Which Mac

[nrvna76]

Hi all - wife is a photographer and has been using a 2019 16” MacBook Pro (2.3Ghz intel I9, 16gb memory) that is starting to slow down. Her workflow results in a lot of storage being used on the device (700gb right now). She sometimes photographs 10-12 families in one day. And I think that seriously plays in how it’s slowing down.

The internal HD is only 1tb and the Samsung T7 she uses to move photos too for long term storage often errors out and causes issues.

So I’m considering buying her a desktop (she doesn’t really move around) but not sure on a mini or if she needs a studio, also not sure if she needs something like a 2-4tb SSD and that gets expensive really quick.

Any recommendations to what a good setup would be and the best ROI for the few thousand were likely to spend is appreciated!

 

[OldMacs4Me]

Wow 700 GB on 1TB SSD is really pushing the limits. One possibility is to go to a 4GB internal. You'll need a SATA to thunderbolt cable to transfer data from the old drive once the new drive is set-up. However if this is a business that's bringing in a reasonable return, then think seriously about new. If purchased now it could provide a sizeable tax deduction on her 2025 taxes.

A couple of thoughts on updating. I'd think in terms of doing most of my photo storage on external drives, which would allow a smaller drive on the new computer. Photos on the internal are best limited to current projects. Even so I would want to go with at least 1TB internally. I'd also think about at least doubling base RAM. A deciding factor on which model may come down to the number of USB-c and thunderbolt ports.

 

[Basic75]

One possibility is to go to a 4GB internal. You'll need a SATA to thunderbolt cable to transfer data from the old drive once the new drive is set-up.

It's a 16" MacBook Pro from 2019, there is no SATA and no (easy) possibility to change the internal drive.

 

[Basic75]

that is starting to slow down

Have you tried a factory reset or clean install?

 

[Basic75]

If you get a new machine I would recommend a Mac mini, even the base M4 is a lot faster than the Intel i9. Get it with 32GB of RAM and it should be good for a while. As for storage, you'll have to decide whether to pay for the internal upgrade or rely more on external SSDs.

 

[nrvna76]

Have not tried factory reset or clean install.. my thought was it has made it 6 years and her work has definitely expanded from when she started. She’s got 100 plus clients now so it’s bringing in a good return and making her workflow faster is worth some cost.

Just stuck on mini vs studio and internal vs external storage. Seems every Samsung external drive she gets has random errors when moving files over so idk if there’s a better external solution or if internal is worth the huge cost. And as mentioned above I would probably still stick with 1tb minimum, and use externals like she’s been doing (but not sure what externals are user friendly) or just bump it up to 4 internal and eat the cost.

Would the build in sd card reader be helpful on the studio or are the external readers the same speed?

 

[Apple fanboy]

Have not tried factory reset or clean install.. my thought was it has made it 6 years and her work has definitely expanded from when she started. She’s got 100 plus clients now so it’s bringing in a good return and making her workflow faster is worth some cost.

Just stuck on mini vs studio and internal vs external storage. Seems every Samsung external drive she gets has random errors when moving files over so idk if there’s a better external solution or if internal is worth the huge cost. And as mentioned above I would probably still stick with 1tb minimum, and use externals like she’s been doing (but not sure what externals are user friendly) or just bump it up to 4 internal and eat the cost.

Would the build in sd card reader be helpful on the studio or are the external readers the same speed?

External readers vary in speed (like the cards) so choose wisely.

Do you already have an external monitor? If not you’ll need to factor that into your costs.

Currently I’m on a 2018 Mac Mini and photo editing is horrible. A clean install will not change that (I tried!). Lightroom is my photo editing tool of choice and the machine (specs in signature) is no longer up to it. Each adjustment takes seconds or longer to show on the screen (if at all!).

I’m looking to replace with a Mac Studio. Personally I prefer a large internal drive + external. So I’ll be going for quite a high spec machine when I do upgrade.

Truth is there are no bad choices to make. Just want to make sure the machine you buy will last a reasonably long time. By the time I replace my Mini it will have done 8 years. Thats a good return on the premium price I paid in my opinion.

 

[Basic75]

After 6 years a clean install might make a noticeable difference. Depends on the machine and what state it's in. I've seen everything from "feels the same" to "feels twice as fast" after installing the whole system from scratch.

 

[Fishrrman]

Is her main focus doing still photos? (i.e., little or no video)

In that case, I'd suggest:
2024 m4 Mini
32gb RAM
2tb SSD
(you want "enough" RAM and SSD to "grow into" in the coming years)

If $$$ is a big factor, consider buying from the Apple online refurbished store.
Actually, I'd recommend the refurbished store anyway. I bought both my 2018 and 2024 Minis that way, very satisfied.

