Okay, so I am going to be buying a new computer and have decided to go with an iMac.
Apple haters, no need to chime in here.
My main use for this computer other than browsing the Internet will be photo editing using Lightroom or Photoshop. Possibly Luminar.
While I’m not a professional photographer I do have many years as a serious hobbyist and have enjoyed photography for several decades. The main camera I will be using is a Nikon D500. The two questions have concern RAM and storage. Will I be in good shape with 16GB RAM or do I need to have 32GBs? This is a $400 difference. And should I shell out the extra money for 1TB SSD for storage or would 512GB SSD be sufficient? Again, about $400 difference.
I anticipate needing some external storage at some point so that’s part of why I wonder if the 512GB SSD would be enough. Also, while I have the cash to get 32GBs of RAM and 1TB of SSD is that really the best use of $800 I could spend here or on something else.
And of course I could go with 16GB of RAM and 1TB of SSD or 32GB RAM and 512GB SSD if one of those options makes sense. Either of those would save about $400.
You never want to upgrade memory directly from Apple if you don’t have to. They love to gouge on memory upgrades. I’m pretty sure the latest iMacs have a very user-friendly compartment door for upgrading memory, so I’d think your best bet is to get an iMac with the standard 8GB (so not even 16GB), see if that’s enough, and if its not, simply upgrade it yourself. A quick search at newegg.com shows 2x16GB for about $200, so you’re saving $400 right there.
Personally, I’d say the 512GB SSD is enough, particularly since you expect to expand with external storage anyway.
Something else to consider, though, is that the iMac hasn’t been updated in more than a year and a half. If you don’t need a new one right now, you might be better off waiting a few months if you’re ok with that.
Your use case is pretty lightweight. Just go with the basics, especially because you plan to add external storage. Use the $400 towards a NAS with RAID.
A very good point, thanks. This isn’t a purchase that has to be made right now so waiting for Apple to update the iMac is probably the best idea. I would hope this happens sooner rather than later.
Yep, which is part of my reason for asking about 16GB RAM vs. 32GB RAM. I’m not tech savvy enough to do it myself and don’t want to have to deal with having Apple do it if I decide I need it.
If I planned to do video editing the 32GB of RAM would make sense. Just not sure if it is overdoing it for my needs. The SSD for storage appears to be a no brainer; fewer moving parts and speed make sense. Most things I’ve seen online suggest 1TB is a good idea for photography but those sources also recommend large external storage for photos so that is why I wonder if 512GB SSD would be sufficient.
Windows user, here; don’t flip - I promise not to snark!
My machine is several years old, 16 GB ram installed, and speed was about middle of the road when new. I have finally come to drive three monitors, and persuaded myself to buy a fast (but older) video card. Gangbusters! System drive was getting full - I have a ton of software, plugins, etc. - so I reinstalled my stuff on a 1 TB SSD. Double gangbusters! I reserved 300 GB of the sysdrive for scratch, and I have 100 GB of space left for the system. I can reduce the scratch size, for more system space, if it comes to that, and anyway I don’t know if scratch is ever engaged, this thing is now so fast, and few of my files top 1GB.
So, my recommendation - try 8 GB of ram (good suggestion - years ago I upgraded to 16 GB in search of more speed, and got no noticeable improvement), a 1 TB SSD (no moving parts) and the best video card you can afford.
See, no snark. My brother-in-law is an Apple/Mac-er, so my snark gland gets enough fresh air.
I say max it out. If you can’t upgrade the memory then I’d recommend going for the most.
I was going to say “use the smaller HD” then I realized that my 6-year-old iMac has 1TB and I’m regularly bumping into that with stuff like video files and virtual machines. This machine will last you many years, so it’s not such a freakishly costly investment.
Photos shouldn’t be a concern–it’s better to have a good culling technique than to keep tens of thousands of gigantic RAW files around for nobody to ever look at.
Shoot RAW+JPEG if you can, then cull fiercely after every photo shoot. Seriously, who needs to see twenty-seven different views of your kid riding his bike–pick the very best shots that represent the moment and bin the rest.
Once you are satisfied with the shots (JPEGs should be fine straight-out-of-camera with modern photo gear), grab any RAW files you really need, such as to fix bad lighting, and toss the rest of the RAW files.
In the end you ought to have a few dozen excellent shots for an outing instead of a few hundred. This will definitely save vast amounts of storage.
After I posted, I almost came back and added “don’t keep your captures on your system drive!”. I put mine on a regular HD, THREE HDs actually, for multiple backups. You don’t want to lose your pics if the sysdrive fails.
And I would never, ever cull shots soon after I downloaded them. I go back as many as ten years and find images I want to rework or, in many cases, process for the first time. You have no idea what you’ll see in old files, or what the processing software will allow in the future.
Save what you can; bulk storage today is dead cheap!
minor7flat5 - I’m inclined to max it out with 32GB of RAM and 1TB SSD but since it is a big jump in money I want to be sure I will really need/use all of that.
