Mac vs PC For Photo/video editing

[K1ngofportal]

Hello guys, 

Quick question here im looking to sell my PC and 27in imac or just upgrading my PC.

now the reason why i want a Mac is I use one at school for photo editing and video and i just like it more then my pc..

and i know it sounds like i just answered my own question but i would like more inputs

but my question is 

A. is it worth buying an Mac

B. is there better programs for PC? or Mac?

C. and what would you pick PC or mac?

[Lotus]

A) It depends. A PC can use the same hardware as a MAC. It's just Apple products usually come with a big markup. IMO it's only worth it if you think OSX is worth it. Also, do NOT get an all-in-one, because while they look like desktops they use laptop components.

B) Better programs exist for PC, usually. It depends on what exactly you want

C) I would pick PC because you can get it cheaper, or better hardware for the same price, and more software exists for them. The only reason to go with Apple is for OSX, and IMO it's just not that great an operating system anyway. It's basically just a proprietary Linux distro.

[thekeemo]

Hello guys, 

Quick question here im looking to sell my PC and 27in imac or just upgrading my PC.

now the reason why i want a Mac is I use one at school for photo editing and video and i just like it more then my pc..

and i know it sounds like i just answered my own question but i would like more inputs

but my question is 

A. is it worth buying an Mac

B. is there better programs for PC? or Mac?

C. and what would you pick PC or mac?

I personally prefer PC because of the faster render times for the money

and because of all the plugins

the software is essentially the same

so not worth it if you ask me

[Scouten]

A. thats up to you

 

B, both OS have their pros and cons for programs

 

for photo and video editing exclusively i would go with Mac OS but if i were to play games etc i would just get a PC.

 

 

your third option is a hackintosh dual boot system

[handymanshandle]

Keep your Mac and PC and upgrade the PC you might be able to also Hackintosh your PC. 

[KirbyTech]

First before I say anything what programs do you use as if they are on both PC and Mac I would say PC due to the cost to performance ratio.  

[Sauron]

A. No. In my opinion macs are underpowered and overpriced. As well as almost completely unupgradable.

B. Windows can run roughly 100 times as many programs as mac os can. 99.9% of mac programs are available for windows or have a windows equivlent that works just as well.

C. I would pick a pc for both reasons listed above. Therefore, just upgrade. What specs do you have? Maybe we can help choose what to upgrade

[Lolzious]

My dad was going to buy a Macbook Pro for photo editing, and I convinced him to get an HP DV7 2170us ($1100) instead. That was back in 2010, it came loaded with Vista, a Core 2 Duo, 4gb of RAM, and a 500gb HDD. It still runs, and he still uses it, however It will be upgraded to a Core 2 Quad, 8gb RAM, 120gb SSD, and 1.5tb HDD, it is still a mini beast as is.

In 4 or 5 years an Apple will be kind of fucked, since you can't upgrade it much. Unless OSX makes your panties wet, a PC is just better. Theres no other way to put it.

[Sauron]

Unless OSX makes your panties wet

 

You can hackintosh in that case ^^

[K1ngofportal]

A. No. In my opinion macs are underpowered and overpriced. As well as almost completely unupgradable.

B. Windows can run roughly 100 times as many programs as mac os can. 99.9% of mac programs are available for windows or have a windows equivlent that works just as well.

C. I would pick a pc for both reasons listed above. Therefore, just upgrade. What specs do you have? Maybe we can help choose what to upgrade

programs

photoshop

light room

afteraffects

and sony vegas pro

 

im running

 

intell i5 4670k 3.4ghz

gigabyte z87-hd3 

8g 1600hz

gtx 550ti

ocz agility 3 128g ssd

 

so yes my PC is hackintosh ready and i have tryed it but there where to many crash's when i had it

[Sauron]

programs

photoshop

light room

afteraffects

and sony vegas pro

 

im running

 

intell i5 4670k 3.4ghz

gigabyte z87-hd3 

8g 1600hz

gtx 550ti

ocz agility 3 128g ssd

 

so yes my PC is hackintosh ready and i have tryed it but there where to many crash's when i had it

 

All of those programs are available on windows hackintoshes are only for those who MUST have osx, to be honest usually they give more hassles than benefits. Your rig already looks great! The only obvious upgrade I can think of is a new gpu for some computing. Since those programs support OpenCL you can get a powerhouse for pretty cheap by going for an R9 290 (make sure they actually support it though, maybe I'm not remembering it right).

[K1ngofportal]

Since those programs support OpenCL you can get a powerhouse for pretty cheap by going for an R9 290

why the R9 290 over any nivida? case what i read last on Adobe is that there programs work better with nivida.

