Hmmm.... lets see. If I had $5000 (the original premise) to spend on a photo setup, I would run, not walk, to get a 5DMkIII, lens, and spend whatever is left over on a PC. Not because I don't understand the demands on the computer, or think it not needed, but because, in the grand scheme of things, the 5DMkIII is far more important in the equation. For Photography, the $500 laptop can do absolutely everything that a $3000 Mac cheesegrater can do...only quite a bit slower. This would be especially true for Lightroom, which only uses the CPU, and not really much of anything else. As long as the CPU can support the app, it will work. You may not be happy with the performance, but it works.
Hell, I started using Lightroom with a Pentium 5 machine. Every single cheap laptop available for sale today absolutely CRUSHES that P5 machine, yet I was happy with it before. Now, I was not processing 24MB files, and I am happier with my current Core2Duo iMac, but even most laptops today CRUSH my 2006 iMac.
But I don't think that is really the discussion point: I think the point is that having and using a viable digital photo processing tool is very important in serious photography today. The comparison is similar to photography 20 years ago:
You could buy a nice SLR, lenses etc, and take your photos to the local Eckards for processing. Or maybe you took them to the local Kodak dealer in town, for really good quality processing. Most folks did this. A few decided to leverage the additional control and creativity afforded by building or using a wet darkroom. But even back then, you didn't need a Leitz or Agfa enlarger, a Beseler would do fine.
The same is true today: you can send your images to Target or Walmart, or perhaps off to MPix. Or you can leverage the additional creativity and control afforded by the digital darkroom. And like the darkroom enlargers, you don't need a $3000+ Mac to do the job, a reasonable Acer will do.
I Surrender!
Ok people, now we seem to be going in the other direction...
By NO MEANS am I suggesting that everyone go out and start with a MacPro ($5000 system). I didn't say that. I merely posted my setup to try to distract from the direction this thread has been going. I am looking for feedback from others to better my setup. I did not suggest that everyone needs to start with a MacPro. At this point I'll start a separate thread for me.
I totally agree with with Kolibri's statement about "start with what you have", but I'll add "plan for what you want."
I'm throwing up the white flag and admitting that I should have used "could use" rather than "should use". I will try to make a statement that all "religions" will be pleased with, but I'll start a new thread to get away from this disaster.
Comments
Hell, I started using Lightroom with a Pentium 5 machine. Every single cheap laptop available for sale today absolutely CRUSHES that P5 machine, yet I was happy with it before. Now, I was not processing 24MB files, and I am happier with my current Core2Duo iMac, but even most laptops today CRUSH my 2006 iMac.
But I don't think that is really the discussion point: I think the point is that having and using a viable digital photo processing tool is very important in serious photography today. The comparison is similar to photography 20 years ago:
You could buy a nice SLR, lenses etc, and take your photos to the local Eckards for processing. Or maybe you took them to the local Kodak dealer in town, for really good quality processing. Most folks did this. A few decided to leverage the additional control and creativity afforded by building or using a wet darkroom. But even back then, you didn't need a Leitz or Agfa enlarger, a Beseler would do fine.
The same is true today: you can send your images to Target or Walmart, or perhaps off to MPix. Or you can leverage the additional creativity and control afforded by the digital darkroom. And like the darkroom enlargers, you don't need a $3000+ Mac to do the job, a reasonable Acer will do.
Ok people, now we seem to be going in the other direction...
By NO MEANS am I suggesting that everyone go out and start with a MacPro ($5000 system). I didn't say that. I merely posted my setup to try to distract from the direction this thread has been going. I am looking for feedback from others to better my setup. I did not suggest that everyone needs to start with a MacPro. At this point I'll start a separate thread for me.
I totally agree with with Kolibri's statement about "start with what you have", but I'll add "plan for what you want."
I'm throwing up the white flag and admitting that I should have used "could use" rather than "should use". I will try to make a statement that all "religions" will be pleased with, but I'll start a new thread to get away from this disaster.