New 24" iMac instead of Mac Pro?

[JohnLund]

I was going to buy a new high end Mac Pro as my main unit for photo processing and all the rest but got stalled when I found it was going to cost close to $5,000 with all the bells and whistles.

Then along came the new 24" iMac with 3.06 GHz processing power. Combined with 4GB RAM, 1TB hard drive and an external drive I figure I could save $2,000+ and have a pretty decent unit for my main work.

I don't process huge amounts of batch files or do much other strenuous lifting. Most of my work is picking individual RAW files to be processed one at a time, converted to JPegs and then forwarded to editors.

Would an iMac configured as above do a satisfactory job?

Thanks,

John

[Jerry Skrocki]

The iMac has enough processing power to do the job. The main problem that many photographers and graphic designers have with the new iMacs is with the construction. The all aluminum housing looks very stylish, but there is a piece of tinted glass covering the entire LCD. The glass seems to diffuse the light passing through it, making it difficult to get an accurate profile with a hardware device. It also introduces screen glare.

This critical flaw was enough for me to go the MacPro route.

[AndrewRodney]

The other issue is the displays pretty much suck and, if LED, very difficult to calibrate and profile.

[David_Buzzard]

I now a of of photographers and designers o use the iMacs without a problem. According to Macworld, the 3.06 iMac is just little slower than the entry level MacPro.

I recently bought a 2.4 MacBook Pro, and it will churn through a few hundred 12MP NEF files without a problem, so power-wise, I don't think you'll have any issues.

David Buzzard's Technical blog

[PhilipKach]

Originally Posted by AndrewRodney

The other issue is the displays pretty much suck and, if LED, very difficult to calibrate and profile.

Speaking only on the issue of color sync for photographic use, Andrew is right.

I decided to go with the 24" iMac instead of the Mac Pro and I am very happy with it on all levels except color accuracy. The speed is fine.

However, I knew that when I bought it. I already own a 23" ACD. With the two display setup, I am in heaven!

I use the iMac display for Aperture 2.1 menu and file system. Then I use the ACD display for judging and adjusting the image.

Two displays also work great for other programs.

Total cost was still much less that a Mac Pro with one 23" ACD.

Philip

[BobSmith]

I recently took a staff job running computer labs and the darkroom for a college fine arts program. They provided me with a new 24" iMac. The descriptions here are accurate... great performer... not so great monitor. Not horrible mind you... but not near as good as the separate better monitors. Not as good as the previous generation 24" iMacs with the matte surface screen either. Still, for the price, its a very good system. I know a friend that bought one primarily to use as the hub of his entertainment system. Not a bad idea. DVDs look incredible on that screen.

Bob Smith

[Edmond_Terakopian]

As already mentioned, the machine's great, but the screen not so good. I have one and use it mainly as an office machine and do all the colour work on the Mac Pro (or MacBook Pro when in the field).
As Philip mentioned, you do have the option of getting a second screen and calibrating that for colour work.