properly with the M1 chip (I want to be able to use it with a future computer obviously). I went on their site to schedule a video demo. Anyone have one of their monitors? 

 

So, any thoughts:

1. on the ASUS ProArt PA329C 32"?

2. On ViewSonic monitors?

3. On whether it's okay to edit ultra high resolution photos on an UHD screen? (and turn it down to Quad for my smaller files?)

Edited July 3, 2022 by Marianne

[Marianne]

The BenQ you mention @Allan Bell was replaced by the BenQ SW270C Photographer 27" which isn't available anywhere in the US - it's listed as unavailable or backordered- but even where backordered you can't order it and simply wait for it to come in and while they have estimated dates they said it could be much longer due to supply shortages. Lucky you that  @MDM found it for you available in the UK - I've done weeks of research and it'd be my first choice given what I consider a reasonable budget. 

 

If you want a less expensive option there is the BenQ SW240 24.1" - almost the same specs about 3/5ths the price - screen is only HD though which was the deal-breaker for me and may be for you as well - I'd go for the Quad if I were you. (Though for me, given how huge my files are, I'm thinking 4K makes sense).

 

I was reading on BenQ's site that they estimate a monitor will last about 5 years. So I can't see spending more than $700-$1,000 for one. 

 

They also warn you not to leave a static picture on it for more than 10 minutes as it will burn into the screen - so I'm wondering how that works when you're editing a photo? and if you're mirroring a screen, won't your icons burn in? Could use some advice on that. Thanks!

Edited July 3, 2022 by Marianne

[MDM]

2 hours ago, Marianne said:

 

So, any thoughts:

1. on the ASUS ProArt PA329C 32"?

2. On ViewSonic monitors?

3. On whether it's okay to edit ultra high resolution photos on an UHD screen? (and turn it down to Quad for my smaller files?)

 

1. I don't know anything about that ASUS. I know they have been building a reputation in video editing monitors, especially HDR, but have no direct experience.

2. Nada

3. It's ok of course and better on a 32" than a 27" but I still prefer 27" Quad (not a term I've ever used before but it does the job) because of the quality. I have an aging Eizo (almost 8 years old) which produces beautiful images (wide gamut, matte surface). The same quality in 4K 32" would be vastly more expensive. It's got nothing to do with file size - it's about viewing experience and pixel size on screen. You don't need to see the whole image at once to edit.

 

I suspect that there won't be anyone here with the knowledge to compare monitors in any meaningful objective sense unless there is someone who is in the market for one at the moment. I know the very knowledgeable wim is also an Eizo man. Do check out that Aussie site I linked above - the guy really knows his stuff.

Edited July 3, 2022 by MDM

[MDM]

Along with my philosophy of getting at least twice as much RAM as I think I need when I buy a new computer, I also have a philosophy of buying a very good monitor. I am going to be looking at my images on this device for years to come. Why buy all this incredible cameras, lenses etc and view the results on a crappy monitor? Most people never even print their stuff any more (Marianne being an exception). My advice - get the best monitor you can afford.

[Marianne]

1 minute ago, MDM said:

 

1. I don't know anything about that ASUS. I know they have been building a reputation in video editing monitors, especially HDR, but have no direct experience.

2. Nada

3. It's ok of course and better on a 32" than a 27" but I still prefer 27" Quad (not a term I've ever used before but it does the job) because of the quality. I have an aging Eizo (almost 8 years old) which produces beautiful images (wide gamut, matte surface). The same quality in 4K 32" would be vastly more expensive. 

 

I suspect that there won't be anyone here with the knowledge to compare monitors in any meaningful objective sense unless there is someone who is in the market for one at the moment. I know the very knowledgeable wim is also an Eizo man. Do check out that Aussie site I linked above - the guy really knows his stuff.

 

I spent a while on the phone with someone in the photo department at B&H - I can wait for a 2K 27" BenQ at $779 (the one @Allan Bell has opted for) and hope that I get one of the ones expected to come in toward the end of the month hopefully - they'll send me an email when the shipment comes in but are no longer taking orders due to shortages - it's first come first served - or I can buy an entry level Eizo 2K 27" for $1,250.

 

He didn't think that the quality difference between them was worth the difference but @Wim I'd love your thoughts on BenQ vs Eizo and whether it's worth the difference when you are editing for large prints. The Eizo has a 5 rather than 3 year warranty, but it's $500 more which is substantial. I can afford the Eizo but it's still a lot of money.

 

He also said the ASUS mentioned above was excellent but warned that 32" is substantially larger than 27" and may take some getting used to. I have a large deep table I use as a desk so there is room. He didn't think that 4K at that size would be an issue in terms of making my images look too sharp but couldn't say whether 2K might make my 9504 x 6336 pixel RAW files look less sharp than they really are, leading me to over-sharpen them. No one seems to be able to tell me definitively if the "4K is overkill for photos" applies when your photos are ultra high resolution. I don't want to pay for 4K and find I need to scale it down for editing but I don't want a screen that isn't sharp enough for my large files. Anyone know the answer? Expensive trial and error isn't really an option. 

