Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Well, ask a question and get a mess of disparate opinions, I get it. Can't say I am any closer to understanding what I actually require at this point. But I do know that one parameter is finite and that is my financial wherewithal at present. So I think that the prudent move will probably be to go with the mini w/ 24gb and 1tb and see how it works. With my educational discount it works out to about $1239.00 That is doable and doesn't push the guilt meter too much. If it does not have enough horsepower I can always sell it and reboot later if and when my ship ever comes back in. Thanks again all for the good advice, which is very informative and helpful.
 

Attachments

  • pfa12 (1 of 1) (2).jpg
    pfa12 (1 of 1) (2).jpg
    738.2 KB · Views: 133
Gary from the Macmost channel on ewetube had an interesting blurb which addressed the processing power between the three different processors (M1, M2, M3), versus the chip size (standard, Pro, Max, Ultimate) that is worth reviewing if anyone is upgrading; the advances between chip sizes dwarfs the advances between processor type.
Regarding RAM/storage allocation, others have covered this better than I could, so no comment.

But as I mentioned on another thread, if you do decide to go with a souped-up Mini, compare its price/features to a base-model Studio before hitting "Buy"; the Studio ended up being the better buy, for me. Good luck!
The Macmost video had good comments except he was very wrong on RAM. Recommending 8 GB RAM and instead putting money into SSD capacity is flat bad advice. Very bad advice.

SSD capacity can without too much difficulty be added to externally with inexpensive third party drives, forever. All one has to do is offload capacity from the internal drive to keep it underfilled, forever. OTOH RAM is fixed at purchase and can never be updated.

Buying 8 GB and forcing inefficient swap-to-disk forever is A) slow forever, B) overworks the SSD forever and C) will shorten the life cycle as OS/apps become less tolerant of the RAM limitation imposed by less than enough RAM at purchase.
 
Well, ask a question and get a mess of disparate opinions, I get it. Can't say I am any closer to understanding what I actually require at this point. But I do know that one parameter is finite and that is my financial wherewithal at present. So I think that the prudent move will probably be to go with the mini w/ 24gb and 1tb and see how it works. With my educational discount it works out to about $1239.00 That is doable and doesn't push the guilt meter too much. If it does not have enough horsepower I can always sell it and reboot later if and when my ship ever comes back in. Thanks again all for the good advice, which is very informative and helpful.
Enjoy your new box. It will be a huge improvement!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Azurebird
My experience with PS dates to the 1990s and yes, it is a RAM hog. Why do you think PS built in its own scratch disk? Not a bad thing, because using RAM is a superb way to do work for many reasons.

Sure Mac OS lets folks allows folks like you to do work even when limited by less RAM, but it is significantly less good computer setup/operation.

Your point about short life cycles is totally valid for those folks who plan that way. I have often thought it might make most sense, but personal inertia keeps me on longer life cycles.
Wait your experience is with Photoshop from the 1990s.... so why are you having an opinion on PS in 2023?
You are either being facetious or clueless... since Ps started in 1990.

So my experience is with the latest Adobe software on a mini M2... no assumptions or guesses but actual experience with very extensive files in Ps, Ai and Lr,

This idea of ssd failing and all kinds of problems is more fear mongering than reality... how many ssds in macs actually fail? But also... have backups?!

and just in case you are starting to think I'm a 15yo that has no clue....you don't have to make any assumptions on my experience with Adobe as I worked for Adobe and have used PS from very early on which is why I question this notion of what anyone needs to run it.

This kind of response is exactly what I always wonder about.... are people giving advice on actual experience or just what they think or want.
 
I really appreciate everybody's point of view here. I guess my motto is "don't let the perfect or optimal be the enemy of the good." I don't need the cadillac, just transportation, metaphorically speaking. But I decided to go to the source, Adobe and see what they are actually currently recommending. Minimum 12gb ram Lightroom Classic, 16 gb Photoshop. Interesting. Perhaps 24gb will be sufficient, at least near term.