She'll also need a display.
Either 27" 4k
or
27" 5k

I have a Dell Ultrasharp 27" 4k, suits me fine.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

I too am a photog. My thoughts are:
• 2025 anyone dealing with imagery needs a modern Mac with adequate RAM.
• The new box is not about 2025, it is about 2026~>2031. Such thinking is not some simplistic future proofing that so many think they can skip. It is simply when she will be using her new Mac.
• The value of a mobile Mac is very high. Not about when one mostly uses the Mac, but rather about if it is ever convenient to be mobile; e.g. go sit on the couch and continue doing images work. Or show some future client work examples at a venue other than home office.

I had intended to upgrade my 2016 16 GB MBP to an M2 Studio as the primary box with the 2016 MBP for mobile usage. M2 Studios were way delayed so I bought an M2 MBP Max with 96 GB RAM and it works great in both desktop mode and mobile mode. IMO MBP or Studio but not Mac Mini, for both bandwidth and value reasons.
• The Mini is only a value at base level, and professional images work deserves more than a base level chip. Note that the improvements in the chip base-->Pro-->Max are huge. E.g. for images work an M3 Max chip is much stronger than an M4 base chip.
• RAM has always been very, very important for images work; since the 1990s. Any new images Mac (2026~>2031) IMO should be configured with 64 GB RAM or more. Yes less will "work," but will be sub-optimal in a year or two; RAM demands have increased every year since 1984. We buy these things to compute with, and compromising that capability via less than ideal RAM is bad decision making.
• We are stuck with RAM costs, but high SSD costs can be contained by appropriate setup of much cheaper external SSDs. Force-fit a workflow using external SSDs that keeps the (fast) internal SSD ~half full.
• Include regular movement of backup storage to off site when designing the external SSD workflow process.

• Save with Refurbished models or last generation models or even used, but do not scrimp on RAM and do not consider any base-level chip.

That is my $0.02 after doing it for decades.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Have not tried factory reset or clean install.. my thought was it has made it 6 years and her work has definitely expanded from when she started. She’s got 100 plus clients now so it’s bringing in a good return and making her workflow faster is worth some cost.

Just stuck on mini vs studio and internal vs external storage. Seems every Samsung external drive she gets has random errors when moving files over so idk if there’s a better external solution or if internal is worth the huge cost. And as mentioned above I would probably still stick with 1tb minimum, and use externals like she’s been doing (but not sure what externals are user friendly) or just bump it up to 4 internal and eat the cost.

Would the build in sd card reader be helpful on the studio or are the external readers the same speed?

You say "Just stuck on mini vs studio." The Studio is far better. Mini is only a value at base chip level, which is not acceptable for you. IMO your good choices are MBP or Studio, not Mini. [I spent dozens of hours analyzing those comparisons prior to my last Mac upgrade. I love the Mini for other usages, but configured for images work the value goes away.]

You ask "Would the build in sd card reader be helpful?" Card reading issues depend on the camera [e.g. I far prefer my CFexpress to my SD]. IMO the SD reader adds good value in a MBP because it is always there for mobile, but for desktop careful buying can easily provide an external reader that is as fast as the cards used are.

 

[r.harris1]

I definitely "+1" the notion of Studio if it is down to Mini-vs-Studio and definitely check out the refurbished lineup at Apple. While I don't have a Studio of any M-series, I do still use a maxed M1 Max MacBook Pro as my main machine (64 GB, etc, and whatever the CPU and GPU cores are - I think it's 10 CPU cores and 32 GPU cores). I process a lot of large files from different camera manufacturers with no lag in Capture One and Photoshop, sometimes Lightroom. There's definitely still value to be had in the earlier lineup if you wish. If you can go for the latest on the Studio, I'd do it (M4 Max or M3 Ultra). The M4 Max is probably the sweet spot but depends on your budget.

Many modern applications these days benefit from more cores CPU+GPU) and RAM so the more, the merrier, from a "will it still perform well in 5-7 years" perspective. The Max and Ultra chipsets offer this and you will see a noticeable improvement over the older Intel Macs (at least that's been my experience with the software I use, obviously - YMMV, etc, etc).

 

[TechnoMonk]

I personally would go for MBP or studio, if these were my requirements. If budget is less ick up a refurb studio, MBP costs more but can move around, and may be she can travel further if business expands

 

[tcphoto1]

As a longtime photographer, it sounds like she’s not backing up her work well. I have external drives paired up with redundant copies of client shoots, paperwork and other items plus a separate drive for Time Machine. I’ve had one drive die and simply replaced it with a new one then copied from the matching drive. I only keep a shoot on the computer long enough to backup to the paired drives, edit images then deliver and then delete from the computer. I consistently use about 150GB of the 500GB SSD.

