I guess this is the area I'm most unsure of - the i5 or i7 and the graphics upgrade. This just isn't my area of expertise!
I've been holding off an iMac purchase to wait for the 2012 model, and my main use for this machine is photo editing.
The decision for me is mostly easy, max out the processor and graphics card (I will be doing a little more video than I have previously done, now I'll have a system that can do it properly) and I've just ordered 32gb RAM from Crucial.
The only sticking point for me is the hard drive. I don't think the way Fusion works will be of use for photographers with huge libraries, especially if you access files randomly from the archive (if you only open them once to edit, Fusion won't think of it as a frequently accessed file, so it won't be moved to the SSD, if my thinking is right?.
So I'm a little worried there will be a bottleneck in speeds. I read an early report that briefly touched on this, I'll have to try and find it again.
That SSD only option is sooo expensive though
I've been holding off an iMac purchase to wait for the 2012 model, and my main use for this machine is photo editing.
The decision for me is mostly easy, max out the processor and graphics card (I will be doing a little more video than I have previously done, now I'll have a system that can do it properly) and I've just ordered 32gb RAM from Crucial.
The only sticking point for me is the hard drive. I don't think the way Fusion works will be of use for photographers with huge libraries, especially if you access files randomly from the archive (if you only open them once to edit, Fusion won't think of it as a frequently accessed file, so it won't be moved to the SSD, if my thinking is right?.
So I'm a little worried there will be a bottleneck in speeds. I read an early report that briefly touched on this, I'll have to try and find it again.
That SSD only option is sooo expensive though
Thank you
I've been holding off an iMac purchase to wait for the 2012 model, and my main use for this machine is photo editing.
The decision for me is mostly easy, max out the processor and graphics card (I will be doing a little more video than I have previously done, now I'll have a system that can do it properly) and I've just ordered 32gb RAM from Crucial.
The only sticking point for me is the hard drive. I don't think the way Fusion works will be of use for photographers with huge libraries, especially if you access files randomly from the archive (if you only open them once to edit, Fusion won't think of it as a frequently accessed file, so it won't be moved to the SSD, if my thinking is right?.
So I'm a little worried there will be a bottleneck in speeds. I read an early report that briefly touched on this, I'll have to try and find it again.
That SSD only option is sooo expensive though
I found one of the articles I'd read about Fusion, here
The part that particularly stood out to me was this, as one of my camera's is the D800:
With the help of Lori Grunin, our digital imaging editor, I then tried timing how long it took Photoshop to load a multilayered 1.8GB PSD file built from 16-bit raw images from the Nikon D800. This seemed promising at first, since the initial load into Photoshop took about 30 seconds, but subsequent loads were all over the place timewise, going as high as 49 seconds, and then back down to the low 30s.
I know it's early days for testing, but still, I can't help but think whilst Fusion will work well for many (most?), it will not be entirely great for my needs.
Thank you
I'm not sure how confident I would be in opening up and swapping a drive over. Thunderbolt SSD is quite pricey still from what I looked at, so might not be much cheaper for similar size? I blame the Macbook Air. I purchased that as a stop gap and I'm now spoilt by SSD speeds!
I hope it lasts me at least five years.
Thank you, appreciated
Somehow, knowing I'm not the only one looking at going this route makes me feel a little better about it!This is an expensive solution but one I am happy with
I found one of the articles I'd read about Fusion, here
The part that particularly stood out to me was this, as one of my camera's is the D800:
With the help of Lori Grunin, our digital imaging editor, I then tried timing how long it took Photoshop to load a multilayered 1.8GB PSD file built from 16-bit raw images from the Nikon D800. This seemed promising at first, since the initial load into Photoshop took about 30 seconds, but subsequent loads were all over the place timewise, going as high as 49 seconds, and then back down to the low 30s.
We concluded (and Apple did not disagree) that Photoshop has too much of its own file and memory management activity going on in the background, effectively superseding Fusion.
I know it's early days for testing, but still, I can't help but think whilst Fusion will work well for many (most?), it will not be entirely great for my needs.
Thank you
I'm not sure how confident I would be in opening up and swapping a drive over. Thunderbolt SSD is quite pricey still from what I looked at, so might not be much cheaper for similar size? I blame the Macbook Air. I purchased that as a stop gap and I'm now spoilt by SSD speeds!
Thank you, appreciated
Somehow, knowing I'm not the only one looking at going this route makes me feel a little better about it!
Well I wouldn't say I've been making due. It's actually prevented me from doing much lately. Our old one just struggles too much with Photoshop, sadly