Screenshot 2023-11-01 10.43.58 PM.png
Screenshot 2023-11-01 10.45.26 PM.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: BotchQue
Gary from the Macmost channel on ewetube had an interesting blurb which addressed the processing power between the three different processors (M1, M2, M3), versus the chip size (standard, Pro, Max, Ultimate) that is worth reviewing if anyone is upgrading; the advances between chip sizes dwarfs the advances between processor type.
Regarding RAM/storage allocation, others have covered this better than I could, so no comment.

But as I mentioned on another thread, if you do decide to go with a souped-up Mini, compare its price/features to a base-model Studio before hitting "Buy"; the Studio ended up being the better buy, for me. Good luck!
22 nikkor lenses? Cool. Could use a spare 14 to 24mm f mount 2.8...
 
  • Like
Reactions: BotchQue
i’m in a very similar situation to you, except I just like to pretend to be a photographer lol.

Based on your post above with the recommendation of 16 gig minimum from adobe site and based on how long you owned your iMac, I’d be going for a 32 gig of ram machine and 512 minimum ssd.

I’ve just bought a studio display to use for my work supplied computer and to try it with my iPad Pro on the basis that I can then buy a Mac mini if I don’t like my iPad Pro.

I’m happy with it so far but coming from the 2014 27 inch iMac I weirdly cant help but miss the all in one design. I’ve only had it 2 days but if I could go back, I think I would purchase a new iMac.
 
Well, ask a question and get a mess of disparate opinions, I get it. Can't say I am any closer to understanding what I actually require at this point. But I do know that one parameter is finite and that is my financial wherewithal at present. So I think that the prudent move will probably be to go with the mini w/ 24gb and 1tb and see how it works. With my educational discount it works out to about $1239.00 That is doable and doesn't push the guilt meter too much. If it does not have enough horsepower I can always sell it and reboot later if and when my ship ever comes back in. Thanks again all for the good advice, which is very informative and helpful.
I think you will be very satisfied going this route. It will be a massive upgrade from your current iMac and be very capable for the next few years at least.

Edit: And a great pic of that peregrine falcon.
 
I have a late 2014 imac and found out recently that I could not update the latest Lightroom update on my machine. I am a heavy Adobe user but primarily a still photographer. My old imac had a 1tb fusion drive and 16gb ram. My external 14 tb drive is nearly full. I have been hitting a lot of beachballs of late on my system. I was recently given a good monitor and am contemplating a mac mini purchase. I don't think I will wait for the M3 (who knows when?) but am debating between M2pro and M2 mac mini. I currently fill my 1tb internal drive so a 516 ssd is out of the question. My question is regarding the relative merits of going to 24 gb ram on the M2 versus the 16 gb M2pro with base core configuration? Or is there another machine in this $1300 - to 1500 range (new imac, mba or mbp) that I can hook up to my new monitor and achieve the same or better results? Thanks so much for your help.

View attachment 2305614
For your needs, any current Mac with 16 GB of ram and 1 TB SSD will be just fine. You could even go with a 512 SSD and an external drive for your photos.

If you can afford it, I would get an M2 Pro MacMini with 32 GB of ram and a 1 TB SSD and still have the photos on an OWC Thunderbay raid drive.
 
m2pro Mini, 16gb of RAM (or 32gb if you want to pay for it).
1tb SSD. Or 2tb, but that's more $$$$.

For a display... 27" 4k. I'd suggest you consider a Dell Ultrasharp, but Dell also has others (non Ultrasharp) that are "pretty close".

BUT

Be aware that the m3pro Mini probably isn't "that far off".
I'm going to GUESS that it may appear in the first quarter of 2024.
Maybe with 3-4 months.
Again, that's just a guess on my part.

Re the 14tb external storage.
Perhaps it's time to start culling all the "old RAWs" from your collection...?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Azurebird
Right now I am working on a photoshop file with around 10.000 layers and on a Illustrator file that is crazy complex.