 

[OldMacs4Me]

Do keep in mind the OS bloat associated with Sequoia and later versions of the OS. My M4 mini running Sequoia 15.7.2 is using about 130GB with probably less than 25 GB being added on apps and very little else. Note I'm running a 512GB drive and have Spotlight disabled to somewhat reduce the load on the drive.

 

[cjsuk]

Screen is more important than the computer if it is just photography. Honestly I was editing fine on an ass end M4 mini with 512Gb disk and 16Gb RAM. Now using an M4 Pro 24Gb because I need it for the day job. I've got a 2TB Lightroom library I am working through on a Samsung T7 disk. Expensive but works fine.

Buy Studio Display and see how much cash you have left!

----

Anyway this will give the hardcore insta-cancer. My backup machine, mostly if Western civilization fragments any more, is a circa 2018 Lonovo M720T which cost me virtually nothing with 16Gb of RAM in it and a 1TB (I think - haven't checked) SSD. That and any old IPS 4k display + linux + darktable is just as good as the mac is.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Screen is more important than the computer if it is just photography. Honestly I was editing fine on an ass end M4 mini with 512Gb disk and 16Gb RAM. Now using an M4 Pro 24Gb because I need it for the day job. I've got a 2TB Lightroom library I am working through on a Samsung T7 disk. Expensive but works fine.

Buy Studio Display and see how much cash you have left!

----

Anyway this will give the hardcore insta-cancer. My backup machine, mostly if Western civilization fragments any more, is a circa 2018 Lonovo M720T which cost me virtually nothing with 16Gb of RAM in it and a 1TB (I think - haven't checked) SSD. That and any old IPS 4k display + linux + darktable is just as good as the mac is.

Skip the Studio Display. Much better options for less money. Especially for photography. Glossy screens are garbage for accurate colour.

 

[cjsuk]

Skip the Studio Display. Much better options for less money. Especially for photography. Glossy screens are garbage for accurate colour.

That's completely wrong. Literally physics. Glossy screens have far lower diffusion than the anti-reflective layer on matte screens. And matte screens are totally unusable in highly diffused ambient light situations. Each of these seriously affects what arrives at your eyes. This is at the cost of reflection but you tend not to point them at anything that might offend your eyes and job done. I'll take my contrast please.

Also not really anything better at that price point that actually works properly (on a mac or otherwise). I think I've got through about 5x 4k monitors which are supposed to be better (Benq, Asus, Dell,). Damn 24" M1 iMac was better out of the box than any of them. The Benq Designvue was the worst - green tint and it blew up after a week.

I mean if you want better you'll have to fish out another $1000 on top for something from Eizo...

(Note I check my images on a **** monitor as well - Dell P2425DE)

 

[Apple fanboy]

That's completely wrong. Literally physics. Glossy screens have far lower diffusion than the anti-reflective layer on matte screens. And matte screens are totally unusable in highly diffused ambient light situations. Each of these seriously affects what arrives at your eyes. This is at the cost of reflection but you tend not to point them at anything that might offend your eyes and job done. I'll take my contrast please.

Also not really anything better at that price point that actually works properly (on a mac or otherwise). I think I've got through about 5x 4k monitors which are supposed to be better (Benq, Asus, Dell,). Damn 24" M1 iMac was better out of the box than any of them. The Benq Designvue was the worst - green tint and it blew up after a week.

I mean if you want better you'll have to fish out another $1000 on top for something from Eizo...

(Note I check my images on a **** monitor as well - Dell P2425DE)

Thanks for the comments. I've been selling high end matte screens for photographers and designers for 17 years, so I think I'll agree to differ.

 

[cjsuk]

Thanks for the comments. I've been selling high end matte screens for photographers and designers for 17 years, so I think I'll agree to differ.

My commiserations to your customers.

 

[Apple fanboy]

My commiserations to your customers.

Well we are the leading colour management specialist company in Europe so I think they are doing okay. That's why we have been advising them since the 80's.

 

[cjsuk]

Well we are the leading colour management specialist company in Europe so I think they are doing okay. That's why we have been advising them since the 80's.

Good. You'll definitely know how much more a decent Eizo CG2700X costs then, which is my point.

And that doesn't even support a native integer ratio scaling factor on macOS as it's 4k not 5k so you have to run it in 1920x1080 scaled 2:1 and sit half way across the room because the UI is so big.

Hence just buy the frigging studio display and shove a hood on it or sit in the dark.

 

[r.harris1]

That's completely wrong. Literally physics. Glossy screens have far lower diffusion than the anti-reflective layer on matte screens. And matte screens are totally unusable in highly diffused ambient light situations. Each of these seriously affects what arrives at your eyes. This is at the cost of reflection but you tend not to point them at anything that might offend your eyes and job done. I'll take my contrast please.