[Sauron]

why the R9 290 over any nivida? case what i read last on Adobe is that there programs work better with nivida.

 

For one reason: price. Currently the R9 290 is 80$ cheaper than the GTX 970. Besides, macs use AMD cards (and none of them are as fast as the 290 I might add) so either way you're getting a better experience than you would on a mac. If you find charts indicating much better performance on nvidia however the 970 is still a valid option. Just don't get a 980, it's not worth the money at all.

[MblaZe7run]

Hello guys, 

Quick question here im looking to sell my PC and 27in imac or just upgrading my PC.

now the reason why i want a Mac is I use one at school for photo editing and video and i just like it more then my pc..

and i know it sounds like i just answered my own question but i would like more inputs

but my question is 

A. is it worth buying an Mac

B. is there better programs for PC? or Mac?

C. and what would you pick PC or mac?

I'm actually in the middle of this debate myself. I'm looking for a laptop for field use with my GoPro camera. My reason for leaning towards a Mac right now mostly because they have a fantastic battery life, and the estimated time that the battery will last away from the charger is closer to the number that you will see in real life. (i.e. At my store, the laptops at my store say 7-8 hours, but I've seen them last closer to 5-6 hours. The MacBook Pro model I'm looking at quotes about 9 hours, and I've used the same model for damn near that amount of time.) 

 

A ) It's really a personal decision. I don't think it is worth it to be honest, but I'm still considering it. The laptops have one feature that sets them apart from the PC crowd, and I discussed it above.

 

B ) As most people have said, most of the programs are available for both platforms.

 

C ) It all depends on what you're using it for, and whether you are looking at a laptop or a desktop. In the case of a laptop for field use, you're going to want that excellent battery. In the case of a desktop, you're going to want raw power. For $3k, you can build a damn good PC that will blow a $3k Mac clear out of the water. Don't let anyone tell you that but the numbers from benchmark tests. 

 

In the end, all it really comes down to is the fact that it is your money to spend. If you wanted to try piecing out a PC that has similar specs to Mac desktop, this forum is a wonderful place to do so, and many people are more than happy to do so - including myself. 

[K1ngofportal]

I'm actually in the middle of this debate myself. I'm looking for a laptop for field use with my GoPro camera. My reason for leaning towards a Mac right now mostly because they have a fantastic battery life, and the estimated time that the battery will last away from the charger is closer to the number that you will see in real life. (i.e. At my store, the laptops at my store say 7-8 hours, but I've seen them last closer to 5-6 hours. The MacBook Pro model I'm looking at quotes about 9 hours, and I've used the same model for damn near that amount of time.) 

 

A ) It's really a personal decision. I don't think it is worth it to be honest, but I'm still considering it. The laptops have one feature that sets them apart from the PC crowd, and I discussed it above.

 

B ) As most people have said, most of the programs are available for both platforms.

 

C ) It all depends on what you're using it for, and whether you are looking at a laptop or a desktop. In the case of a laptop for field use, you're going to want that excellent battery. In the case of a desktop, you're going to want raw power. For $3k, you can build a damn good PC that will blow a $3k Mac clear out of the water. Don't let anyone tell you that but the numbers from benchmark tests. 

 

In the end, all it really comes down to is the fact that it is your money to spend. If you wanted to try piecing out a PC that has similar specs to Mac desktop, this forum is a wonderful place to do so, and many people are more than happy to do so - including myself. 

yeah i was looking at an imac and after a long debate i decided to go PC and got an

intel i7 5820k 3.3ghz

asrock x99 extreme4

crucial ddr4 16g

evga ssc gtx 970 

samsung 850 evo 250 ssd

WD black 2tb

and a 27in monitor 

[Victorious Secret]

If you don't care to upgrade a lot, get the Mac. It can run both OSs (quite well on the Windows side these days) and it'll come with a pre-calibrated panel. 

That last bit, especially for colour work in photos or videos, is important. People don't blow smoke up their ass for nothing, Apple takes their monitor calibration exceptionally seriously. I didn't even need to touch the settings on mine, it was bang on. So if that matters, theres another thing to consider. 

Speaking from my own personal experience when it comes to photos/videos, a lot of people I know have Macs. I know the knee jerk response is to say "lol fanboys" but whatever. These are normal people (engineers, doctors, students) who went with Macs. Battery life (laptops here) is amazing even under workloads, the i7 equipped ones are properly powerful for photo work and some FCP rendering; they work for them and mine works for me. 


