Which machine for a Photographer?

[Abstract]

But If I decide to use lightroom, and not aperture, does the recomendation change?

No.

Keep the 15" PB for the weddings, and get the iMac. In 2 years, you can sell it, and get another if you want.

If the 15" PB finally breaks down in this time, one option for you is to get one of those portable picture viewer machines that are essentially an external harddisk with a 3.5" LCD attached. You can view the photos if you want, and the capacity of these things is quite high. HP makes a few models.

All the recomendations seem to center on aperture as the program I will use. But Lightroom seems to do what I need. And if it's true that it is not gpu dependant, how will it run any faster on an Imac? And what makes 24" faster then the 20"? Outside the graphics card again.

I actually prefer Lightroom over Aperture in many ways. Lightroom is a faster program than Aperture, and v1.0 is optimized (unlike the Beta) and reportedly runs much much faster than Beta 4. Download the trial version of LR v1.0 in mid-February.

On the other hand, Apple has made Aperture faster and faster after each update, and while version 1.5 is still not blazing fast, it may catch up with Lightroom one day. I don't know. Right now, it'd be great if Aperture wasn't as resource hungry as Lightroom Beta 4. After that, we can worry about it being as fast as LR v1.0.

Anyway, I think Lightroom will be faster on the iMac and Mac Pro, but both programs will realistically do what you want to do.

If it makes you feel better, I'm going to possibly switch to Aperture and I only have a MacBook. I probably won't, but lets pretend I will. This is despite my recommendation to you. The difference is that I only take between 100-200 photos at a time (usually), while you will take much more than that. If I take 100 photos in a day, I'll usually delete 30 from the camera itself after viewing on the LCD. After moving them to my MacBook, I'll delete another 40 photos after viewing them. I don't even look at most of my photos twice. From there, I'll slowly cull them down to the real "keepers". I don't keep photos that I don't like, and I have a lot less to edit this way.

I don't handle the quantity that you do, so I can use Aperture on a MacBook and survive. I don't think you can.

 

[Cloud9]

Abstract, You Rule!

I still have not decided, But I feel better about choosing an imac if thats what I do.

Part of my short term plan was to buy the macbook this year, and an Imac next year. By then The imac would definately be more powerful and my editing needs for next year will be double what they are this year in terms of quantity. Also compared to how I have been getting along with my powerbook I would enjoy the speed increase.

But there is still lots of camera equipment I still need to aquire to go solo and at the pricepoint I want to be at. If the imac today suits my editing needs for 2+ years then that means that there will be more money for lenses and strobes next year.

So..

refurbed 17" with extra 22" lcd= $1350 or refrubed 24"=$1700

 

[motherduce]

refurbed 17" with extra 22" lcd= $1350 or refrubed 24"=$1700

Stay away from the 17". I'm still kicking myself for not spending the extra money on at least a 20". Even with an external monitor...

One thing about an external monitor is, if you need to, you can use it with your PB or eventually with your MB if you decide to get one.

For my money, I would get a refurb or used 20" iMac with a 20" Dell widescreen, and keep the PB. Then I would hook the PB up to the 20" monitor as well, using the other input. You could do all that for under $1500.