Retina iMac make sure you view it in person before buying!

[iSayuSay]

It's all depend on your computer need and budget. When you're looking at something between $1500 then yes retina iMac is something you have to think about and consider many times.

But if you're planning to go beyond $2000 to buy an iMac (high end 27" with all the bell and whistle upgrades) then really, why even consider non retina at all? It's only cost a bit more and it already comes with the best display in the world today.

 

[5iMacs]

If your sitting close enough to a 27" screen to see the a "massive" difference then you are probably sitting way to close to it.

Bingo. I'm sitting about 16" from my 5k iMac screen right now so I can fill it with lots of small, extremely legible text that would look like a fuzzy screen door with pixels that were 4x the size.

 

[mystikjoe]

my thoughts

spent about 20 minutes on a new 5k at best buy and i must say i'm really glad i took the plunge to get the new one. looked at some 5k images, and 4k youtube and netflix and must say that i was amazed. i am upgrading from a 2010 iMac i7 2.8 with an sad upgrade and my only question now is what to do with the old one? the difference to me was night and day as they had it set up next to a non retina iMac. Thursday can't come soon enough cause i'm dying to hook up my new iMac!

 

[bwsteg]

spent about 20 minutes on a new 5k at best buy and i must say i'm really glad i took the plunge to get the new one. looked at some 5k images, and 4k youtube and netflix and must say that i was amazed. i am upgrading from a 2010 iMac i7 2.8 with an sad upgrade and my only question now is what to do with the old one? the difference to me was night and day as they had it set up next to a non retina iMac. Thursday can't come soon enough cause i'm dying to hook up my new iMac!

What 4k Netflix did you see on the iMac? From what I know, 4k content on Netflix is only available by either built in app on 4k tv or 4k media player.

 

[Ray2]

My feelings as well. If you're going from a 1920 iMac (mine) its very noticeable. If you're going from a 2560 display (my son's), other than fonts, I could not see a difference, even looking closely.

Nice machine for what I view a a good price. But I wouldn't buy it just for the display.

 

[shokunin]

The difference may not seem big at first. After using the Retina iMac and going back to my '12 27" iMac, oh my, why's everything blurry?. It's amazing how quickly your eyes adapt to sharpness.

I don't recall the iMac being that blurry, in fact when I had them side by side doing migration assistant I wasn't hugely blown away by the Retina, but once you adjust it's a huge difference.

 

[UncleGuido]

I've seen several comments from people who viewed Retina iMacs and non-Retina iMacs side-by-side and did not notice significant differences. There are two things to bear in mind in such tests.

First, if you are looking at images, you need to use a "Retina Aware" application, like recent versions of Photoshop or GraphicConverter. If using a web browser, there may be no advantage to the Retina display's rendering of images. A web page must contain special code to render images in a higher than normal resolution. The page must have code to programmatically detect the resolution capability of the display, or there must be a UI control that lets the user set the high resolution mode. Very few web sites currently do either. In the absence of such special code, the browser will assume that you are using a non-Retina display, and draw the image accordingly. This means, that on a Retina display, it will be pixel doubled. That's a good thing, actually. If it did not happen, the browser might draw images with height and width at half the appropriate sizes, and there would be a lot of empty space.

I created a page to demo the Retina display for a friend:

http://julian.marmotandweasel.com/photos/retina_demo.html

There are two versions of the same image. The upper one is optimized for Retina, and the bottom one for a non-Retina display. On a non-Retina screen the upper one will actually look slightly worse than the bottom one. On a Retina screen, the upper one should appear sharper.

You are welcome to look at the simple HTML for this page to see how it works. Feel free to copy the code and test it on your own images. But I ask that you not steal my shots.

The second thing to bear in mind is that the difference between Retina and non-Retina screens may be subtle. If you are more than a couple of feet away, your eyes may not be able to resolve pixels on either screen type, and you may not see a difference.

