Mac Mini 2018 and Eizo ?

Bob657 said:

Similarly I bought Dell 27 inch 4k, 100% sRGB, USB 3.0/ TB monitor from B and H for about $400.

Click to expand...

jimkahnw said:

Sorry, that's the price of control. I'm a pre-press technician at my day job. I prepare images for offset reproduction. It has to be perfect. We use Eizo displays and What I See Is What I Get. With a color managed workflow, the adjustments on my screen matches the in-house laser proofs, matches the inkjet proofs from the press, matches the printed job. Well, it can never match perfectly as the devices are all different, but it's close enough.

An inexpensive display will not have a consistent image from edge to edge, blacks may be mottled, it will not display 100% of the AdobeRGB color space--meaning some values will be clipped, it could flicker, it may not be able to be calibrated. Calibration: Another expense in hardware and software, unless it's built into the display; and, crucial for accuracy.

Don't skimp. The display is the window to your vision as a photographer.

Click to expand...

Tom_N said:

mujana said:

How would a new Mac Mini (2018) with the folowing specs do for photography only:

6 core / i7 / 32Gb memory/ 2 TB SSD . 32Gb enough? Maybe go to 64Gb?

Click to expand...

64 GB RAM is almost certainly overkill.

Click to expand...

Tom_N said:

If you wanted to save about $850, you could substitute a (512 GB internal SSD plus 2 TB external USB / SATA notebook SSD) for the (2 TB internal SSD). The external SSD would be slower than the internal one, but still faster than a hard drive.

Click to expand...

Tom_N said:

Tom_N said:

Eizo CG277 (I know this is not really a new model, but probably still capable enough?)

Click to expand...

More than capable enough.

Tom_N said:

Would the GPU of the Mac Mini be "good enough"

Click to expand...

The Eizo CG277 is a 2560x1440 pixel monitor, so I wouldn't think that a 2018 Mini would have any problems in driving it.

Click to expand...

vdotmatrix said:

mujana said:

vdotmatrix said:

I got the i7,32gb,1tb setup and final cut. Works great for photography. Starts up shuts down fast, LR is really fast. I need a new monitor.

Click to expand...

Sounds good! Thank you. Any idea, what monitor you'll get?

Click to expand...

Man I have just started to look around. A lot of these folks are talking very expensive monitors. I dont want to spend more than $3-500. OUCH! I dont know

Click to expand...

graybalanced said:

vdotmatrix said:

mujana said:

vdotmatrix said:

I got the i7,32gb,1tb setup and final cut. Works great for photography. Starts up shuts down fast, LR is really fast. I need a new monitor.

Click to expand...

Sounds good! Thank you. Any idea, what monitor you'll get?

Click to expand...

Man I have just started to look around. A lot of these folks are talking very expensive monitors. I dont want to spend more than $3-500. OUCH! I dont know

Click to expand...

Yeah, OK, but stop and think about it for a moment:

Look at your own sig. You voluntarily listed photo gear literally worth multiple thousands of dollars.

You are in the Mac forum. Therefore we can assume that your photography-capable Mac is worth at least $1000, more likely $2000-$3000.

You're obviously very serious about this. Maybe you even charge clients thousands of dollars.

And you're surprised you have to spend more than $500 on a monitor?

The monitor is such a critical part...it's the one where you really know if you got what you wanted out of your thousands upon thousands of dollars of photo and computer gear!

I spent $1500 on my monitor and I don't regret it. It's already outlasted a generation of my computers and camera bodies, and it will likely last much longer. It has accuracy and capabilities no $400 monitor can achieve. It is up to the standard of the photo gear I bought.

You can spend less, sure. You can get a BenQ with a similar gamut and features to my NEC. But if you read the reviews, you'll realize why the BenQ costs less. Areas like uniformity...if you show a blank white screen, you will see that the lighting may be uneven. This will affect your judgment of photo exposure corrections. On the $1500-2000 monitors, they don't ship the monitor unless uniformity is basically perfect.

