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

[Cloud9]

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

 

[JeffTL]

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.

 

[Grimace]

Yep, just got lots of RAM from datamem.com or another 3rd party. I shoot RAW with a 5D and everything works well!

 

[seany916]

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.

 

[irishgrizzly]

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.

 

[hugodrax]

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.

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.

 

[Grimace]

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.

 

[the Helix]

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.

 

[Westside guy]

I told him he should get atleast 4 gb of ram from crucial or owc.

That's a bit overboard for photo editing. He is not going to see an advantage using 4GB versus 2GB.

 

[nateDEEZY]

That's a bit overboard for photo editing. He is not going to see an advantage using 4GB versus 2GB.

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.

 

[RoadieJodie]

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.

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.)

 

[Grimace]

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!

 

[Scarlet Fever]

Does the iMac have a 5400 laptop drive or a real drive?

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

 

[Plymouthbreezer]

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.

 

[termina3]

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.

 

[Westside guy]

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.

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.