How can a human manage 10.000 layers in Photoshop escapes me. What kind of job is it? (Sorry for the OT drift).
 
Last edited:
To OP. If money is of concern, have you considered upgrading your iMac, like swapping HDD for SSD and installing larger and faster PCIe SSD drive? Keeping your main drive empty-ish will also help.
I don't know what tools you use in your workflow, but some of the tools might not be Silicon ready or will not be ported to Silicon at all. Display calibration software comes to mind, for example.
 
just curious, you seem to take some great photos. Why wouldn't you buy say a macstudio and set up a nas. Then if you set up a website to sell pics maybe it will pay itself off or be a tax write off?. just curious as i would have thought your post shot workflow would be just as important as a lens or two?. is also a safe bet that programs and image file sizes would continue to bloat in the future. Saying this I'm not a photographer, just curious from a photographer tool point of view.
 
Very nice pic. Dealing with images, and especially with Adobe, you need RAM. Moving forward the 24 GB will be limiting; 16 GB should not be considered. IMO you want the 32 GB RAM Pro Mini if a 64 GB RAM Studio is out of your price range.
Ok ok ok. I'm also a photographer; I was using a 2006 MacPro until about Spring 2020, when it was clear the machine was no longer practical (I was having to use a Windows PC to convert camera RAW to dng files, as my Mac just couldn't do it). The OS was too old to accept Lr updates, etc. So I bought a 2012 MacMini as a 'stopgap', as the rumoured M.x machines still hadn't appeared. This at least allowed the latest OS at the time (Catalina), and allowed for an up to date Lr version, which meant I could import images directly from my camera. The MacMini had 16Gb RAM. I then finally bought a 2021 M1 iMac in August that year, with 16Gb memory.

Now. Lr is a memory hog, I find, and the worst app for sucking up that lovely unified memory. However, as I'm not the kind of person to try to run umpteen apps simultaneously, or have 500+ browser tabs going, this is never an issue. I tend to work on one thing at a time, then move onto the next task. But unless you're the kind of person to want to run Lr, Ps, Ai, render video FX and process multi-layered audio at the same time, then 16GB is plenty. I actually know two other people who run Lr on 8Gb machines, so it can be done with less.

I will caveat this by saying that my image files are 24Mp, so between 35-50Mb each. If you are dealing with much higher Mp files, then more RAM might be advisable, I don't know. Lr deals with my camera files quickly and without fuss. I can also do stuff like photo-merging focus stacked (macro) images in Ps, so many tens, hundreds of separate full-sized images at once. And the odd bit of 4k video, some fairly basic audio with a few layers, stuff like that. My iMac is perfect for me, anyway, and way more capable than the machine it replaced.

As I stated I run Photoshop, Illustrator and Lightroom all at the same time without any issues on a mini M2 16GB/512GB (and often Acrobat as well as 2 browsers with many tabs). I only have 270GB of the 512 used as I have all catalogs/databases for applications on external ssd and hdds. My external ssd is as fast as my internal one and so there is zero loss in speed when working on/with files.

You see? Experience beats theory every time, for me.

As for storage; 14Tb is a LOT; I'm only on about 5Tb for 23 years of Mac ownership (only been doing photography seriously for like the last 10 though), although I'm not a 'machine gunner'. My files are stored on multiple HDDs in various enclosures/NAS type things in various locations, and I use a G-Raid Thunderbolt 3 Raid 0 drive for immediate storage. This isn't as quick as I'd like, though, so I want to get a 2Tb or so SSD for 'current projects'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Azurebird and meson
To OP. If money is of concern, have you considered upgrading your iMac, like swapping HDD for SSD and installing larger and faster PCIe SSD drive? Keeping your main drive empty-ish will also help.
I don't know what tools you use in your workflow, but some of the tools might not be Silicon ready or will not be ported to Silicon at all. Display calibration software comes to mind, for example.
I appreciate your question. I think it is more of a software issue than a hardware issue, if lightroom had upgraded I probably would just continue to plod along.
 
