Can you recommend an affordable computer for photography?

[btgc]

When I was still using windows I would reformat my drives every 6 months just to get the computer running at a reasonable speed. I run lightroom, photoshop cc and photomechanic all run very smooth and fast.
Try running a 6 year old windows machine, maybe macs are more expensive when new but in my opinion much better value for money.
Oh and viruses are no big deal on a mac.

Is there chance C: disk were specified as a scratch disk for Photoshop, fragmenting it more than it does itself? I assume Macs may come pre-partitioned better and apps offer non-sys partition to install on, while I've seen many Win machines coming with a single big C: disk and people just put everything right there.

My old decommissioned now HP desktop runs fine. Back in the spindle days people used to put system partition on outer part of disk to make it faster. Now I'm tempted to put small SSD there to see it flying, just electricity bill (decade old processors aren't too efficient) slows me down.

Viruses? Since some time (10 years ago?) Windows users have to do some suspect things to catch virus. I think it changed since XP SP2 with built-in firewall? As one don't normally stick his penis here and there so we shouldn't do same on Net. Just be sane and think before doing.

I'm not saying Mac is overpriced or Win is better than Mac. I say Mac is better suited to masses who don't know nor want to know how stuff works.

And no, I wouldn't compare Windows to FSU, it wouldn't be fair to FSU nor Windows. Only time I would agree to this were pre-release of Win95 (Chicago) when it were quest of "how many minutes until restart?" but then I were also using rather complex apps.

 

[btgc]

the gimp is limited to 8bit.
Someone will say 8bit is good enough, and even be right enough. But 16 bit is better.

btw how it works together with monitor bits? Honestly, never have cared about color bits so I'm blank here. Is 8bit display able to display all the colors 16bit software produces?

 

[jjabad]

i would recommend going with an Apple refurbished product from the Apple Store. A refurbished 13" MacBook Pro (great if you like the option of being mobile) or the 21.5" iMac are good choices. Apple products are easy to use right out of the box, which is good since you don't like computers. Sure, you do get a better value with Window systems but from my experience, my past PC laptops went bad in a few years. I'm still using both an iMac and MacBook Pro from 2011 with Snow Leopard (i think 4? major updates behind) and still running great.

 

[wwkw]

Have enough RAM. Beyond that, as long as you're aware of what your screen is showing and how it matches what your printer is printing it doesn't make a world of difference (unless you're aspiring to be an internet photographer celebrity, in which case mention that you'd like to see your fans' screen calibration from across the bar. No. That's not close enough. They'd better get a little closer.)

 

[Tijmendal]

iMac basic:
1.6GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 processor
Turbo Boost up to 2.7GHz
8GB of onboard memory, configurable up to 16GB
1TB hard drive1
Intel HD Graphics 6000
1920-by-1080 sRGB display
.

Definitely not go this route: for photography, four cores in your CPU is a must.

- 8GB of RAM (memory) is recommended
- A GPU (graphics card) isn't really necessary, so don't let that influence your decision
- i5/i7 doens't matter too much, it's all about the amount of cores
- An SSD is really helpful and I would highly recommend getting one

 

[wwkw]

Definitely not go this route: for photography, four cores in your CPU is a must.

Except for when Dual core was a must, and you're running CS3 Extended 3D renderings, and you're not in the mood for a non-microwavable pizza. Maybe that's the exception. Otherwise you work for Intel and get a commission on the OP's next purchase.

 

[Antielectrons]

Make it a Mac.

 

[Archlich]

For photography you don't need much besides big RAM and a good monitor. A carefully thought-out DIY build would cost under $1000, all enclosed in an ITX case of your choice.

Buy a mac if you don't want to go through the trouble (and fun) putting a computer together. They will be lacking somehow in the performance, but always (especially the 27'' models) come with great monitors.

Talks about the Mac Mini, there are Windows equivalents from various manufacturers like Intel and Gigabyte (called the NUC and the Brix, respectively). Equally tiny but cheaper than the Mac Mini, semi-upgradable (RAM and hard drive), and comes with better processors.

If you are serious about the digital printing/publishing process, a calibrator is essential. Plenty of choices from Datacolor and X-Rite, but a decent one will cost you no less than $200.

 

[btgc]

Cores, I think it depends if particular software is threaded and uses all cores. If not, less but more powerful cores would be better.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I honestly think the main argument for a Mac is their new high-resolution displays. They're making the best screens in the world right now, which, for a photographer, should count for something. And the new iMacs are not insanely expensive.

But I agree with Andy: after a long spell in the doldrums, Microsoft is killing it. The new OS looks great and so does their new convertible laptop. I switched to Macs five years ago, mostly because I liked Apple's phone, but I think both platforms have something compelling to offer today.

 

[Dante_Stella]

I honestly think the main argument for a Mac is their new high-resolution displays. They're making the best screens in the world right now, which, for a photographer, should count for something. And the new iMacs are not insanely expensive.

