Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

esphil said:
Agreed, I will probably end up returning my RiMac since the deciding factor was really just the screen. Its not a $2600 difference for me personally to keep it.
Click to expand...

Ditto. I have an excellent Dell 27" IPS display that I put side by side with the retina iMac. I was surprised how good the Dell was. Was the iMac sharper? You bet! $3000 sharper, no. My current specs are a Mac mini i7, 16gb Ram and 750GB SSD. Specs are too close for me to spend the cash. I love eye candy, but for now, my "old" system is too close to the performance of the new iMac. 2-3 years from now will be a good time though.
Great system for those with older specs though. It does look very good!
 
Went to the Apple store to look at the screen before buying one. Good thing, I will not be buying one at this time. My current photo editing setup has two NEC PA271 monitors that are high gamut and calibrated. I have been told that I have very good color discrimination and have been measured at better than 20/20 vision.

Anyway, the color cast across the iMac is unacceptable for photo editing. Using the Squeaked grey bar test for yellowing, there is a definite yellow cast towards the edges of the screen, bleeding in about 3" from the edge. I viewed the screen from multiple angles and hi/lo and it was always present.

My Thunderbolt display shows the same level of color distortion, not as bad as some of the earlier iMacs so it is OK for surfing and reading text. No way either Apple screens could be used for photo editing where the color accuracy is important for getting good prints.

The screen is beautiful for looking at 5K wallpapers, but if I am going to upgrade for thousands of dollars it looks like a Mac Pro and NEC 32" 4K will be the way to go.
 
Just remember that to get this NEC display will cost more than your entire iMac, MSRP is $3,249. No exaggeration to say that a Mac Pro with NEC display that performs as well as the i7 5k iMac will cost a decent amount over TWICE as much money.

Personally, I've worked in print for almost two decades and I stopped using the high-end calibrated monitors a while ago. I found they still required me to do my own in-head conversion to visualize how it would actually print (backlit RGB can never do more than approximate a printed CMYK image), and that I could do the same conversion work from a less-than-perfect monitor after not too many jobs done on it becoming familiar with how the screen image translates. Well, that and really getting to know my Pantone Process Color books ;) And if it's a job big and important enough to need to be absolutely perfect, and something crazy happens where the proof doesn't actually look like I thought it would, then I pay the small fee to do an adjustment and re-submit the files (has happened two times in last five years). That extra $4,000 or so you are spending to get the NEC display would pay for a freaking ton of proper proof prints, which would be more accurate than any display could ever be. Just saying.

And, also, if you do web design work or work headed for the web, a non-calibrated display will give you a far better idea of what your images will look like for the average bear, who just turns it on out of the box with the defaults and never thinks about it again.

On the other hand if your work on this machine is generating $100k in profits every year, then, yeah, spend that money! It's all about cost/benefit and needs of course. Your decision to wait and spend twice as much money is totally valid, and I understand your motivation—I'm more offering my perspective just to provide a different opinion based on my experience.
 
scottomfg said:
Just remember that to get this NEC display will cost more than your entire iMac, MSRP is $3,249. No exaggeration to say that a Mac Pro with NEC display that performs as well as the i7 5k iMac will cost a decent amount over TWICE as much money.

Personally, I've worked in print for almost two decades and I stopped using the high-end calibrated monitors a while ago. I found they still required me to do my own in-head conversion to visualize how it would actually print (backlit RGB can never do more than approximate a printed CMYK image), and that I could do the same conversion work from a less-than-perfect monitor after not too many jobs done on it becoming familiar with how the screen image translates. Well, that and really getting to know my Pantone Process Color books ;) And if it's a job big and important enough to need to be absolutely perfect, and something crazy happens where the proof doesn't actually look like I thought it would, then I pay the small fee to do an adjustment and re-submit the files (has happened two times in last five years). That extra $4,000 or so you are spending to get the NEC display would pay for a freaking ton of proper proof prints, which would be more accurate than any display could ever be. Just saying.

And, also, if you do web design work or work headed for the web, a non-calibrated display will give you a far better idea of what your images will look like for the average bear, who just turns it on out of the box with the defaults and never thinks about it again.

On the other hand if your work on this machine is generating $100k in profits every year, then, yeah, spend that money! It's all about cost/benefit and needs of course. Your decision to wait and spend twice as much money is totally valid, and I understand your motivation—I'm more offering my perspective just to provide a different opinion based on my experience.
Click to expand...

You are one cool dude. That color stuff gives me a big headache if I think about it. Luckily, if I said the word Pantone to a client, they would think I had gone whacko. Huh? Pan whut? So I refrain from saying it :)

Kudos, looks like you have a good work around.
 
