is a base refurb macpro a good editing machine for a pro....

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Cloud9, Nov 17, 2007.

  1. Cloud9 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Location:
    between flesh and thought
    #1
    One of my employers is going to make the switch. I spent 20 mins showing him lightroom on my new macbook pro and he was floored at the speed at which I was able to go through my images. By the time I had shown him a few tricks I do with my workflow he was going to the apple website where I directed him to the refurbed macpros.

    I showed him the base model and promised him it would meet all of his needs. But he was going to go ahead and purchase it right then and there and I stopped him because I wanted to double check with the pros who use this equipment daily. Will the base model do it? I told him he should get atleast 4 gb of ram from crucial or owc. 90% of his work is as a wedding photographer and he shoots around 30+ weddings a year. Now he can spend more, but he not the type to get the biggest machine because they make and he can afford it. He is smart with his money and I just want to advise him correctly.

    Other info, main programs-lightroom, cs3, maybe apreture later on. He shoots raw with a 5d.

    Let me know, he will buy tomorrow.

    Thanks
     
  2. JeffTL macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    #2
    I have an iBook G4/1.33 and it runs Lightroom fine for Nikon D50 raws. I think any Mac Pro would be more than sufficient for that and Photoshop.
     
  3. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #3
    Yep, just got lots of RAM from datamem.com or another 3rd party. I shoot RAW with a 5D and everything works well!
     
  4. seany916 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Location:
    Southern California
    #4
    He might be better off with a fast iMac.

    They're pretty quick and might be a better value if he doesn't need the heavy processing power. The MP will always be faster, but not necessarily needed.
     
  5. irishgrizzly macrumors 65816

    irishgrizzly

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    #5
    I got a new iMac with 2gig ram for design at my work. It's ok, but really I'd get a Pro given the choice. I'm not overly impressed opening large files in Photoshop.
     
  6. hugodrax macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    #6
    Does the iMac have a 5400 laptop drive or a real drive? The problem with iMacs I would see is when your library grows and you need to work with it. Once you get into heavy workloads I would venture the Mac Pro would provide better performance.
     
  7. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #7
    with lots of digital photos, it's going to be a lot easier to have multiple hard drives for backup/archiving purposes. Shooting 5D RAW files for 30 weddings/year is going to require a healthy amount of reliable storage.
     
  8. the Helix macrumors regular

    the Helix

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    #8
    It should work...

    My PB G4 (1.67 - 2 GB RAM) runs Aperture and Capture NX decently. I couldn't imagine why even a base Intel MB Pro couldn't run circles around my set up.
     
  9. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #9
    That's a bit overboard for photo editing. He is not going to see an advantage using 4GB versus 2GB.
     
  10. nateDEEZY macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2007
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #10
    I disagree, I already see good amounts of page out's when running Lightroom and Photoshop CS3 (As well as iChat, iTunes and Safari). I just did a fresh install of leopard, so right now I don't have any plug-ins in CS3. I can imagine it to be worse, when working with multiple images, exporting, and importing.
     
  11. RoadieJodie macrumors member

    RoadieJodie

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    #11

    I agree with this comment, though I'am running a single core processor(P4 HT 3.00Ghz). I have a 2GB kit and it stutters with just Lightroom, Rhapsody, and a few tabs open in IE.

    (Yes, I'm using a PC . . . not by choice, but from lack of funds to buy a decent Mac. I don't think this should be a reason to discount my expierence though.)
     
  12. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #12
    Aperture loves RAM...

    Luckily, you can start with the stock Apple RAM and add 2GB (2x1GB) from datamem for $130. If 2.5GB is too little, add some more in 6 months!
     
  13. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #13
    nope, they use real 3.5" hard drives :)

    although if they were manufacturing 750GB 2.5" HDDs, I'd be all over one in a flash :D
     
  14. Plymouthbreezer macrumors 601

    Plymouthbreezer

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2005
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #14
    That machine should be just fine for his needs.

    My SR MBP with 2GB RAM is just a dream, in comparison to what I was using until just last month (1GHZ iMac G4) as my main editing machine.
     
  15. termina3 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Location:
    TX
    #15
    While I don't process as many photos as your friend, you can see my setup in the sig...

    I'd definitely suggest getting 3-4gb of RAM. In Aperture I'll see too many page outs at times, so go for the extra RAM. Of course, I don't know how resource-hungry Lightroom is…

    I never come close to pushing the processors; he'll be more than fine with the 2x dual 2ghz.

    Invest the money in displays and RAM... that's where photogs need the money (read: that's what I wish I had done)

    Forget the iMac. Its screen is a no-go.
     
  16. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #16
    Hmm... I'm using Aperture and Photoshop CS3 on Leopard, and I'm not seeing the disk swapping you do. I've got 2GB of RAM. Although I've seen a lot of posts where people are complaining about a possible Lightroom memory leak under Leopard (not sure why it'd be just under Leopard, however).

    I have noticed Safari 3 appears to have a memory leak. I switched back to Firefox in Leopard because of it (which is kind of funny since it's not like Firefox is exactly leak-free).

    I have noticed that some Mac users never close any of their programs, though, which can contribute to the impression that one needs buckets o' RAM. :D
     

Share This Page