  • Like
Reactions: picpicmac
just curious, you seem to take some great photos. Why wouldn't you buy say a macstudio and set up a nas. Then if you set up a website to sell pics maybe it will pay itself off or be a tax write off?. just curious as i would have thought your post shot workflow would be just as important as a lens or two?. is also a safe bet that programs and image file sizes would continue to bloat in the future. Saying this I'm not a photographer, just curious from a photographer tool point of view.
I own an art gallery and business that keeps me busy and traveling around the country. Photography is my passion but selling photographs not my prime directive. I had a show of my bird photographs open this past Saturday at Fallbrook Library. With cost of paper and ink I rarely even recoup my expenses, not to mention time as I am a meticulous printer. I have shown my work at many exhibitions the past thirty years but people rarely buy the work of living photographers at a price point where it makes any financial sense.
 

Attachments

  • sdddddtvxddxccgcddvfxxzxzdvvh dxhhc (1).jpg
    sdddddtvxddxccgcddvfxxzxzdvvh dxhhc (1).jpg
    43.1 KB · Views: 46
  • Like
Reactions: picpicmac
Ok ok ok. I'm also a photographer; I was using a 2006 MacPro until about Spring 2020, when it was clear the machine was no longer practical (I was having to use a Windows PC to convert camera RAW to dng files, as my Mac just couldn't do it). The OS was too old to accept Lr updates, etc. So I bought a 2012 MacMini as a 'stopgap', as the rumoured M.x machines still hadn't appeared. This at least allowed the latest OS at the time (Catalina), and allowed for an up to date Lr version, which meant I could import images directly from my camera. The MacMini had 16Gb RAM. I then finally bought a 2021 M1 iMac in August that year, with 16Gb memory.

Now. Lr is a memory hog, I find, and the worst app for sucking up that lovely unified memory. However, as I'm not the kind of person to try to run umpteen apps simultaneously, or have 500+ browser tabs going, this is never an issue. I tend to work on one thing at a time, then move onto the next task. But unless you're the kind of person to want to run Lr, Ps, Ai, render video FX and process multi-layered audio at the same time, then 16GB is plenty. I actually know two other people who run Lr on 8Gb machines, so it can be done with less.

I will caveat this by saying that my image files are 24Mp, so between 35-50Mb each. If you are dealing with much higher Mp files, then more RAM might be advisable, I don't know. Lr deals with my camera files quickly and without fuss. I can also do stuff like photo-merging focus stacked (macro) images in Ps, so many tens, hundreds of separate full-sized images at once. And the odd bit of 4k video, some fairly basic audio with a few layers, stuff like that. My iMac is perfect for me, anyway, and way more capable than the machine it replaced.



You see? Experience beats theory every time, for me.

As for storage; 14Tb is a LOT; I'm only on about 5Tb for 23 years of Mac ownership (only been doing photography seriously for like the last 10 though), although I'm not a 'machine gunner'. My files are stored on multiple HDDs in various enclosures/NAS type things in various locations, and I use a G-Raid Thunderbolt 3 Raid 0 drive for immediate storage. This isn't as quick as I'd like, though, so I want to get a 2Tb or so SSD for 'current projects'.
I shoot a D850, which has large files and have been known to "spray and pray." My hard drive is certainly ripe for a cull but having said that, there are many times I look back and find something wonderful that I have missed. Having watched the last art is fine video I think 32 is going to be mandatory for me in the future as I tend to keep my equipment a long time. Thanks for your input.
 
  • Like
Reactions: picpicmac
I appreciate your question. I think it is more of a software issue than a hardware issue, if lightroom had upgraded I probably would just continue to plod along.

What's wrong with version of Lr you were using until now? Doesn't have enough bells and whistles? Latest version now walks owner's dog? :D I mean, what is the show stopper?
 