[Marianne]

13 minutes ago, MDM said:

Along with my philosophy of getting at least twice as much RAM as I think I need when I buy a new computer, I also have a philosophy of buying a very good monitor. I am going to be looking at my images on this device for years to come. Why buy all this incredible cameras, lenses etc and view the results on a crappy monitor? Most people never even print their stuff any more (Marianne being an exception). My advice - get the best monitor you can afford.

 

I'm in agreement with you in theory but I'm not sure whether the entry level Eizo is really that much better or whether if I really want something great, I need to spend closer to $2,500 for their new one which hasn't been released yet. There's a BenQ with a lot more bells and whistles than the Eizo including a simulated black and white mode and a mode that lets you see the same photo in sRGB & AdobeRGB all without having to make additional copies - which seems really nice - it's 4K which may or may not be what I want and $1,599. BenQ SW271C 27" 

 

Eizo's newest photo monitor (coming soon) is still 2K so maybe even for ultra high def photos 2K is the way to go?

 

Heading out for a hike and some photos. Thanks for your input. I'll decide soon. Eager to get a working monitor again so the Eizo may be my choice. 

 

[MDM]

15 minutes ago, Marianne said:

 

I'm in agreement with you in theory but I'm not sure whether the entry level Eizo is really that much better or whether if I really want something great, I need to spend closer to $2,500 for their new one which hasn't been released yet. There's a BenQ with a lot more bells and whistles than the Eizo including a simulated black and white mode and a mode that lets you see the same photo in sRGB & AdobeRGB all without having to make additional copies - which seems really nice - it's 4K which may or may not be what I want and $1,599. BenQ SW271C 27" 

 

Eizo's newest photo monitor (coming soon) is still 2K so maybe even for ultra high def photos 2K is the way to go?

 

Heading out for a hike and some photos. Thanks for your input. I'll decide soon. Eager to get a working monitor again so the Eizo may be my choice. 

 

 

Those prices sound incredibly high even with the crazy inflation at the moment. I was thinking about something like this Eizo which is a bit more than the similar BenQ but not an insane price.

[Marianne]

3 hours ago, MDM said:

 

Those prices sound incredibly high even with the crazy inflation at the moment. I was thinking about something like this Eizo which is a bit more than the similar BenQ but not an insane price.

 

That's the exact one I'm looking at $1,248 in the US Crazy since that is 1,031 British pounds!

[Allan Bell]

13 hours ago, MDM said:

 

Those prices sound incredibly high even with the crazy inflation at the moment. I was thinking about something like this Eizo which is a bit more than the similar BenQ but not an insane price.

 

Thanks Mick I have made a note of the Eizo you mentioned and at £864 is not too expensive.  Also keeping in mind the BenQ SW270C 27 Inch Monitor at £669.

 

On my iMac I have a 500GB SSD and only use just over 100GB. 400GB going spare. So I think the 256GB SSD would be sufficiently future proofed. What say you?

 

Allan

 

[MDM]

45 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Thanks Mick I have made a note of the Eizo you mentioned and at £864 is not too expensive.  Also keeping in mind the BenQ SW270C 27 Inch Monitor at £669.

 

On my iMac I have a 500GB SSD and only use just over 100GB. 400GB going spare. So I think the 256GB SSD would be sufficiently future proofed. What say you?

 

Allan

 

 

Up to you Allan. It would not be enough for me as I like to have plenty of space on the internal drive. I move stuff off quickly on to external SSDs but there are times, particularly when I am on the move, when it is convenient to have stuff on the internal drive with nothing dangling from the Mac. Photoshop needs extra space on the internal drive if there is no external disk attached, Lightroom catalogs need space for previews and some of the video apps I use need extra cache space so 256GB would be cutting it tight for me. If you are always using it as a desktop replacement then you might be fine but I think the key thing is that you can't upgrade it after purchase. 

 

Given the world shortage of a lot of stuff at the moment, you might want to make your monitor purchase while they are in stock (also the way prices are going at the moment, the next batch might be more expensive).

 

[Allan Bell]

3 hours ago, MDM said:

 

Up to you Allan. It would not be enough for me as I like to have plenty of space on the internal drive. I move stuff off quickly on to external SSDs but there are times, particularly when I am on the move, when it is convenient to have stuff on the internal drive with nothing dangling from the Mac. Photoshop needs extra space on the internal drive if there is no external disk attached, Lightroom catalogs need space for previews and some of the video apps I use need extra cache space so 256GB would be cutting it tight for me. If you are always using it as a desktop replacement then you might be fine but I think the key thing is that you can't upgrade it after purchase. 

 

Given the world shortage of a lot of stuff at the moment, you might want to make your monitor purchase while they are in stock (also the way prices are going at the moment, the next batch might be more expensive).

 

 

Thank you Mick.

 

Allan