There are other capabilities too, like direct hardware calibration and storing multiple calibrations, but the point is, it's really interesting that you would spend such a large amount of money on photo and computer gear, and cripple your ability to see what they produce by dramatically under-spending on the monitor.

But, maybe that's OK. If you mostly post to social media or the web, actually a $300 monitor is just fine, since the standards of the final output are just as low. It's just a shame that $5000 of photo and computer gear has to be used to generate those photos. (But then you could think about economizing there too...you could switch to a cheaper DSLR body with kit lens, and use a sub-$800 Windows PC for the editing, with free and open source software)

Click to expand...

vdotmatrix said:

the last shoot i worked on our imac, but when i used my NEC with he new mac mini it is very bad and i need a nother monitor asap.

Click to expand...

Tom_N said:

vdotmatrix said:

the last shoot i worked on our imac, but when i used my NEC with he new mac mini it is very bad and i need a nother monitor asap.

Click to expand...

You might want to check first that getting decent color accuracy isn't just a matter of recalibrating the NEC monitor.

Especially if you have been using software calibration – where the profile is stored on your Mac, rather than internally on the monitor. Your software calibration profile might only exist on the iMac, not on the Mini.

Click to expand...

vdotmatrix said:

Tom_N said:

vdotmatrix said:

the last shoot i worked on our imac, but when i used my NEC with he new mac mini it is very bad and i need a nother monitor asap.

Click to expand...

You might want to check first that getting decent color accuracy isn't just a matter of recalibrating the NEC monitor.

Especially if you have been using software calibration – where the profile is stored on your Mac, rather than internally on the monitor. Your software calibration profile might only exist on the iMac, not on the Mini.

Click to expand...

Not sure I follow. I use the i1 to calibrate downstairs office on the MAC Mini, but cant get it bright enough to pass cal.

Click to expand...

jimkahnw said:

Sorry, that's the price of control. I'm a pre-press technician at my day job. I prepare images for offset reproduction. It has to be perfect. We use Eizo displays and What I See Is What I Get. With a color managed workflow, the adjustments on my screen matches the in-house laser proofs, matches the inkjet proofs from the press, matches the printed job. Well, it can never match perfectly as the devices are all different, but it's close enough.

An inexpensive display will not have a consistent image from edge to edge, blacks may be mottled, it will not display 100% of the AdobeRGB color space--meaning some values will be clipped, it could flicker, it may not be able to be calibrated. Calibration: Another expense in hardware and software, unless it's built into the display; and, crucial for accuracy.

Don't skimp. The display is the window to your vision as a photographer.

Click to expand...

mujana said:

jimkahnw said:

Sorry, that's the price of control. I'm a pre-press technician at my day job. I prepare images for offset reproduction. It has to be perfect. We use Eizo displays and What I See Is What I Get. With a color managed workflow, the adjustments on my screen matches the in-house laser proofs, matches the inkjet proofs from the press, matches the printed job. Well, it can never match perfectly as the devices are all different, but it's close enough.

An inexpensive display will not have a consistent image from edge to edge, blacks may be mottled, it will not display 100% of the AdobeRGB color space--meaning some values will be clipped, it could flicker, it may not be able to be calibrated. Calibration: Another expense in hardware and software, unless it's built into the display; and, crucial for accuracy.

Don't skimp. The display is the window to your vision as a photographer.

Click to expand...

Helle Jim. One more question.

Would you consider an Eizo CG series monitor worth the money, in a workflow where there's no printing involved? So, to put it simple: If not printing, still worth to buy an Eizo?

Click to expand...

elliotn said:

mujana said:

jimkahnw said:

Sorry, that's the price of control. I'm a pre-press technician at my day job. I prepare images for offset reproduction. It has to be perfect. We use Eizo displays and What I See Is What I Get. With a color managed workflow, the adjustments on my screen matches the in-house laser proofs, matches the inkjet proofs from the press, matches the printed job. Well, it can never match perfectly as the devices are all different, but it's close enough.

