[lucianok]

Hi there, I've been reading this forum for some time and I think it's great.
I own a 12" iBook, and it's beautiful to use when I'm not at home. But for serious work with Photoshop I use a desktop PC, because of the screen size limitation of the iBook.
So now I'm thinking in getting an Imac, and deciding wich one to choose.
First I though that the 20" model was the best, and I still do, but when I went to a Store here in Buenos Aires I found out that there was a huge price difference between the 17" and 20" model. The 17" model costs usd1500 and the 20" usd2000. Would you pay those 500 extra? I can actually get another screen for that money!

Thanks!

Luciano

[quiklee]

i already paid

[macintologist]

I have the 17 and I think it's just great. When you actually sit in front of it it seems quite big actually. Unless you want to watch a lot of videos or really NEED the extra screen real estate, you should be quite happy with the 17". Plus, if you play games, the native res 1440x900 is a lot easier to pump pixel to than 1680x1050

[lucianok]

Originally Posted by quiklee 

i already paid

From what I know the difference in USA is 300.
So unless you are from another country and Apple isn´t there officially, I don´t know why you paid that much.

[lucianok]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

I have the 17 and I think it's just great. When you actually sit in front of it it seems quite big actually. Unless you want to watch a lot of videos or really NEED the extra screen real estate, you should be quite happy with the 17". Plus, if you play games, the native res 1440x900 is a lot easier to pump pixel to than 1680x1050

Thank you!
The main use is for editing images of 8mp.
My pc has a 17" crt and I probably appreciate a bigger resolution, but maybe a 20" would be too much. Any semi-pro photographers around here?

[sceptrex9]

I am lucky enough to have both a 17" and a 20" ( I want a 24" but........) anyway I have to agree with macintologist on the 17" (that it is actually quite big) unless you put the two side by side the 17" is more than enough. If you don't have the $$$'s I think you would be very happy with it. Have you tried to refurbished store at mac.com I just helped a friend pick up a 17" for $1,049.00 and they have a 20" for $1,199.00 right now.

[lucianok]

Originally Posted by sceptrex9 

I am lucky enough to have both a 17" and a 20" ( I want a 24" but........) anyway I have to agree with macintologist on the 17" (that it is actually quite big) unless you put the two side by side the 17" is more than enough. If you don't have the $$$'s I think you would be very happy with it. Have you tried to refurbished store at mac.com I just helped a friend pick up a 17" for $1,049.00 and they have a 20" for $1,199.00 right now.

Thank you! That's a very useful advise knowing that you have both models.
I think that I could spend more and buy the 20" model, but I'm just asking to be sure that it worth the difference. Besides, once Leopard comes out I probably will have to spend more money for 2gb of ram.

[Cave Man]

Originally Posted by lucianok 

Thank you!
The main use is for editing images of 8mp.
My pc has a 17" crt and I probably appreciate a bigger resolution, but maybe a 20" would be too much. Any semi-pro photographers around here?

Have you considered buying a Mac Mini instead? You could buy a display in between and save some money. There seems to be a big price break between 19" displays and 20" displays. I bought a 19" Samsung for US$200. I also have a MiniStack HD with a 250 gig HD in it that is my boot drive. I run both CS and Aperture for processing raw images from my 30D and the system performs very well.

[macintologist]

Cave Man is correct about the mini, the only problem is the integrated graphics which are several magnitudes slower than the ATI Radeon x1600 in the iMac 17".

Also, the Mini if more expensive if you have to buy everything with it, the iMac is a better value in that regard.

You decide what's important to you.

Personally I think the 17" is wonderful. The Intel iMac is a fantastically reliable model. You'll love whatever you get.

[Cave Man]

Well, my personal experience is the mini's on-board graphics are fine for 2d photo work. If the computer isn't going to be used for 3d rendering (e.g., games), then it's plenty powerful enough for photo work, at least with the 8.2 mp raw images from my 30D.

Photoshop CS is of comparable speed with my iMac 24" C2D - this may be a function of Rosetta (or maybe not). I run Aperture concurrently with PSCS and there's no lag in the system. Aperture can be slow to quit, but that's because I have about 4,000 images in my database.

If there's no interest in a DVD burner, then get the cheaper Mini, bump up the RAM to 2gigs (1 gig is adequate, but 2 gigs are substantially better), buy a MiniStack with 250 gb HD (and get another firewire port and 4 USB2 ports in the process) and a cheap 19" display. You're looking at US$1,200. Not quite the screen real estate as a 20" iMac, but almost $500 less.

I'm just suggesting that for photographers on a budget, this is nice way to go, so long as you realize the limitations of the system. If he wants the DVD burner, he'd have to get the more expensive mini, which also has a faster CPU and larger HD, for $200 more. Now you're less than $300 from the 20" iMac price and the mini isn't as attractive. Decisions, decisions...

[lucianok]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Cave Man is correct about the mini, the only problem is the integrated graphics which are several magnitudes slower than the ATI Radeon x1600 in the iMac 17".

Also, the Mini if more expensive if you have to buy everything with it, the iMac is a better value in that regard.

You decide what's important to you.

Personally I think the 17" is wonderful. The Intel iMac is a fantastically reliable model. You'll love whatever you get.

Sure, after receiving your and the other users feedback I think the 17" will be my best choice.

Originally Posted by Cave Man 

Well, my personal experience is the mini's on-board graphics are fine for 2d photo work. If the computer isn't going to be used for 3d rendering (e.g., games), then it's plenty powerful enough for photo work, at least with the 8.2 mp raw images from my 30D.

Photoshop CS is of comparable speed with my iMac 24" C2D - this may be a function of Rosetta (or maybe not). I run Aperture concurrently with PSCS and there's no lag in the system. Aperture can be slow to quit, but that's because I have about 4,000 images in my database.

If there's no interest in a DVD burner, then get the cheaper Mini, bump up the RAM to 2gigs (1 gig is adequate, but 2 gigs are substantially better), buy a MiniStack with 250 gb HD (and get another firewire port and 4 USB2 ports in the process) and a cheap 19" display. You're looking at US$1,200. Not quite the screen real estate as a 20" iMac, but almost $500 less.

I'm just suggesting that for photographers on a budget, this is nice way to go, so long as you realize the limitations of the system. If he wants the DVD burner, he'd have to get the more expensive mini, which also has a faster CPU and larger HD, for $200 more. Now you're less than $300 from the 20" iMac price and the mini isn't as attractive. Decisions, decisions...

Hi Caveman, thanks for taking time and give me some advice.
I think the imac is better because is cheaper to upgrade because I can do it by myself, gives an apple quality screen, probably won't find any difference in Photoshop on the video card issue, but at some point the lack of it will show. Maybe is a little cheaper but probably not the best plan in the future.

[macintologist]

Good luck with your purchase lucianok!