Cape Dave said:
You are one cool dude. That color stuff gives me a big headache if I think about it. Luckily, if I said the word Pantone to a client, they would think I had gone whacko. Huh? Pan whut? So I refrain from saying it :)

Kudos, looks like you have a good work around.
Click to expand...

Ha, yeah, headaches abound. I've always felt that the whole high-end color display fidelity issue felt a bit like the audiophile world. Perception rules all, and you really start to wonder how folks would actually fair in some blind testing. Think about it enough and you start not being able to trust your own eyes, and once that happens, forget about it.

All it comes down to is: can you produce prints that look how you want them to look? If so, that's all the matters, it doesn't matter what display you used, only the results in your hand.
 
I think the OP should tell us how old he is and whether he have vision problems or not. I'm still in my 20s and I have 20/20 vision. The difference is noticeable and it's a lot better than the non-retina iMac. I wouldn't say it's night and day as when I went from a non-retina smartphone to the iPhone 4.
 
lsquare said:
I think the OP should tell us how old he is and whether he have vision problems or not. I'm still in my 20s and I have 20/20 vision. The difference is noticeable and it's a lot better than the non-retina iMac. I wouldn't say it's night and day as when I went from a non-retina smartphone to the iPhone 4.
Click to expand...

Never expected this thread to get this long. A few pages back I mentioned the following:

lsquare said:
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
Click to expand...
 
In addition to the screen maybe not being as necessary for every application (or the difference not being that noticeable unless you're pretty close to the screen), given the heat and lag issues, seems like the 2013 iMac is still a good deal.
 
From indication, lag seems to be across multiple systems and suspected to be Yosemite related. I haven't personally experienced lag. And heat 'issues' don't really seem to be issues other than people who want to make it so. I mean, I haven't had any heat issues with my RiMac and people may have concerns but concerns aren't issues.
 
powerslave65 said:
Not even for a second. I bought the same spec MBP with antiglare screen when the rMBP came out and what a great laptop it has been. The coolest part is I have 1.5 TB of SSD storage. Not possible with the rMBP. Not knocking new by any means but there certainly are a few advantages to the late 2013 iMac.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the follow-up ;).
 
fastlanephil said:
You're not your would be the correct word which is technically a spelling error.

Something like "you is " would be a grammatical error.
Click to expand...

You is correct!

I just hate it when people speak for the dead.

Addendum:

Actually, You is Wrong, contractions are grammatical elements.
 
Last edited:
scottomfg said:
Ha, yeah, headaches abound. I've always felt that the whole high-end color display fidelity issue felt a bit like the audiophile world. Perception rules all, and you really start to wonder how folks would actually fair in some blind testing. Think about it enough and you start not being able to trust your own eyes, and once that happens, forget about it.

All it comes down to is: can you produce prints that look how you want them to look? If so, that's all the matters, it doesn't matter what display you used, only the results in your hand.
Click to expand...

I have been saying similar for years and let's face it Apple owners seem more suggestible to things than most normal folk.

I went to my local Apple store yesterday for the sole purpose of checking out the new retina screens. As I suspected I could see the difference when I told myself there was a difference. However, when I had a sensible word with myself the difference was "to me" almost imperceptible.

This is great because it will save me a shed load of money. :D
 
Bryan Bowler said:
Scott,

I agree with the premise of your entire post and am with you my friend. However, I do want to point out (in a fun way) that I have an entire library full of images that I can truly appreciate on a 5K iMac and they were all created with my Canon 5D Mark III, which produces images slightly larger then what the 5K display can show. It's not just the medium camera folks that need this screen! :)

Bryan
Click to expand...

Hey oh yeah totally with you. I wasn't trying to exclude you folk with decent SLR's... I guess it really depends no the lens and how sharp the resolved image turns out to be.

To put another way. If you had a camera that shot photos at exactly the same resolution as the iMac 14.7MP - viewing photos 1:1 wouldn't necessarily mean you see human hairs that are 1 pixel wide (for example). This is due to the fact that the lens always has some degree of blur, and better lenses have less of that blur.

To get that really fine detail, you would need something a bit higher than 14.7MP to get stuff that looks super sharp when viewed at 14.7MP.

Yeah I really struggle to put this into words that make sense ahah sorry.

But yes - definitely your camera would have no problem showcasing the beauty of this screen :)
 
scottomfg said:
Ha, yeah, headaches abound. I've always felt that the whole high-end color display fidelity issue felt a bit like the audiophile world. Perception rules all, and you really start to wonder how folks would actually fair in some blind testing. Think about it enough and you start not being able to trust your own eyes, and once that happens, forget about it.

All it comes down to is: can you produce prints that look how you want them to look? If so, that's all the matters, it doesn't matter what display you used, only the results in your hand.
Click to expand...

Very well spoken. At the end of the day, either it looks good and the client likes it. Or they don't. How it got there becomes inconsequential.