An inexpensive display will not have a consistent image from edge to edge, blacks may be mottled, it will not display 100% of the AdobeRGB color space--meaning some values will be clipped, it could flicker, it may not be able to be calibrated. Calibration: Another expense in hardware and software, unless it's built into the display; and, crucial for accuracy.

Don't skimp. The display is the window to your vision as a photographer.

Click to expand...

Helle Jim. One more question.

Would you consider an Eizo CG series monitor worth the money, in a workflow where there's no printing involved? So, to put it simple: If not printing, still worth to buy an Eizo?

Click to expand...

I've been using an Eizo CG275 monitor (predecessor of the model you're considering), hooked up to a Mac mini, for 7 years. It has been a great investment, and still works just as good as when I purchased it. Previously I had struggled with various monitors from Apple, HP and Dell.

I print my work - to my own Epson 3880 for small prints, and to a lab for anything larger. I also submit files for publication (magazines, books, brochures etc).

A high-end monitor is invaluable for these workflows, as I can be confident that I am submitting a properly corrected file.

If I wasn't sending work out for publication, I could probably make do with a lesser monitor, but I feel spoilt with the Eizo and wouldn't want to give it up.

For me, the main strength of a high-end monitor is screen uniformity. Brightness and colour are the same right across the display. This is vital if you are retouching a series a series of images, and want them to look consistent - you might have a master image on the left side of your screen, and you then bring up the others, one by one, on right side of the screen, checking that they match. If one side of your screen is darker than the other, or has a colour cast, then this task because impossible.

Click to expand...

mujana said:

elliotn said:

mujana said:

jimkahnw said:

Sorry, that's the price of control. I'm a pre-press technician at my day job. I prepare images for offset reproduction. It has to be perfect. We use Eizo displays and What I See Is What I Get. With a color managed workflow, the adjustments on my screen matches the in-house laser proofs, matches the inkjet proofs from the press, matches the printed job. Well, it can never match perfectly as the devices are all different, but it's close enough.

An inexpensive display will not have a consistent image from edge to edge, blacks may be mottled, it will not display 100% of the AdobeRGB color space--meaning some values will be clipped, it could flicker, it may not be able to be calibrated. Calibration: Another expense in hardware and software, unless it's built into the display; and, crucial for accuracy.

Don't skimp. The display is the window to your vision as a photographer.

Click to expand...

Helle Jim. One more question.

Would you consider an Eizo CG series monitor worth the money, in a workflow where there's no printing involved? So, to put it simple: If not printing, still worth to buy an Eizo?

Click to expand...

I've been using an Eizo CG275 monitor (predecessor of the model you're considering), hooked up to a Mac mini, for 7 years. It has been a great investment, and still works just as good as when I purchased it. Previously I had struggled with various monitors from Apple, HP and Dell.

I print my work - to my own Epson 3880 for small prints, and to a lab for anything larger. I also submit files for publication (magazines, books, brochures etc).

A high-end monitor is invaluable for these workflows, as I can be confident that I am submitting a properly corrected file.

If I wasn't sending work out for publication, I could probably make do with a lesser monitor, but I feel spoilt with the Eizo and wouldn't want to give it up.

For me, the main strength of a high-end monitor is screen uniformity. Brightness and colour are the same right across the display. This is vital if you are retouching a series a series of images, and want them to look consistent - you might have a master image on the left side of your screen, and you then bring up the others, one by one, on right side of the screen, checking that they match. If one side of your screen is darker than the other, or has a colour cast, then this task because impossible.

Click to expand...

Thank you, eliotn. The thing is, that I don’t print that much (to a lab). I might print more with a good calibrated screen. That’s what I have to think about. Screen uniformity is a good point. I know myself and when I buy new gear/ equipment, I always try to get the best my money can get (and then also to be prepared for any wishes that might come for a long time/ many years). At the moment I think about either an Eizo / Mac Mini 2018 combination, or a new iMac (waiting for a new version possibly coming in 2019), or even an iMac Pro. I’m using my computer for simple things like browsing the internet, email etc., but mostly for photography (about 80% of my computer time). I don’t do gaming or video (although I might try video ...once....not likely).