Also not really anything better at that price point that actually works properly (on a mac or otherwise). I think I've got through about 5x 4k monitors which are supposed to be better (Benq, Asus, Dell,). Damn 24" M1 iMac was better out of the box than any of them. The Benq Designvue was the worst - green tint and it blew up after a week.

I mean if you want better you'll have to fish out another $1000 on top for something from Eizo...

(Note I check my images on a **** monitor as well - Dell P2425DE)

Matte screens are actually designed to work in diffused ambient light. Like glossy screens - but for different reasons - they’re not great with specular reflections (desk lamps, windows, direct sun, etc.).

Because matte coatings scatter incoming light, a strong directional source turns into veiling glare, which lifts blacks and reduces contrast. That’s the “washed out” look people associate with matte. If I aim my desk lamp at my matte display, it totally kills the blacks.

Glossy behaves differently: contrast is definitely kept where there's no reflections, but specular reflections remain, well, specular. It's a more local impact on the screen (where the reflection is). Different trade-offs driven by how each surface handles reflections.

In practice, monitor choice - like camera choice - comes down to workflow, environment, and output. My own workflow is reasonably print-heavy. I personally prefer a calibrated matte display with precise control over brightness. Paper itself is very low contrast. Plenty of people print successfully from glossy monitors too, quite obviously. Life's about choices and there are plenty of really good monitor options depending on what you like and your budget.

Also agree on the mid-range 4K market — specs aren't always on-par with reality.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Matte screens are actually designed to work in diffused ambient light. Like glossy screens - but for different reasons - they’re not great with specular reflections (desk lamps, windows, direct sun, etc.).

Because matte coatings scatter incoming light, a strong directional source turns into veiling glare, which lifts blacks and reduces contrast. That’s the “washed out” look people associate with matte. If I aim my desk lamp at my matte display, it totally kills the blacks.

Glossy behaves differently: contrast is definitely kept where there's no reflections, but specular reflections remain, well, specular. It's a more local impact on the screen (where the reflection is). Different trade-offs driven by how each surface handles reflections.

In practice, monitor choice - like camera choice - comes down to workflow, environment, and output. My own workflow is reasonably print-heavy. I personally prefer a calibrated matte display with precise control over brightness. Paper itself is very low contrast. Plenty of people print successfully from glossy monitors too, quite obviously. Life's about choices and there are plenty of really good monitor options depending on what you like and your budget.

Also agree on the mid-range 4K market — specs aren't always on-par with reality.

Monitor hoods help a lot. I wouldn’t use a screen for photography without one.
Same as a lens hood on your lens. But some people leave them in the box for some no reason.

 

[tizeye]

Monitor hoods help a lot. I wouldn’t use a screen for photography without one.
Same as a lens hood on your lens. But some people leave them in the box for some no reason.

THIS! I didn't think I would use the monitor hood but makes a major difference on my Benq SW272Q and feel naked when processing photography on other monitors such as my MacBook Pro. Not only don't I have the reflected lights that are annoying on the glossy MB Pro, but the hood also harnesses the normal light dispersion keeping it directed for photo processing. Look at BenQ's Photographer line of monitors!

While I have had (and upgraded) am MB Pro since 2013, this year I was finally able to dump my Windows PC. Went through the same question Mini vs Studio and as I recall there was only about $200 difference between similar equipped machines. After finally convincing myself that 24MB RAM was sufficient vs 32MB on the Studio, ultimately selected the Mini with M4Pro and 1 TB SSD which primarily use for programs. For "working" photo/video/document storage and external 5TB 'spinner' hard drive. What is really nice is that it doesn't care which Mac it is attached to, so I can have everything with me even when I travel with my MB Pro. Of course, I have multiple back ups.

Now, professional work... and somewhat ironic that this is the last week of December. My 'working' HD has a mixture of both professional client based and personal which may include non-client professional such as wildlife, landscape and travel that I am trying to gravitate to. Clients just take and monopolize my time so much, and I am "retired". Several years (a decade ?) ago I asked the question how long I actually needed the client files available. I've never had a client ask for additional prints beyond 2 years. As such, I created year folders with the client/event becoming a subfolder and that system had worked well. The 2025 Folder hold client photoshoots for this year, and the 2024 and 2023 folder is available for quick access on my 'working' HD. Next week I will create the 2026 folder and the 2023 folder with all of its subfolders will move to a special archive HD dedicated to client shoots as it joins the 2022 and earlier folders. With the RAW files and all, it frees up a huge amount of space on my 'working' hard drive, and if a client wants something from a 2023 or earlier shoot...I know right where to find it.