One could "tune" till the cows come home and that would not change things. Except, as you say, to cause disbelief of one's own eyes. Ouch.
 
Just received my new retina 5K and it is absolutely gorgeous. The real difference comes when you view high res pictures. Sure, it's expensive, but coming from my very old previous computer, it was time for a big upgrade.
 
I agree with the OP. The difference isn't HUGE but no reason not to get it if you have the money. The "old" 27" iMac's screen is already pretty darn good.
 
I have read around four detailed reviews on the new 5k display now. The general consensus appears to be that for the professional video or photo editor, or for someone who needs to have their nose inches from the screen that the 5k is worth the extra money.

For most users however they may as well stick with the standard display which is more than adequate, unless you're the sort of person that simply has to have the latest of everything.

I think that's a pretty fair assessment.
 
Lankyman said:
I have read around four detailed reviews on the new 5k display now. The general consensus appears to be that for the professional video or photo editor, or for someone who needs to have their nose inches from the screen that the 5k is worth the extra money.

For most users however they may as well stick with the standard display which is more than adequate, unless you're the sort of person that simply has to have the latest of everything.

I think that's a pretty fair assessment.
Click to expand...

But if quality of screen and available screen real estate isn't an issue (which maybe it isn't for some people), why not save money and go for the 21" iMac? The 27" is better, isn't it? Don't people generally think 4k screens are better too? The 5k is like that, but more so. The quality at 2560 or 3200 horizontally is superb, the real estate available at 3200 or 5120 extremely useful. I spend most of my time not gaming and not doing photos or videos, but in everything the retinal display is exceptional.
 
scottomfg said:
Just remember that to get this NEC display will cost more than your entire iMac, MSRP is $3,249. No exaggeration to say that a Mac Pro with NEC display that performs as well as the i7 5k iMac will cost a decent amount over TWICE as much money.

Personally, I've worked in print for almost two decades and I stopped using the high-end calibrated monitors a while ago. I found they still required me to do my own in-head conversion to visualize how it would actually print (backlit RGB can never do more than approximate a printed CMYK image), and that I could do the same conversion work from a less-than-perfect monitor after not too many jobs done on it becoming familiar with how the screen image translates. Well, that and really getting to know my Pantone Process Color books ;) And if it's a job big and important enough to need to be absolutely perfect, and something crazy happens where the proof doesn't actually look like I thought it would, then I pay the small fee to do an adjustment and re-submit the files (has happened two times in last five years). That extra $4,000 or so you are spending to get the NEC display would pay for a freaking ton of proper proof prints, which would be more accurate than any display could ever be. Just saying.

And, also, if you do web design work or work headed for the web, a non-calibrated display will give you a far better idea of what your images will look like for the average bear, who just turns it on out of the box with the defaults and never thinks about it again.

On the other hand if your work on this machine is generating $100k in profits every year, then, yeah, spend that money! It's all about cost/benefit and needs of course. Your decision to wait and spend twice as much money is totally valid, and I understand your motivation—I'm more offering my perspective just to provide a different opinion based on my experience.
Click to expand...

You don't need a 4k monitor to do colour critical work though do you. A normal 27" Eizo ColorEdge won't set you back anything like that much.
 
tillsbury said:
But if quality of screen and available screen real estate isn't an issue (which maybe it isn't for some people), why not save money and go for the 21" iMac? The 27" is better, isn't it? Don't people generally think 4k screens are better too? The 5k is like that, but more so. The quality at 2560 or 3200 horizontally is superb, the real estate available at 3200 or 5120 extremely useful. I spend most of my time not gaming and not doing photos or videos, but in everything the retinal display is exceptional.
Click to expand...

Well most of the reviewers say that unless you get your nose inches from the screen then you really can't see much difference. That's a pretty hefty premium for little gain to the ordinary user.

I had a look at them on Friday and really struggled to tell one from the other.

P.S. I'm quite happy with my 21.5 screen as it happens.
 
In order to ensure it wasn't just me that is struggling to see much of a difference between ths standard 27 inch and the new 5k retina I took two of my work colleagues into our local Apple Store at lunchtime.

I said absolutely nothing to them about which screen was which or why I had brought them to the store. I made up some excuse about wanting to check about an external HDD.

I just said to them to have a look at the Macs whilst I was looking at the HDD and to tell me what they thought. Neither of my colleagues are techie or Apple fans.
After a couple of minutes I asked them what they thought. Both said they liked what they saw. When I asked them which screen was best neither could see any difference, which is what I suspected they may say.

A number of other customers were actually complaining to a Genius rep that they too couldn't see any difference.
 
I saw one in a store, and retina is definitly worth it. The text is much easier to read, and gives you less eye fatigue on a retina iMac. Even if it isn't that obvious from a distance, the eyes still focus better on the text IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back