On my second iMac now (late 2013). That mini/Eizo combination looks very interesting! Especially now with the upgraded Mini.

Click to expand...

elliotn said:

mujana said:

elliotn said:

mujana said:

jimkahnw said:

Sorry, that's the price of control. I'm a pre-press technician at my day job. I prepare images for offset reproduction. It has to be perfect. We use Eizo displays and What I See Is What I Get. With a color managed workflow, the adjustments on my screen matches the in-house laser proofs, matches the inkjet proofs from the press, matches the printed job. Well, it can never match perfectly as the devices are all different, but it's close enough.

An inexpensive display will not have a consistent image from edge to edge, blacks may be mottled, it will not display 100% of the AdobeRGB color space--meaning some values will be clipped, it could flicker, it may not be able to be calibrated. Calibration: Another expense in hardware and software, unless it's built into the display; and, crucial for accuracy.

Don't skimp. The display is the window to your vision as a photographer.

Click to expand...

Helle Jim. One more question.

Would you consider an Eizo CG series monitor worth the money, in a workflow where there's no printing involved? So, to put it simple: If not printing, still worth to buy an Eizo?

Click to expand...

I've been using an Eizo CG275 monitor (predecessor of the model you're considering), hooked up to a Mac mini, for 7 years. It has been a great investment, and still works just as good as when I purchased it. Previously I had struggled with various monitors from Apple, HP and Dell.

I print my work - to my own Epson 3880 for small prints, and to a lab for anything larger. I also submit files for publication (magazines, books, brochures etc).

A high-end monitor is invaluable for these workflows, as I can be confident that I am submitting a properly corrected file.

If I wasn't sending work out for publication, I could probably make do with a lesser monitor, but I feel spoilt with the Eizo and wouldn't want to give it up.

For me, the main strength of a high-end monitor is screen uniformity. Brightness and colour are the same right across the display. This is vital if you are retouching a series a series of images, and want them to look consistent - you might have a master image on the left side of your screen, and you then bring up the others, one by one, on right side of the screen, checking that they match. If one side of your screen is darker than the other, or has a colour cast, then this task because impossible.

Click to expand...

Thank you, eliotn. The thing is, that I don’t print that much (to a lab). I might print more with a good calibrated screen. That’s what I have to think about. Screen uniformity is a good point. I know myself and when I buy new gear/ equipment, I always try to get the best my money can get (and then also to be prepared for any wishes that might come for a long time/ many years). At the moment I think about either an Eizo / Mac Mini 2018 combination, or a new iMac (waiting for a new version possibly coming in 2019), or even an iMac Pro. I’m using my computer for simple things like browsing the internet, email etc., but mostly for photography (about 80% of my computer time). I don’t do gaming or video (although I might try video ...once....not likely).

On my second iMac now (late 2013). That mini/Eizo combination looks very interesting! Especially now with the upgraded Mini.

Click to expand...

iMac might be a better solution for you. Mac minis are good for people who insist on an NEC or Eizo display.

Click to expand...

mujana said:

elliotn said:

mujana said:

elliotn said:

mujana said:

jimkahnw said:

Sorry, that's the price of control. I'm a pre-press technician at my day job. I prepare images for offset reproduction. It has to be perfect. We use Eizo displays and What I See Is What I Get. With a color managed workflow, the adjustments on my screen matches the in-house laser proofs, matches the inkjet proofs from the press, matches the printed job. Well, it can never match perfectly as the devices are all different, but it's close enough.

An inexpensive display will not have a consistent image from edge to edge, blacks may be mottled, it will not display 100% of the AdobeRGB color space--meaning some values will be clipped, it could flicker, it may not be able to be calibrated. Calibration: Another expense in hardware and software, unless it's built into the display; and, crucial for accuracy.

Don't skimp. The display is the window to your vision as a photographer.

Click to expand...

Helle Jim. One more question.

Would you consider an Eizo CG series monitor worth the money, in a workflow where there's no printing involved? So, to put it simple: If not printing, still worth to buy an Eizo?

