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

What should I get: Mini/color critical photo/video editing system?

J

Jaze

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 5, 2001
56
2
My iMac 2007 is slowly dying, and that's a good thing. Right now I'm running Lightroom 4 on it, with its pathetic 2GB of RAM. I have become pretty serious about photography, and upgraded to a Canon 5D MkIII camera; I also intend to start shooting, color correcting and editing (Adobe Premier) HD video. Other than working in LR4 and Photoshop, I use my desktop for going online, and for running iTunes on; I figure the imaging stuff is the most demanding stuff I'll be doing.

I've decided I don't want to wait for the new iMacs - I don't want to be a guinea pig for a new design, and I'm worried about heating issues, and how the monitor will look. I think the time has come for me to take the plunge. Based on another thread, for a monitor I'm looking at the NEC PA271W monitor. How should I configure my Mini? Just get the higher end one and max out all the upgrades? I get the feeling from some of the threads here that what I want to do with it is not all THAT demanding, and that older Minis could've handled it fine. What's worth it (other than the upgrade to 16GB of RAM, which seems a no-brainer) in terms of upgrades for what I want to do? I'd been thinking I'd be spending about $3000 on an enhanced iMac, so with $1000 for the monitor, I have some room with the Mini. Not that I WANT to spend all $3000...

Thanks in advance.
 
I'm working in design/animation and considering the same set up as you, now have to make the decision between the 5400 or SSD HD.
 
Thanks.

I'm thinking that maybe I should see how the iMac screens are before I go the Mini route. It sounds like the iMac will have a lot more in terms of processing power. I'm just wary about those screens, and the thought of a good monitor that has proven itself was what was leading me towards the Mini.

Watched a video on how to install RAM in the Mini - yeah, I could do that! Thanks for suggesting it.

I'm also waiting to see what the word on these Fusion drives is.

Thanks for all the input!
 
Jaze said:
Thanks.

I'm thinking that maybe I should see how the iMac screens are before I go the Mini route. It sounds like the iMac will have a lot more in terms of processing power. I'm just wary about those screens, and the thought of a good monitor that has proven itself was what was leading me towards the Mini.

Watched a video on how to install RAM in the Mini - yeah, I could do that! Thanks for suggesting it.

I'm also waiting to see what the word on these Fusion drives is.

Thanks for all the input!
Click to expand...

The iMac does NOT have more processing power than the quad-core Minis, they only have more graphics power.
 
Poki said:
The iMac does NOT have more processing power than the quad-core Minis, they only have more graphics power.
Click to expand...

The iMacs are configurable up to 3.4Ghz i7 versus the Mini 2.6Ghz. (I'm wondering if "i5" is a typo for the iMacs, but the configurable option clearly says i7) Still, I believe I've decided on the Mini because I've been waiting a year and can't wait an additional 2 months.

And next summer I'll get the finally upgraded Mac Pro. So the Mini will hold me out until then.

I use my Mac for the same purposes as the OP intends.
 
Forgive this utter n00b question: but if I'm going to be editing photographs and video, don't I need graphics power? Or is that more for things like high frame rate games?
 
rawdawg said:
The iMacs are configurable up to 3.4Ghz i7 versus the Mini 2.6Ghz. (I'm wondering if "i5" is a typo for the iMacs, but the configurable option clearly says i7) Still, I believe I've decided on the Mini because I've been waiting a year and can't wait an additional 2 months.
Click to expand...

Yep, the 3,4 GHz i7 is faster, but all the i5's which are standard (without paying a premium) are not much faster than the 2,3 GHz i7 in the Mini, and probably slower than the 2,6 GHz one.
 
I have the same question about the new Mini's graphics capabilities as it relates to photo and HD video editing. I use Aperture (with RAW files) and iMovie, and my 2007 MBP doesn't cut it anymore. Given that this is all I really do on my mac (I don't play any games), is the Mini's hardware sufficient? I've seen a lot of gripes about the integrated graphics, but I'm not sure if that really relates to my intended uses. Thanks.
 
monjones said:
I have the same question about the new Mini's graphics capabilities as it relates to photo and HD editing. I use Aperture (with RAW files) and iMovie, and my 2007 MBP doesn't cut it anymore. Given that this is all I really do on my mac (I don't play any games), is the Mini's hardware sufficient? I've seen a lot of gripes about the integrated graphics, but I'm not sure if that really relates to my intended uses. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Pure graphics power is not a problem here. And although the drivers are said to be still not the best for the HD 4000, it shouldn't make a big difference in anything but games.
 
I'll be watching for future comments but I'm in a similar situation. Off hand, it seems that the new minis are a better deal for someone who's going to be dealing with videos (i7 vs i5). Yes, there's no monitor so if that's important to someone, maybe going for the iMac makes sense. In my case, I have a usable monitor and keyboard and what matters most to me is processing power to render video. With the price difference, that money can be used for upgrades if one wanted to. Anyway, to this novice, it appears that the new minis are, for me, the most reasonable choice....
 
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