For more samples of Retina images on the web, visit Lloyd Chambers' blog:

http://diglloyd.com/index.html

I think his site tries to automatically detect Retina displays. Look at the indicator at the upper right corner of the entry page, next to the login button. He has a couple of toggled demos (Retina vs non-Retina) on this page:

http://diglloyd.com/retinapref.html

 

[tillsbury]

I've seen several comments from people who viewed Retina iMacs and non-Retina iMacs side-by-side and did not notice significant differences. There are two things to bear in mind in such tests.

First, if you are looking at images, you need to use a "Retina Aware" application, like recent versions of Photoshop or GraphicConverter. If using a web browser, there may be no advantage to the Retina display's rendering of images. A web page must contain special code to render images in a higher than normal resolution. The page must have code to programmatically detect the resolution capability of the display, or there must be a UI control that lets the user set the high resolution mode. Very few web sites currently do either. In the absence of such special code, the browser will assume that you are using a non-Retina display, and draw the image accordingly. This means, that on a Retina display, it will be pixel doubled. That's a good thing, actually. If it did not happen, the browser might draw images with height and width at half the appropriate sizes, and there would be a lot of empty space.

I created a page to demo the Retina display for a friend:

http://julian.marmotandweasel.com/photos/retina_demo.html

There are two versions of the same image. The upper one is optimized for Retina, and the bottom one for a non-Retina display. On a non-Retina screen the upper one will actually look slightly worse than the bottom one. On a Retina screen, the upper one should appear sharper.

You are welcome to look at the simple HTML for this page to see how it works. Feel free to copy the code and test it on your own images. But I ask that you not steal my shots.

The second thing to bear in mind is that the difference between Retina and non-Retina screens may be subtle. If you are more than a couple of feet away, your eyes may not be able to resolve pixels on either screen type, and you may not see a difference.

For more samples of Retina images on the web, visit Lloyd Chambers' blog:

http://diglloyd.com/index.html

I think his site tries to automatically detect Retina displays. Look at the indicator at the upper right corner of the entry page, next to the login button. He has a couple of toggled demos (Retina vs non-Retina) on this page:

http://diglloyd.com/retinapref.html

That's a good demonstration of how poor retina images show up on non-retina displays. You should never serve a retina image without asking, always use the java routine that detects and reloads (first time in) and sets a session variable, then serve the appropriate image according to need.

Retina images on non-retina screens are not downsampled as well as you can on Photoshop or whatever, although I've found Firefox substantially better at this than some browsers.

 

[Solomani]

I don't see how you can not see the difference. It's like night and day. Are you sure you were looking at the right monitor in the correct store? How was the riMac set up? Best for display or in a scaled resolution? Somebody could have been playing around with it before you.

Maybe you have that special power called RetinaVision. I remember that in Dungeons & Dragons, the gnomes and dwarves had that ability too!

Oh wait…. umm…. that was Infravision!

 

[Roman2K~]

He has a couple of toggled demos (Retina vs non-Retina) on this page:
http://diglloyd.com/retinapref.html

Nice A/B test, thanks! The difference is clear cut, I love it. An example of (mostly) Retina-optimised site is SoundCloud (logo, covers, profile pictures, some controls). The first time I saw the miniature super sharp profile pictures, I was blown away. You can tell from a distance.

I have a rMBP at work and a 21.5" iMac at home which I bought about a year ago. I wanted a desktop and thought I could adjust back down to non-Retina. Well... I can't huh huh no way and it's not for lack of trying. Never could settle to do anything involving looking at text for longer periods of time, always drifting toward more forgiving content like videos. Next year I'll be working at home so the iMac 5K is *very* welcome! €3.3K my eyes will thank me for all day, every day like they did very much so to this day when I mustered the courage to buy a rMBP at launch.

 

[The Samurai]

I've seen several comments from people who viewed Retina iMacs and non-Retina iMacs side-by-side and did not notice significant differences. There are two things to bear in mind in such tests.

As Steve would say... "your looking at it the wrong way"

 

[petvas]

After a day using my new iMac, I can say that text looks amazing. Going back to a non retina computer is not possible anymore..
The new Retina iMac makes me think that all non retina screens are fuzzy and broken somehow..