Dandan - I agree about culling heavily which is why I know I will be using external storage for a lot of the files. I already deal with RAW and jpeg files so storage can be an issue hence why I am upgrading.
To each his own. I had the same viewpoint for years, then I realized that I was taking hundreds of shots at each event that never would see the light of day. These days I use a tool called Photo Mechanic, designed for the workflow of pro sports photographers, to speed through the culling process.
It’s not just the disk space, but also the challenge of sifting through thousands and thousands of shots to find something from several years ago. It’s much more pleasing to see finished sets of photos, with a few extras held onto. In the past I really would have twenty or thirty photos for each keeper.
If that isn’t a burden then you are probably more successful with ratings and keywords than I am.
[/tangent]
I assumed the OP was going for the 27-inch because of the photography usage and because you can only get 32GB of RAM on the top end 21 (and the 27s obviously). And if you’re in the position to not mind dropping $800 on RAM and SSD bumps, might as well drop the $300 for the bump up to 27.
So Kolak of Twilo, if you were indeed looking at the top end 21-inch with 32GB (and I guess you are because you’re still concerned about installing the RAM yourself), you should be happy to learn that it will cost you $100 less to instead get a 27-inch with 8GB RAM and then purchase and upgrade the RAM yourself using the friendly little door on the back.
zbuzz, yes I’m looking at the 21" iMac. I realize that may seem odd given my main motivation is for photography but I do have reasons for this.
First, I have spent a lot of time looking at both the 21" and 27" side by side at my local Apple store. Honestly the 27" model just seems absurdly large to me and is frankly overwhelming. It may seem strange but I really prefer the size and look of the 21" 4K screen.
Second, I am not comfortable in anyway with trying to install memory in a computer I have spent $3000 on. I am nowhere near tech savvy enough to try to do something like that. Maybe I am making it too big of an issue in my mind but I would really prefer buying a computer already configured the way I want it. I do plan to keep this computer for years so if that means more money upfront then I am okay with that. To get a 27" iMac configured by Apple to my liking would push this purchase close to $4000 once taxes are added on. Frankly that’s more than I want to spend on a computer at the moment.
Also, I have difficulty imagining a scenario where I would need more than 32GB of RAM. My initial thought was to go this way but there were some articles I read suggesting 16GB was enough which led to my question here about how much do I really need. I am leaning toward 32GBs and the 1TB SSD at this point. It just seems to be a really large jump from what I currently have and while I can afford it I don’t want to “overbuy” if that makes sense.
The most puzzling thing I had noticed while comparing was that both the 21 and 27" iMacs were using 7th generation Intel processors while companies like Dell are using 8th or 9th gen Intel processors. I now understand why that is the case and think it would be best to wait what Apple does with any potential new models.
Okay. I mean, I just wanted to stress that you could get the bigger, better iMac for less and that if you’ve ever inserted a cassette tape into a Walkman you have the skillset to upgrade the RAM. But if you’re not comfortable, you’re not comfortable.
It will cost a lot. But you have to take into account how long these machines last. You will get a good few years use out of it.
However, Apple, like all computer makers, have issues with some models. iMacs are no exception and they are expensive to fix, though Apple has one of the better after care services.
If you really don’t want get involved with hardware, and need a bit of hand holding. Apple and an iMac is a good, stable workhorse.
One more thing—something that pains me to say as a card-carrying Apple fanboi—spend a few moments in deep contemplation about whether you could use a PC instead.
I have been having this struggle because Apple is acting a bit too full of themselves in recent years (in my opinion). For the most egregious example, they shamelessly sell the same Mac Pro that they released in 2013, though it has had a price cut—what PC manufacturer could get away with that?
For the iMac they clearly have it listed as “Don’t Buy”, saying the current model has the longest span ever between updates.
Unfortunately for me, though I use Windows 10 for my day job, it lacks the polish of MacOS–I find such niceties as quick view and the global zoom-in with ctrl+mousewheel really make a difference for me. If backed into a corner, I imagine I could switch though.
I have also been considering the Android ecosystem on the phone/tablet side since I feel that Apple is getting a little full of themselves with their unfortunately high pricing (but it’s so thin!!!). The jury is still out on that one; I rely heavily on sheet music software (Forscore) that is only available on iOS, so if I can find an equivalent alternate I might change my allegiance.
I understand what you are saying minor7flat5. I have looked around at some PCs but haven’t been really impressed. I have a laptop that I use for work things that is a PC and I use a desktop in my office at work. I feel that since this purchase is mostly so I can get more serious with my photography that Apple is going to be the best choice. And I am a long time iPhone user so that pushes me in that direction as well. But yeah, I will be taking a wait and see attitude because of the likely update.
ETA: I really don’t want a tower and the PC all-in-one models don’t seem up to what Apple has done with the iMac line. At least not the ones I’ve seen.
A base model plus external storage is more than adequate. For myself (programming, 3D modelling, webdev, video editing, effects editing, etc.) I like to max myself out. But for the stated use case, there’s no point in awaiting the next model and maxing all of the specs.