Click to expand...

I've been using an Eizo CG275 monitor (predecessor of the model you're considering), hooked up to a Mac mini, for 7 years. It has been a great investment, and still works just as good as when I purchased it. Previously I had struggled with various monitors from Apple, HP and Dell.

I print my work - to my own Epson 3880 for small prints, and to a lab for anything larger. I also submit files for publication (magazines, books, brochures etc).

A high-end monitor is invaluable for these workflows, as I can be confident that I am submitting a properly corrected file.

If I wasn't sending work out for publication, I could probably make do with a lesser monitor, but I feel spoilt with the Eizo and wouldn't want to give it up.

For me, the main strength of a high-end monitor is screen uniformity. Brightness and colour are the same right across the display. This is vital if you are retouching a series a series of images, and want them to look consistent - you might have a master image on the left side of your screen, and you then bring up the others, one by one, on right side of the screen, checking that they match. If one side of your screen is darker than the other, or has a colour cast, then this task because impossible.

Click to expand...

Thank you, eliotn. The thing is, that I don’t print that much (to a lab). I might print more with a good calibrated screen. That’s what I have to think about. Screen uniformity is a good point. I know myself and when I buy new gear/ equipment, I always try to get the best my money can get (and then also to be prepared for any wishes that might come for a long time/ many years). At the moment I think about either an Eizo / Mac Mini 2018 combination, or a new iMac (waiting for a new version possibly coming in 2019), or even an iMac Pro. I’m using my computer for simple things like browsing the internet, email etc., but mostly for photography (about 80% of my computer time). I don’t do gaming or video (although I might try video ...once....not likely).

On my second iMac now (late 2013). That mini/Eizo combination looks very interesting! Especially now with the upgraded Mini.

Click to expand...

iMac might be a better solution for you. Mac minis are good for people who insist on an NEC or Eizo display.

Click to expand...

There surely was a first time for you, when you decided to buy an Eizo screen. Your experiences seem very positive (compared to iMacs and other screens).. Might also work for me. Certainly when/if printing more. I cannot insist on an Eizo screen yet (no experiences with such a calibrated monitor), but I’m open to experiences of others. I’ve yet to find someone who is not satisfied with Eizo.

Why do you think an iMac might be a better solution for me?

Click to expand...

elliotn said:

mujana said:

elliotn said:

mujana said:

elliotn said:

mujana said:

jimkahnw said:

Sorry, that's the price of control. I'm a pre-press technician at my day job. I prepare images for offset reproduction. It has to be perfect. We use Eizo displays and What I See Is What I Get. With a color managed workflow, the adjustments on my screen matches the in-house laser proofs, matches the inkjet proofs from the press, matches the printed job. Well, it can never match perfectly as the devices are all different, but it's close enough.

An inexpensive display will not have a consistent image from edge to edge, blacks may be mottled, it will not display 100% of the AdobeRGB color space--meaning some values will be clipped, it could flicker, it may not be able to be calibrated. Calibration: Another expense in hardware and software, unless it's built into the display; and, crucial for accuracy.

Don't skimp. The display is the window to your vision as a photographer.

Click to expand...

Helle Jim. One more question.

Would you consider an Eizo CG series monitor worth the money, in a workflow where there's no printing involved? So, to put it simple: If not printing, still worth to buy an Eizo?

Click to expand...

I've been using an Eizo CG275 monitor (predecessor of the model you're considering), hooked up to a Mac mini, for 7 years. It has been a great investment, and still works just as good as when I purchased it. Previously I had struggled with various monitors from Apple, HP and Dell.

I print my work - to my own Epson 3880 for small prints, and to a lab for anything larger. I also submit files for publication (magazines, books, brochures etc).

A high-end monitor is invaluable for these workflows, as I can be confident that I am submitting a properly corrected file.

If I wasn't sending work out for publication, I could probably make do with a lesser monitor, but I feel spoilt with the Eizo and wouldn't want to give it up.