Last edited:
To OP. If money is of concern, have you considered upgrading your iMac, like swapping HDD for SSD and installing larger and faster PCIe SSD drive? Keeping your main drive empty-ish will also help.
I don't know what tools you use in your workflow, but some of the tools might not be Silicon ready or will not be ported to Silicon at all. Display calibration software comes to mind, for example.
No one should be using a HDD as a boot drive. Ever.
 
What's wrong with version of Lr you were using until now? Doesn't have enough bells and whistles? Latest version now walks owner's dog? :D I mean, what is the show stopper?
Apps like LR are essential production apps in many folks' workflows. With income producing workflows one needs to look forward at what is happening with key apps and stay generally current. Otherwise A) the competition will be using better tools, never a good thing. B) The older version one is using may hiccup with newer apps/OS around it. C) One may be embarrassed with clients if they (art directors especially) have become accustomed to seeing what the newer app versions are capable of providing. D) Staying current usually also means faster, and faster does some weird brain interaction that literally improves one's creativity.

No need to ride the bleeding edge necessarily, but it makes sense not to get very far behind.
 
I shoot a D850, which has large files and have been known to "spray and pray." My hard drive is certainly ripe for a cull but having said that, there are many times I look back and find something wonderful that I have missed. Having watched the last art is fine video I think 32 is going to be mandatory for me in the future as I tend to keep my equipment a long time. Thanks for your input.
The D850 files can be double the size of mine, but I shouldn't think you'd have any problems with just 16Gb; I can have Ps files into the GBs and still no issues. My old Mac Pro had 32Gb RAM, and tbh was perfectly capable of processing the files; it coped fine with my D600 files which were the same size, so it was just a software issue with Lr recognising the files from the new cam. Very annoying. Personally, I wouldn't get too hung up on memory, but that's your call. Sound more like to me that the limiting factor is your fusion drive; they do tend to get slow as they age, more so than a normal HDD, so replacing that might actually give your current Mac a little more life, whilst you perhaps save for a 'better' machine. My Mac Pro ran off a SSD for the boot drive, and in that respect was very quick; normal day to day functions were as fast as most current machines tbh. Bear in mind that the unified memory on M.x Macs is a lot more efficient than the older type, and Apple claims that 8Gb UM is equivalent to 16Gb RAM, but in real world use, I found my iMac with 16Gb UM is way, way faster and can handle a lot more stuff all at once, than my 2012 MacMini with 16Gb RAM. The ancient Mac Pro was faster overall than the MacMini, and that's 6 years older still. I do know that I can have Lr,Ps and Pr open on my iMac, and still play No Man's Sky at quite high settings and although the fans do come on, it doesn't complain. So perhaps something to bear in mind if you're on a tight budget. I find listening to others too much can cost you more money than you really need to spend...
 
Apps like LR are essential production apps in many folks' workflows. With income producing workflows one needs to look forward at what is happening with key apps and stay generally current. Otherwise A) the competition will be using better tools, never a good thing. B) The older version one is using may hiccup with newer apps/OS around it. C) One may be embarrassed with clients if they (art directors especially) have become accustomed to seeing what the newer app versions are capable of providing. D) Staying current usually also means faster, and faster does some weird brain interaction that literally improves one's creativity.

No need to ride the bleeding edge necessarily, but it makes sense not to get very far behind.
I've known some top-notch design/ad agencies that use some fairly ancient equipment; if it ain't broke... What they value over the latest and shiniest, is stuff that works, that people know how to use to get great results. I've found most such professionals tend to prefer getting to know a piece of software inside out, which can take years, rather than constantly updating which can bring UI changes and things being displaced. I passed a music studio recently that is still using G4 Mac towers....

It's not how new the tool is; it's how well you use it that really counts.
 
I've known some top-notch design/ad agencies that use some fairly ancient equipment; if it ain't broke...
<snip>
It's not how new the tool is; it's how well you use it that really counts.

Yes and yes :)
Besides, OP stated that it is his hobby and not something that generates income.

(I happen to know a thing or two about art directors, shooting for glossy fashion magazines, manufacturers of consumer goods and that sort of things, but I'll leave it out here.. ;) )
 
I have a late 2014 imac and found out recently that I could not update the latest Lightroom update on my machine. I am a heavy Adobe user but primarily a still photographer. My old imac had a 1tb fusion drive and 16gb ram. My external 14 tb drive is nearly full. I have been hitting a lot of beachballs of late on my system. I was recently given a good monitor and am contemplating a mac mini purchase. I don't think I will wait for the M3 (who knows when?) but am debating between M2pro and M2 mac mini.
I had a 2014 i5 iMac 5K (with 32GB of RAM) up until I replaced it with an M1 iMac. Mine was beachballing horriblly by the time I got rid of it. The Fusion Drive died -- which yours probably will too if you keep running it -- and even when I replaced it with an SSD, it was still kind of slow. The M1 iMac felt so much faster and is dead silent.

I think either fo the machines you mention will blow through your work easily, though getting a more capable machine will buy you more time on the back end to keep running it for longer before your next upgrade.
 
Ok ok ok. I'm also a photographer; I was using a 2006 MacPro until about Spring 2020, when it was clear the machine was no longer practical (I was having to use a Windows PC to convert camera RAW to dng files, as my Mac just couldn't do it). The OS was too old to accept Lr updates, etc. So I bought a 2012 MacMini as a 'stopgap', as the rumoured M.x machines still hadn't appeared. This at least allowed the latest OS at the time (Catalina), and allowed for an up to date Lr version, which meant I could import images directly from my camera. The MacMini had 16Gb RAM. I then finally bought a 2021 M1 iMac in August that year, with 16Gb memory.

Now. Lr is a memory hog, I find, and the worst app for sucking up that lovely unified memory. However, as I'm not the kind of person to try to run umpteen apps simultaneously, or have 500+ browser tabs going, this is never an issue. I tend to work on one thing at a time, then move onto the next task. But unless you're the kind of person to want to run Lr, Ps, Ai, render video FX and process multi-layered audio at the same time, then 16GB is plenty. I actually know two other people who run Lr on 8Gb machines, so it can be done with less.

I will caveat this by saying that my image files are 24Mp, so between 35-50Mb each. If you are dealing with much higher Mp files, then more RAM might be advisable, I don't know. Lr deals with my camera files quickly and without fuss. I can also do stuff like photo-merging focus stacked (macro) images in Ps, so many tens, hundreds of separate full-sized images at once. And the odd bit of 4k video, some fairly basic audio with a few layers, stuff like that. My iMac is perfect for me, anyway, and way more capable than the machine it replaced.



You see? Experience beats theory every time, for me.

As for storage; 14Tb is a LOT; I'm only on about 5Tb for 23 years of Mac ownership (only been doing photography seriously for like the last 10 though), although I'm not a 'machine gunner'. My files are stored on multiple HDDs in various enclosures/NAS type things in various locations, and I use a G-Raid Thunderbolt 3 Raid 0 drive for immediate storage. This isn't as quick as I'd like, though, so I want to get a 2Tb or so SSD for 'current projects'.
You say "You see? Experience beats theory every time, for me."

My comments are only from experience, doing commercial photography for decades (D2x, D3, D500, D850) using multiple different Macs over those decades.

Based on my experience, buying just 16 Gb RAM in a new 2023 box for any images workflow is flat wrong. 16 GB RAM will be limiting during the life cycle of a new box, perhaps immediately. Due to the good Mac OS memory management the RAM-caused limiting may not be immediately obvious to the user, but that does not mean that it makes sense to intentionally force-limit an expensive box to less than optimum performance at any point in its life cycle.

The car analogy would be: like putting crap tires on a Ferrari.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.