 

[octothorpe8]

Checked out a retina iMac earlier -- the Helvetica in Yosemite finally makes sense in that context. It looks gorgeous as did everything else on screen.
(Helvetica still looks crappy on non-retina displays, in my opinion)

 

[PhoneI]

In apple store yesterday picking up my new iPhone and had a chance to see the new iMac. I had to use all of my inner strength not to pull out the credit card and impulse buy the retina iMac. I was far more impressed with the screen then I thought I would be. Don't know how people can claim they dont see a difference.

 

[qunit]

In apple store yesterday picking up my new iPhone and had a chance to see the new iMac. I had to use all of my inner strength not to pull out the credit card and impulse buy the retina iMac. I was far more impressed with the screen then I thought I would be. Don't know how people can claim they dont see a difference.

I (topic starter) never said that I didn't see a difference. I just expected a bigger difference between the original and the retina screen.
After all the comments I did pay a visit to an optician it turns out my eyes do play a role in this, I'm a bit far-sighted (Over 40 years old, hate to say it but it's time to get me some glasses ) which in part explains why I didn't see a big difference.

Ordered the Retina i7, 295X with 512SSD anyway

 

[powerslave65]

It's a beautiful display. No question it is the most amazing iMac screen ever. Zooming into 18 meg raw photos is stunning.
However I have 3 projects that start now and I opted for a loaded late 2013 for 2499.00 from B&H. The only thing I added was the ram for 136.00

Total 2635.00

The 5k costs 3149.00 plus tax that makes it 3408.00 equally configured.
Then 136.00 for the ram and I would be up to 3544.00 and I would have to switch to the new machine mid project 10 days from now.

$909.00 and a 10 day wait is too much for me right now.

5k Next time!

 

[tillsbury]

I (topic starter) never said that I didn't see a difference. I just expected a bigger difference between the original and the retina screen.
After all the comments I did pay a visit to an optician it turns out my eyes do play a role in this, I'm a bit far-sighted (Over 40 years old, hate to say it but it's time to get me some glasses ) which in part explains why I didn't see a big difference.

Ordered the Retina i7, 295X with 512SSD anyway

I went to the opticians last week. Ordered a new pair of glasses purely for the iMac, which give fantastic clarity at exactly 20" from my eyes. Rubbish for nearer or far distance work, but these are no-compromise ones for computer use. My usual glasses aren't good enough at that distance and leaning forwards isn't good for my back. At the moment I lean forward and view computers without glasses.

 

[JustMartin]

ITT people try and justify their non retina iMacs. Sad.

Actually reading through the replies, the feeling I'm getting is that people are justifying their retina iMacs by either trumpeting their own perfect eyesight or making derogatory comments about other people's.

I saw the two Macs side by side in a store at the airport on Sunday. I didn't have time to do much more than glance, but I was underwhelmed by the difference as well.

 

[Chippy99]

For more samples of Retina images on the web, visit Lloyd Chambers' blog:

http://diglloyd.com/index.html

I think his site tries to automatically detect Retina displays. Look at the indicator at the upper right corner of the entry page, next to the login button. He has a couple of toggled demos (Retina vs non-Retina) on this page:

http://diglloyd.com/retinapref.html

VERY UNFORTUNATELY, the above site has processed the files and changed their tone curves, black level and other parameters, so the images are NOT the same but at different resolutions!

So no conclusions can be drawn from these, which is a shame. It begs the question why they felt the need to cheat? But whatever the reason, the images are not fair comparisons. If you download the versions and compare them, you can see the different tone curves quite easily.

 

[SoonerFan303]

Actually reading through the replies, the feeling I'm getting is that people are justifying their retina iMacs by either trumpeting their own perfect eyesight or making derogatory comments about other people's.

I saw the two Macs side by side in a store at the airport on Sunday. I didn't have time to do much more than glance, but I was underwhelmed by the difference as well.

The retina iMac is absolutely incredible. No justification required. After using it for a day no way can I go back to the other. I went over to my old iMac (2009) to copy some files over to the new iMac and I was amazed at how terrible it looked.

I cannot say enough how much I love this new computer.

