Help to Build Out a New Mac System for 61MP Sony A7RV Files

[Frederico70x7]

Hi Community

(Preamble: Let me apologize for asking the question that has been asked/answered many times before. Appreciate if I could get a one-time, overall and updated feedback.)

My PC is an 10-yr Dell laptop that its battery is dead and I'm using it as plugged in. Not that I need to carry it around and I'm content with it being hooked to a 24" 1080p monitor at home. It has 16Gb RAM and 512 Gb SSD, which is 60% full. Since 2016, I've been using standalone Lightroom 6.8 w/. Camera Raw 9.8. All these old machine and software work fine when I shot with Nikon D810 36MP files although still a bit sluggish.

I recently acquired Sony A7RV and a couple of GM lenses and hope to get serious about photography as my hobby at retirement. Two issues immediately came:

1. Very slow processing editing the JPEG files
2. Lightroom 6 doesn't support 7RV's raw files
3. No lens profile for the newer lenses, 20/1.8G, 24/1.4 GM, 35/1.4 GM & Sigma 85/1.4 DG DN

Then I realize that I need a new computer and new software (at least a newer Lightroom version. I also want to switch to Mac as my wife and children all use Macbook’s. I’m looking at the following 3 set up’s (Prices are in CAD). Which one will suit best? Although I need to add cost for a 27” display to Mac Mini, I like its form factor and the spec seems comparable to Macbook Pro.

Mac Mini ($1,299)

M4, 10-core CPU, 10-Core GPU, 16-Core Neural Engine, 24Gb Unified Memory, 512Gb SSD

3x Thunderbolt 4, HDMI, 2x USB-C, Headphone Jack

Macbook Air 13 ($1,949)

M3, 8-Core CPU, 10-Core GPU, 24Gb Unified Memory, 512Gb SSD

2x Thunderbolt/USB 4, Magsafe

Macbook Pro 14 ($2,349)

M4, 10-Core CPU, 10-Core GPU, 16-Core Neural Engine, 24Gb Unified Memory, 512Gb SSD

3x Thunderbolt 4, HDMI, SDXC slot, MagSafe 3

 

[Nick on the Baltic]

Hi Community

(Preamble: Let me apologize for asking the question that has been asked/answered many times before. Appreciate if I could get a one-time, overall and updated feedback.)

My PC is an 10-yr Dell laptop that its battery is dead and I'm using it as plugged in. Not that I need to carry it around and I'm content with it being hooked to a 24" 1080p monitor at home. It has 16Gb RAM and 512 Gb SSD, which is 60% full. Since 2016, I've been using standalone Lightroom 6.8 w/. Camera Raw 9.8. All these old machine and software work fine when I shot with Nikon D810 36MP files although still a bit sluggish.

I recently acquired Sony A7RV and a couple of GM lenses and hope to get serious about photography as my hobby at retirement. Two issues immediately came:

1. Very slow processing editing the JPEG files
2. Lightroom 6 doesn't support 7RV's raw files
3. No lens profile for the newer lenses, 20/1.8G, 24/1.4 GM, 35/1.4 GM & Sigma 85/1.4 DG DN

Then I realize that I need a new computer and new software (at least a newer Lightroom version. I also want to switch to Mac as my wife and children all use Macbook’s. I’m looking at the following 3 set up’s (Prices are in CAD). Which one will suit best? Although I need to add cost for a 27” display to Mac Mini, I like its form factor and the spec seems comparable to Macbook Pro.

Mac Mini ($1,299)

M4, 10-core CPU, 10-Core GPU, 16-Core Neural Engine, 24Gb RAM, 512Gb SSD

3x Thunderbolt 4, HDMI, 2x USB-C, Headphone Jack

Macbook Air 13 ($1,949)

M3, 8-Core CPU, 10-Core GPU, 24Gb RAM, 512Gb SSD

2x Thunderbolt/USB 4, Magsafe

Macbook Pro 14 ($2,349)

M4, 10-Core CPU, 10-Core GPU, 16-Core Neural Engine, 24Gb RAM, 512Gb SSD

3x Thunderbolt 4, HDMI, SDXC slot, MagSafe 3

I would expect any of those machines to be plenty powerful enough for a hobbyist who doesn't need to process 100s of files a day.

Personally, I would pay the extra to get the 1TB SSD. You may have other budget priorities.

