iMac 5K, overkill?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by IlikeMacsSoMuch, May 23, 2015.

  1. IlikeMacsSoMuch macrumors 6502


    Dec 30, 2009
    Blainville, Province of Quebec
    Hi, I want to buy a 27 inches iMac and I don't know if the higher price for the 5K is overkill for me or not. Next september I will enter an architecture school and they will (once I pay for it!) provide a laptop with all the software that I need for school. So for the next 4 years the iMac won't be used for that. It will be used for everything else, coding, very light photo and video editing, a little gaming. Tho it looks glorious, is 5K worth it for a non professionnal photographer? Money wise it's ok, I can afford it. I have enough to spend but just not enough to waste!
  2. 0000757 macrumors 68040

    Dec 16, 2011
    If you're not going to be doing any of your architectural work or any 4K media consumption on it, then yeah it probably is overkill.
  3. sasha.danielle, May 23, 2015
    Last edited: May 24, 2015

    sasha.danielle macrumors regular

    Mar 15, 2015
    I'm a writer and I'm picking up a 5k. I think it's kind of a bizarre conception that only people into pro photography should really get one of these. Everyone can enjoy a sharper more beautiful image. I much prefer seeing that sharp text in front of me. And I have found that my eyes don't strain so much on retina screens. That might just be my imagination, but I don't really care. The more beautiful image makes me happier.

    Also, though people like to gripe, that machine is a steal of a deal. Seriously, Dell sells their 5K display for the same price as a riMac. You're really getting a free computer.
  4. IlikeMacsSoMuch thread starter macrumors 6502


    Dec 30, 2009
    Blainville, Province of Quebec
    That makes a lot of sense! Thanks I'll consider it!
  5. BornAgainMac macrumors 603


    Feb 4, 2004
    Florida Resident
    I wonder if there is any truth to the iMac 8K with the next revision?
  6. loekf macrumors 6502a


    Mar 23, 2015
    Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    Talking about overkill... 8K on a 27" screen ?

    No, if you have the money go for the 5K model. The display is so much sharper and better than the regular 2.5K model. Compare it to the change from the iPad 2 to the iPad 3/4/Air(2).
  7. simonjuhl macrumors newbie

    May 23, 2015
    New version just released

    Hi all.

    So im too looking to buy the 27 inch iMac 5K. Im from Denmark where a new and cheaper model has just been released with a 7200 RPM harddrive instead of the fusion drive.

    I kan save around 200 dollars. Is that worth saving? Gonna use the computer mainly for graphics work.
  8. roadkill401 macrumors 6502


    Jan 11, 2015
    The savings from the lower priced unit are not worth what you are giving away. I have used a fusion drive on a 5K iMac and actually sent it back to buy an pure SSD model.

    The cheeper unit also has a slower processor.

    As for the OP.. You are buying for the 5K screen. It is so much sharper and easier on the eyes that you will find it harder to work with the laptop for long periods of time. You will probably find that you will be doing more work on the 5k screen just as it's easier.

    I bought my iMac as I really wanted a Mac and thought that the prices would shoot up for me (as I am in Canada where the CAD has lost 23% of it's value against the USD). I thought it was an indulgence but I found that I don't even use my laptop anymore where I use to really enjoy the freedom of computing anywhere. For me the screen is why I use this iMac.
  9. xmichaelp macrumors 68000


    Jul 10, 2012
    That wouldn't make any sense. 1080p 8x res? There would be no clarity gains from a couple feet away and it would melt hardware.

    To the OP, no it's not overkill. It's only 200 more than the non-retina now anyways. Get it!
  10. lali macrumors regular

    Oct 14, 2007
    The first thing I would do is understand what would be my primary display for architecture school. Are you certain to be ok in terms of display size (meaning do you need an external display for your laptop)... if so budget for a good 24/27 inch.

    The iMac is a great machine no doubt. Ssd preferred. Fusion is acceptable. buying the computer refurbished is a good way to save money. Add ram (to 16) separately.

    I have the non-retina iMac and find it awesome. many people have commented on the quality of my display. I am not a pixel peeper so everyone has different priorities and that is fine.

    ps: regarding gaming...if you bought the games you needed today, do you know if they are osx compatible? or did you intend on running windows?

    good luck with your choices

  11. g33k macrumors member


    May 12, 2015
    I simply cannot imagine. That's an absurd amount of pixel density, and simply its too expensive for consumers.
  12. Chippy99 macrumors 6502a

    Apr 28, 2012
    Totally agree.

