Are Macs better than PCs for photography work? If so, why?

Started Mar 31, 2013 | Questions thread
oklaphotog
Contributing MemberPosts: 752Gear list
Like?
Re: Are Macs better than PCs for photography work? If so, why?
In reply to theJuke2, Apr 1, 2013

theJuke2 wrote:

Thank you for all of your input, I appreciate your detailed answer. I agree about the i7, but just so you know you can get i7 on an iMac now. I was at the Apple store (just to look) a few days ago and you can choose i7 as an upgrade.

I still haven't made up my mind. If they are really all the same, then it makes sense to me to go with the more affordable option.

Many folks swear by a specific interface, and all power to them. For me, as someone who has used damn near everything gui wise (GEOS, Amiga OS, BeOS, QNX, Mac OS pre-X and X, Windows 3.1 through 8, OS/2, many different unix/linux platforms/window managers etc...), I don't get caught up in a UI, as long as it works well. I've found that nothing is perfect and both modern windows and mac platforms are pretty universal when it comes to something simple like image/video editing since the industry standard software exists for both, they are both easy to use, as well as both being stable OS's for the most part. The apple's tend to have more of a hipster/trendy look, but they are nothing more than a PC under the skin for a lot more money. If performance per dollar is important, there is no way a you can beat a windows machine since it gets the job done equally as well for far less.

Most major TV stations edit video on a PC using Avid News Cutter, as well as use PC's for their graphics production. If it's good enough to get time sensitive breaking stories on the air nearly immediately and reliably when every second counts, then the platform is more than adequate for still photography needs IMHO. These guys are using machines built with quality hardware though and not machines built with the cheapest hardware available by joe bob hole in the wall PC shop.

There's nothing wrong with a Mac (expect price/performance ratio), I've owned several starting with a Mac SE 40 and administrated many more. There was a time many, many, years ago when it was a better platform than windows for desktop graphics production. But the playing field has been pretty level for quite a while. If you want to use apple specific software like Aperture or FCP etc..... Then you're stuck with a mac. If you want to use the more popular Adobe and Avid products, they exist for both and you save a lot of money going with a windows system on decent quality hardware.

These days people who have major issues with modern versions of Windows or Mac OS can usually cough it up to user error, using poorly written software, or bottom of the barrel generic hardware (in the case of the cheapest of cheap budget windows machines) etc...

Really you can compare them both to cameras. Nikon and Canon. They take turns one upping each other on occasion, they tend to look and feel different, each one does something better than the other while also doing something worse as well. But in the end they both get the job done for many professionals, enthusiasts, and the general population just fine. Only difference is the price gap between Canon and Nikon products tend not to be as wide as a Mac vs. a quality Windows machine.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
No.New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow