Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No fault of the iMac...just that the thunderbolts are horrible in comparison.

I have a TB display at work, a 27" 2010 iMac at home and a 27" 2013 iMac at home. Personally I feel all three displays are of virtually equal high quality. Perhaps not what a photographer needs, but for my use they're great. The 2013 iMac does have a bit less glare, though my lighting is well controlled and it's essentially a non-issue.

Absence of USB 3.0 on the back of the TB display is perhaps a minor negative, but a quality USB 3.0 hub eliminates the problem (yes, no one wants to spend more money than necessary, but a good hub is only at most 4% of the cost of the Thunderbolt Display).
 
My biggest thing is the glare. It has so much more than a new iMac. Plus the height difference is just stupid.
 
My biggest thing is the glare. It has so much more than a new iMac. Plus the height difference is just stupid.

Height difference is an issue I suppose. You can add an adjustable stand/arm to the TB displays (or all three if you want) for maximum flexibility.

I've also seen products like this: http://twelvesouth.com/products/hirise_imac/

hiriseimac_leveldisplay_headerlarge.jpg
 
Height difference is an issue I suppose. You can add an adjustable stand/arm to the TB displays (or all three if you want) for maximum flexibility.

I've also seen products like this: http://twelvesouth.com/products/hirise_imac/

Image

I saw the hi rise thing and thought it looked dumb (like a mac pro on its side).

I know to some I'm being picky but I'm also spending over $5k on my set up.
 
I'm expecting my iMac on Friday, will definitely connect the 30". Also have a 23" but not sure that I'll connect it. Does having more displays put extra work on the graphics card and therefore slow down video renders?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.