Pros to the laptops: they are portable (but you don't need that), you don't have to pay extra for a display, they come with camera built in. The Pro display is excellent quality.

Cons to the laptops: the batteries degrade over time and eventually fail, you pay extra for a built-in display which may not suit your needs.

Pros to the Mini: no batteries to fail, better thermal performance, more ports, add a display of your choice.

Cons to the Mini: have to pay extra for a display, no built in camera, not portable (but you don't need that).

If you want a larger display, then the Mini is the better choice, though bear in mind that a 27" display may not necessarily have a higher resolution that the MacBook (Air: 2560x1664, Pro: 3024x1964). I have a Studio Display (5120x2880) and like it very much, but it is expensive and there may be better options now.

 

[Frederico70x7]

I would expect any of those machines to be plenty powerful enough for a hobbyist who doesn't need to process 100s of files a day.

Personally, I would pay the extra to get the 1TB SSD. You may have other budget priorities.

Pros to the laptops: they are portable (but you don't need that), you don't have to pay extra for a display, they come with camera built in. The Pro display is excellent quality.

Cons to the laptops: the batteries degrade over time and eventually fail, you pay extra for a built-in display which may not suit your needs.

Pros to the Mini: no batteries to fail, better thermal performance, more ports, add a display of your choice.

Cons to the Mini: have to pay extra for a display, no built in camera, not portable (but you don't need that).

If you want a larger display, then the Mini is the better choice, though bear in mind that a 27" display may not necessarily have a higher resolution that the MacBook (Air: 2560x1664, Pro: 3024x1964). I have a Studio Display (5120x2880) and like it very much, but it is expensive and there may be better options now.

Thanks, Nick. Your comments make good sense. I'd get a second larger display to complement a laptop anyway, so better off with the Mini. Would you recommend a 27"+ display that is close to Studio Display's quality but not so expensive? Is there a standalone display that has built-in camera for video conferencing as the Mini lacks it?

 

[Nick on the Baltic]

Sorry, can’t help with recommending displays, I don’t know what’s on the market.

 

[MarshallG]

I think you’re on the right track with the 24/512 configurations. You’ll need additional storage no matter what, so what you really get with the 512 is faster speed, not really more storage. There is a way to configure your Mac so that all of your data files and applications and user library files default to an external SSD. This is something you can do with the Mac Mini, but not with the laptops. SanDisk and Samsung both sell very fast Thunderbolt SSD drives in 2TB and 4TB configurations. That’s not backup storage; it’s primary storage where you’ll store your photos. So you could save with the Mini by getting a 24/256 configuration and a 4TB Thunderbolt SSD. Another approach you can take is to buy two identical Thunderbolt SSD’s and format them with Disk Utility into a “striped set,” which will double disk speed.



For displays, the “ideal” is a 27” 5K display. Apple’s is the very best, but it costs about $1,600. ASUS has a new 27” 5K for about half that price. Otherwise, go with a 27” 4K60 display. They’re inexpensive and you can run in full 4K mode for photo editing and in a 1080 or 1440 mode for word processing and the like; whatever suits you. The 1080 will be extremely sharp and the 1440 will have slightly soft text. I notice it but it doesn’t bother me.



My system is a MacBook Pro M1 with 16/512. No problem with the 16 GB, but maybe in 2-3 years it could be inconvenient. My RAW photos are 45mp, which is around 45 megabytes fully uncompressed. That’s the thing… even with ten layers, a 61mp image is less than a gigabyte. People use up lots of memory when they run many concurrent apps, especially Chrome with lots of open tabs. If you’re more monolithic with your photo editing, even 16GB is fine, though the added 8GB of insurance is probably a good idea.



Other parts of the system: I like my Logitech MX mouse, keyboard and webcam very much. They are excellent and inexpensive. I have an OWC Thunderbolt dock, but maybe you won’t need that with a Mini. And I hardwire my computer to my home router with gigabit Ethernet, for best performance with my NAS backup drive. Ideally, I wish I had 2.5 gig or even 10 gig connectivity to the NAS.

Oh, and I tired of Adobe. I think their software is bloated and I don’t care for the Lightroom library approach… although many do. Instead, I use DxO PhotoLab and occasionally Affinity Photo when needed. Less expensive and no subscription.

That’s about it.