But I agree with Andy: after a long spell in the doldrums, Microsoft is killing it. The new OS looks great and so does their new convertible laptop. I switched to Macs five years ago, mostly because I liked Apple's phone, but I think both platforms have something compelling to offer today.

I would try to see if it works for the size of your files, but I have a "toy" (non-Pro) Surface 3 that runs Lightroom pretty well with the Leica M cameras (I think it is the 8gb/128gb model). With a Microsoft Arc Bluetooth mouse, it is a very compact (and fairly inexpensive) thing to carry with you, and the screen is great. The one principal advantage of the baby surface is that it can power from a micro-usb cord - meaning that you can use it with an external battery pack on a plane.

I am a long time Mac user (24 years now), but the iPads are kind of insulting if you actually need to run grown-up imaging software (and they can't connect to external USB storage), new MacBooks are expensive for what you get, and you don't want to buy anything used that has a potentially abused Li-Ion battery or SSD glued into it.

The other thing you can do is look for an old Mac Pro or a small Dell desktop(!) box. The latter you can get as cheaply as $200. Keyboards and 24" screens are dirt cheap these days, and those machines will not overheat like a laptop will.

Dante

 

[KM-25]

Ah the irony, I am now about to buy my first Windows machine in order to run some simple tuning software for my forced induction vehicles. Looking at a super cheap and small Asus T100TA that will live in one of the vehicles...

 

[Dante_Stella]

I honestly think the main argument for a Mac is their new high-resolution displays. They're making the best screens in the world right now, which, for a photographer, should count for something. And the new iMacs are not insanely expensive.

The 5K screen is indeed incredible. Not so much fun is that one of my kids hit the screen of my Retina 5K with a Hot Wheels vehicle (I think; even under duress, they would not tell me what exactly happened) and chipped the edge. $600 to fix - indicative of Apple's new fixation with thinness (on a desktop machine...), the glass is now fused to the 5K screen unit. Decided to call Dr. Black Tape on that one. Not impressed with the repairability or environmental implications of this.

D

 

[Corran]

Surface

Oh man that new Surface Book looks killer. I really want one for on-the-go editing. It's amazing what they're packing into those. Back when netbooks were new I bought a Lenovo S12 and used that thing to death (still works, though I don't use it as much). Souped it up and ran 24-channel audio recording backups on it (the "pros" told me that was impossible, it just wasn't fast enough, but I did it). Anyway, I remember folks saying small devices would never really get more powerful - boy were they wrong.

 

[willwright]

another vote for the Mac Mini. Use your old monitor or a Dell. You'll need a DVD drive and a backup drive...the Mini has no internal drives.. I use mine with PS3....works fine

 

[photomoof]

command line in windows terribly hard to find....

Hmmm. Open the Run command and type in "cmd", press enter.

Or, since Windows 7 type "cmd" in the search window.

Wow, that was hard!

It has always been there, but really it is not to be confused with a UNIX command line.

Back to the discussion at hand,I am considering a tablet, but not sure how that will play out. With companies like canon always in the dark ages software-wise only use the desktop for previewing and controlling my DSLR. However Canon does have have an iOS app: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/eos-remote/id565839396?mt=8

I am spoiled looking at previews from my camera on a 27 inch monitor.

Just a note re monitors the Apple does come with a built in thunderbolt hub. I do like a couple of the cheaper Dell monitors, but the NEC high end offerings are more interesting than the Apple.

 

[willie_901]

Dave,

On the Apple Store web site there is a section for Apple Certified refurbished products. These have a 1 yr. warranty.

If you decide to go with Apple, then this is a way to save a bit of $$.

If you end up with Apple, there is an amazingly versatile post-processing App called Pixelmater. It supports layers and is for $30 it's a bargain.

Regardless of what path you take there will be a learning curve. But people here can help you climb it.

Many people on RFF detest Adobe's $9.99/mo LR/PS Creative Cloud licensing program. However when one is starting from scratch, it is a cost effective way to stay within the Adobe ecosystem compared to buying the stand-alone licenses. This is particularly true if you must have PS. I almost did not mention this option because I didn't want to derail this thread with Adobe CC controversy. If you have any questions about how LR/PS CC works compared to buying stand alone products please PM me.

I realize you are retrained by financial pressures. However short of switching to a 100% analog workflow, money has to be spent.

 

[Out to Lunch]

''My suggestion is to find a smart local kid who'll build you a system.'' This is what I do every five years or so. On a beside, to switch to Apple after so many years of Microsoft use will be a guaranteed pain in the A$$.

 

[back alley]

...the mac mini has no internal drives...?
what's that fusion drive that mine has?

 

[photomoof]

...the mac mini has no internal drives...?
what's that fusion drive that mine has?

I know, funny what people think about tech. When I returned to being a professor a few years back, I was amazed at how few students knew what a hard drive was.

Maybe one out of ten had even a vague idea about how the Internet functioned.

Fact is, one can be a world class racer without knowing how an engine works.