    In fact anyone into pro photograpghy should really question whether they want one of these at all. If you are concerned about colour accuracy - as *surely* serious photographer are, then the screen is really not very good compared to an Eizo, or NEC Spectraview for example,
  13. filmbufs macrumors 6502


    Sep 8, 2012
    Actually, the iMac screen is great and pretty darn accurate, at least for us. Chances are good that serious photographers already use a monitor calibrator just to insure accuracy anyway.
  14. Chippy99, May 24, 2015
    Last edited: May 24, 2015

    Chippy99 macrumors 6502a

    Apr 28, 2012
    Really it isn't. The uniformity is poor, the gamut is very narrow, it's only 8 bit and the black levels are mediocre to poor. Many people will be happy enough with it, but "great" it is not.
  15. filmbufs macrumors 6502


    Sep 8, 2012
    I'm not trying to argue with you and everyone will experience different results. We have used pro macs and pro monitors in the past and now we're using iMacs with great results. We use a monitor calibrator....well, my wife checks hers regularly while I have done so once.

    Can you find a better monitor system? Probably. Will the iMac work really well for professional photography? Definitely.
  16. ixxx69 macrumors 65816

    Jul 31, 2009
    United States
    Absolutely. I know of plenty of "professional" photographers who are absolutely fine with these displays. If you're proofing for a print magazine or a fine art book, yeah, maybe you need more... but generally speaking, if you don't already know you need something like an Eizo, etc., then you don't need one.

    No offense intended toward Chippy, but those are the kind of replies that tend to confuse things more than help.
  17. Chippy99 macrumors 6502a

    Apr 28, 2012
    I don't disagree with any of that.

    I was merely making the observation that it is not an excellent screen per se and not one that would be particularly appealing to a discerning user on the basis of the screen alone. There's only so much you can fix with a calibrator, especially a software one. It will do nothing for screen uniformity, clouding, banding or several other issues.

    (Of course there's all sorts of reasons why a discerning user would choose an iMac and therefore get the screen that goes with it.)
  18. Chippy99, May 25, 2015
    Last edited: May 25, 2015

    Chippy99 macrumors 6502a

    Apr 28, 2012
    I don't disagree with any of that either. I am a keen photographer myself and I use one!

    But having previously owned Eizo's with 99% Adobe RGB gamut coverage and flawless uniformity, I can't say the Apple screen is excellent.

    And regarding my replies being unhelpful, on the contrary, I think it's very helpful. No-one should be under any illusions (though very many are) that the iMac screen is far from best in class. For the money, it's very good, but it's not excellent on any absolute scale and nor could you expect it to be when you consider a high-end screen will cost more than the entire iMac.
  19. dagamer34 macrumors 65816


    May 1, 2007
    Houston, TX
    Compared to most of the **** peddled in consumer laptops for $400, the iMac's screen is stupendous. But it will fall vs. pro monitors, as it rightfully should. But that's not the concern for 99.9% of the people who will actually buy such a machine.

    For pro work, having a 99% AdobeRGB display like the Dell UP2414Q or UP2715K should handle nearly all "pro" work anyway. Considering the price of an entry-level Mac Pro, the iMac ends up being a better deal for most people anyway.
  20. apolloa macrumors G4


    Oct 21, 2008
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    I bet by the time you've finished your architecture course Apple will be selling nothing BUT retina screens on all their computers, would you still think they are for pro photographer a then?
    No it is not overkill for anyone.
  21. fathergll macrumors 6502a

    Sep 3, 2014

    I think it comes down to the fact that many of the users who were using iMacs in the past(Pro or Amateur photography) will continue to do so with these Retinas(they know what they are getting). I think vast majority of users who were doing color critical work in the past are probably well aware this won't change because the resolution and pixel count is higher on these Retina iMacs. For example if you had a Mac Pro/Eizo monitor before and you were aware that a 2013 iMac wouldn't cut it for critical work then you probably know this will be a similar case with Retina iMacs.

    People get away with less than perfect equipment all the time. Some people would be surprised at some of the computers that were used to edit million dollar movies.

Share This Page