 

[adww12321]

The retina iMac is absolutely incredible. No justification required. After using it for a day no way can I go back to the other. I went over to my old iMac (2009) to copy some files over to the new iMac and I was amazed at how terrible it looked.

I cannot say enough how much I love this new computer.

I cannot agree more -- the display is really remarkable.

In reviews people keep talking about how it is useful for a "niche market" of photographers/graphic artists, but they are missing the point totally --

The UI is so much clearer and cleaner on this display vs. any i've ever seen that mundane tasks are much easier to perform (web surfing, word processing, etc...) You can read text elements at a size that would have been a blurry mess on other displays.

Particularly if you have poor vision or suffer from eye strain, this display is like night-and-day, even against the best 2560x1440 monitors that are available.

Going back to a regular Cinema Display after a couple of work days with the 5K is jarring and awful. So yes, this display is expensive, but if you work on the computer all day, every day, it is worth every penny.

 

[Seramir]

I cannot agree more -- the display is really remarkable.

In reviews people keep talking about how it is useful for a "niche market" of photographers/graphic artists, but they are missing the point totally --

The UI is so much clearer and cleaner on this display vs. any i've ever seen that mundane tasks are much easier to perform (web surfing, word processing, etc...) You can read text elements at a size that would have been a blurry mess on other displays.

Particularly if you have poor vision or suffer from eye strain, this display is like night-and-day, even against the best 2560x1440 monitors that are available.

Going back to a regular Cinema Display after a couple of work days with the 5K is jarring and awful. So yes, this display is expensive, but if you work on the computer all day, every day, it is worth every penny.

You forget that the web isn't exactly optimized for Retina displays yet. So even if text is clearer, there are plenty of instances in which you will run into blurry, blown-up photos that looks worse than on a non-Retina display.

And I agree that the difference between Retina and regular is not that significant (I have perfect vision BTW ).

 

[leenak]

Even if there is just a 1% difference in the screen, if you are looking for an iMac, there are few reasons to go with the 2013 model especially if you go beyond the base model.

 

[Seramir]

Even if there is just a 1% difference in the screen, if you are looking for an iMac, there are few reasons to go with the 2013 model especially if you go beyond the base model.

Actually, there are plenty of good reasons to go with the 2013 iMac, excluding the screen difference:

* Less noise from fans as they do not need to run more at high speeds
* Less heat (GPU temps do not go into the 90-100C+ range)
* Consistent web browsing experience (because the web isn't fully optimized for Retina displays yet)
* Gaming at 1440p (which is the ideal resolution to game on) produces a sharper and less pixelated image (the iMac Retina's 1440p non-HiDPI resolution looks pixelated and blurry in comparison)
* Costs over $300 less than a similarly equipped Retina version (you can find refurbished 2013 models for even cheaper at Apple)
* You're not buying into bleeding edge technology

But of course there are probably as many reasons to get the Retina instead. Just depends on your budget and what you'll be doing with your computer.

 

[leenak]

Actually, there are plenty of good reasons to go with the 2013 iMac, excluding the screen difference:

* Less noise from fans as they do not need to constantly run or at a high speed
* Less heat (GPU temps do not go into the 90-100C range)
* Consistent web browsing experience (because the web isn't fully optimized for Retina displays yet)
* Gaming at 1440p (which is the ideal resolution to game on) produces a sharper and less pixelated image (the iMac Retina's 1440p non-HiDPI resolution looks pixelated and blurry in comparison)
* Costs over $300 less than a similarly equipped Retina version (you can find refurbished 2013 models for even cheaper at Apple)
* You're not buying into bleeding edge technology

I haven't had any problem with fan noise personally
I haven't measured the heat but I've felt for heat while running graphically intense activities and it felt cool to me
I haven't seen any websites that look off as of yet?
I've tried gaming at different resolutions and it didn't look pixelated/blurry but I have only tried a few games
For $300 (depending on configs), you get a faster processor and a nicer screen

And yes, you aren't buying bleeding edge technology which if you are cautious, nothing wrong with with the '13 model. I said there were few reasons not to get the Retina.