For me, the main strength of a high-end monitor is screen uniformity. Brightness and colour are the same right across the display. This is vital if you are retouching a series a series of images, and want them to look consistent - you might have a master image on the left side of your screen, and you then bring up the others, one by one, on right side of the screen, checking that they match. If one side of your screen is darker than the other, or has a colour cast, then this task because impossible.

Click to expand...

Thank you, eliotn. The thing is, that I don’t print that much (to a lab). I might print more with a good calibrated screen. That’s what I have to think about. Screen uniformity is a good point. I know myself and when I buy new gear/ equipment, I always try to get the best my money can get (and then also to be prepared for any wishes that might come for a long time/ many years). At the moment I think about either an Eizo / Mac Mini 2018 combination, or a new iMac (waiting for a new version possibly coming in 2019), or even an iMac Pro. I’m using my computer for simple things like browsing the internet, email etc., but mostly for photography (about 80% of my computer time). I don’t do gaming or video (although I might try video ...once....not likely).

On my second iMac now (late 2013). That mini/Eizo combination looks very interesting! Especially now with the upgraded Mini.

Click to expand...

iMac might be a better solution for you. Mac minis are good for people who insist on an NEC or Eizo display.

Click to expand...

There surely was a first time for you, when you decided to buy an Eizo screen. Your experiences seem very positive (compared to iMacs and other screens).. Might also work for me. Certainly when/if printing more. I cannot insist on an Eizo screen yet (no experiences with such a calibrated monitor), but I’m open to experiences of others. I’ve yet to find someone who is not satisfied with Eizo.

Why do you think an iMac might be a better solution for me?

Click to expand...

I had specific problems with all the screens I used prior to getting an Eizo. I once returned an Apple Cinema Display to the Apple Store four times, before getting one that didn't have a colour cast on one side. I'm fussy!

If there's nothing about your current screen that is bothering you, I'm not sure if it's worthwhile getting an Eizo.

Some people insist on expensive Gitzo tripods, but for many a much cheaper Manfrotto is perfectly adequate.

Only upgrade if you perceive a specific problem with what you're currently using.

Click to expand...

elliotn said:

mujana said:

jimkahnw said:

Sorry, that's the price of control. I'm a pre-press technician at my day job. I prepare images for offset reproduction. It has to be perfect. We use Eizo displays and What I See Is What I Get. With a color managed workflow, the adjustments on my screen matches the in-house laser proofs, matches the inkjet proofs from the press, matches the printed job. Well, it can never match perfectly as the devices are all different, but it's close enough.

An inexpensive display will not have a consistent image from edge to edge, blacks may be mottled, it will not display 100% of the AdobeRGB color space--meaning some values will be clipped, it could flicker, it may not be able to be calibrated. Calibration: Another expense in hardware and software, unless it's built into the display; and, crucial for accuracy.

Don't skimp. The display is the window to your vision as a photographer.

Click to expand...

Helle Jim. One more question.

Would you consider an Eizo CG series monitor worth the money, in a workflow where there's no printing involved? So, to put it simple: If not printing, still worth to buy an Eizo?

Click to expand...

I've been using an Eizo CG275 monitor (predecessor of the model you're considering), hooked up to a Mac mini, for 7 years. It has been a great investment, and still works just as good as when I purchased it. Previously I had struggled with various monitors from Apple, HP and Dell.

I print my work - to my own Epson 3880 for small prints, and to a lab for anything larger. I also submit files for publication (magazines, books, brochures etc).

A high-end monitor is invaluable for these workflows, as I can be confident that I am submitting a properly corrected file.

If I wasn't sending work out for publication, I could probably make do with a lesser monitor, but I feel spoilt with the Eizo and wouldn't want to give it up.

For me, the main strength of a high-end monitor is screen uniformity. Brightness and colour are the same right across the display. This is vital if you are retouching a series a series of images, and want them to look consistent - you might have a master image on the left side of your screen, and you then bring up the others, one by one, on right side of the screen, checking that they match. If one side of your screen is darker than the other, or has a colour cast, then this task because impossible.

Click to expand...