If you're asking this in this section I can assume that you aren't going full time into this. Don't get a Mac Pro. Don't get a Windows workstation. Get something with a i7 and a CUDA enabled card (Adobe loves that stuff). You can skip out the Quadro for colour accuracy too; you're not going that serious with this. 

If you are, then you're better off building a workstation or buying one outright. The pricing is negligible either way, workstation components are expensive but if you are going to have a computer dedicated to just do editing of photos and videos then thats what you want. 

But you need to decide just how seriously you'll take the photo/video aspects. Not so serious? Get normal grade hardware. Very serious? X99 or Mac Pro calibre equipment. At those price points however, you're probably getting money coming back so spending that much isn't the end of the world anyways. 

[K1ngofportal]

If you don't care to upgrade a lot, get the Mac. It can run both OSs (quite well on the Windows side these days) and it'll come with a pre-calibrated panel. 

That last bit, especially for colour work in photos or videos, is important. People don't blow smoke up their ass for nothing, Apple takes their monitor calibration exceptionally seriously. I didn't even need to touch the settings on mine, it was bang on. So if that matters, theres another thing to consider. 

Speaking from my own personal experience when it comes to photos/videos, a lot of people I know have Macs. I know the knee jerk response is to say "lol fanboys" but whatever. These are normal people (engineers, doctors, students) who went with Macs. Battery life (laptops here) is amazing even under workloads, the i7 equipped ones are properly powerful for photo work and some FCP rendering; they work for them and mine works for me. 

If you're asking this in this section I can assume that you aren't going full time into this. Don't get a Mac Pro. Don't get a Windows workstation. Get something with a i7 and a CUDA enabled card (Adobe loves that stuff). You can skip out the Quadro for colour accuracy too; you're not going that serious with this. 

If you are, then you're better off building a workstation or buying one outright. The pricing is negligible either way, workstation components are expensive but if you are going to have a computer dedicated to just do editing of photos and videos then thats what you want. 

But you need to decide just how seriously you'll take the photo/video aspects. Not so serious? Get normal grade hardware. Very serious? X99 or Mac Pro calibre equipment. At those price points however, you're probably getting money coming back so spending that much isn't the end of the world anyways.

I'm messing around with video I'm going pro with my photography I'm doing weddings and more I've sold over 20 of my personal photos (not wedding or family portraits) and I've only been doing photography for 9 months and have had one art show.

[Victorious Secret]

I'm messing around with video I'm going pro with my photography I'm doing weddings and more I've sold over 20 of my personal photos (not wedding or family portraits) and I've only been doing photography for 9 months and have had one art show.

 

Building a entry level X99 rig is definitely the way to go then, down the line if you expand that much you can always reevaluate. I highly suggest a Pro Art monitor from ASUS for colour work, forget about all those gaming ones and what not. 

[Bsmith]

they are both jst as good for most of the things, the only real advantage that the mac has are the extend of "apps" in the mac appstore, these "apps"(actually just software validated by apple) that allow you to process your picture's in batches, i have a program that allows up to 20 imgs free and you can purchase unlimited amount for like $/€5,- this is mostly only usefull when you are adding watermarks and/or resizing your shots(if they are all the same size at the start).

other then that its the battery life you get when moving around.

 

for a at home solution i would go with windows, an asus pro art monitor(better colour accuracy) and the software you need.

 

for on the move i would go with a macbook pro, great battery life, SD card slot, runs the software flawless on battery, light enough to carry, colour calibrated screen(software included) when you sit only at home its purpose gets quickly defeated since a PC is less messy on your desk and it is easier to add more screens if needed.

 

(written form the standpoint of a macbook owner and hobby/amateur photographer)

[K1ngofportal]

they are both jst as good for most of the things, the only real advantage that the mac has are the extend of "apps" in the mac appstore, these "apps"(actually just software validated by apple) that allow you to process your picture's in batches, i have a program that allows up to 20 imgs free and you can purchase unlimited amount for like $/€5,- this is mostly only usefull when you are adding watermarks and/or resizing your shots(if they are all the same size at the start).

other then that its the battery life you get when moving around.

 

for a at home solution i would go with windows, an asus pro art monitor(better colour accuracy) and the software you need.

 

for on the move i would go with a macbook pro, great battery life, SD card slot, runs the software flawless on battery, light enough to carry, colour calibrated screen(software included) when you sit only at home its purpose gets quickly defeated since a PC is less messy on your desk and it is easier to add more screens if needed.

 

(written form the standpoint of a macbook owner and hobby/amateur photographer)

thanks and yeah its for home use not on the go i have a asus ROG G750JM for on the go and i have an car inverter so it rarely on battery

and i went with an x99 platform.