 

[Frederico70x7]

There is a way to configure your Mac so that all of your data files and applications and user library files default to an external SSD. This is something you can do with the Mac Mini, but not with the laptops.

Another approach you can take is to buy two identical Thunderbolt SSD’s and format them with Disk Utility into a “striped set,” which will double disk speed.

Thank you Marshall. I'm not tech savoy. Could you explain more on defaulting the SSD for data/apps and user library files? Any tutorial articles or YouTube videos?

What are a stripped set SSD's?

 

[Lettermanian]

Good advice here already but just a couple of things to add. I'm using an M2 Mac mini 24/512, and recently picked up a relatively cheap LG 27" 4k monitor for it, coming from a 24" QHD monitor. As a hobbyist I don't worry too much about colour calibration; I tweaked some of the settings and honestly I think it looks great. The extra screen real estate over the 24" is very useful when I have more than one program open. It's also nice to be able to see more details in my photos with that extra resolution.

I use a Logitech MX Mini bluetooth keyboard and M720 mouse, both of which I prefer over the Apple Magic Keyboard and mouse. However, I've learned over the years with Mac Mini's, having a basic wired keyboard and mouse on hand can be helpful if the Mini needs to be reset, or even for the initial setup.

Webcam: an iPhone can be used as a webcam with the Continuity Camera feature, and one can purchase a phone holder that clips to the top of any monitor: iPhone as webcam

Good luck with your new setup

--
The grass isn't always greener, unless you shoot Velvia.

 

[Nick on the Baltic]

I'm going to disagree with you on a couple of points.

The base M4 Mini with 24GB RAM also has 512GB storage. Since the OP has 200GB free on his current PC (also 512GB storage), I don't think it's true to say "You’ll need additional storage no matter what". If the OP does eventually run low on storage, it might well make more sense to offload older images to an archive on an external disk.

Also wouldn't recommend using 2 SSDs in RAID 0 (striped): it won't make an appreciable difference to speed for photo editing, and it doubles the risk of failure.

 

[MarshallG]

I'm going to disagree with you on a couple of points.

The base M4 Mini with 24GB RAM also has 512GB storage. Since the OP has 200GB free on his current PC (also 512GB storage), I don't think it's true to say "You’ll need additional storage no matter what". If the OP does eventually run low on storage, it might well make more sense to offload older images to an archive on an external disk.

Also wouldn't recommend using 2 SSDs in RAID 0 (striped): it won't make an appreciable difference to speed for photo editing, and it doubles the risk of failure.

 

[Nick on the Baltic]

I'm going to disagree with you on a couple of points.

The base M4 Mini with 24GB RAM also has 512GB storage. Since the OP has 200GB free on his current PC (also 512GB storage), I don't think it's true to say "You’ll need additional storage no matter what". If the OP does eventually run low on storage, it might well make more sense to offload older images to an archive on an external disk.

Also wouldn't recommend using 2 SSDs in RAID 0 (striped): it won't make an appreciable difference to speed for photo editing, and it doubles the risk of failure.

You can order a Mac Mini in a 24/256 configuration, for sure. The base is 16/256 and you can order it as 24/256.

He said that he has a 61mp Sony camera, which produces RAW files of 50-100 MB each. Just 10-20 photos is a gigabyte, so it’s awfully easy to fill up 512 GB, especially with the System and applications grabbing at least 150 GB. Heck, my 4TB external SSD can’t hold all of my photos. It doesn’t take long to fill a 128 GB memory card shooting 100 MB RAW photos when your camera shoots 10 or 20 fps.

OK, I stand corrected.

Still wouldn't recommend RAID 0 though

 

[bakubo]

For your use of the 3 in your list I would go for the M4 Mini. For now you can use your 24" display. Of course, you can buy a 27" one later. Then you can connect both to have plenty of desktop real estate.

 

[NicholasD]

This generaal Mac article by Thom Hogan is comprehensive and up to date. Might help sort through the various options.

Nick

 

[MarshallG]

There is a way to configure your Mac so that all of your data files and applications and user library files default to an external SSD. This is something you can do with the Mac Mini, but not with the laptops.

Another approach you can take is to buy two identical Thunderbolt SSD’s and format them with Disk Utility into a “striped set,” which will double disk speed.

Thank you Marshall. I'm not tech savoy. Could you explain more on defaulting the SSD for data/apps and user library files? Any tutorial articles or YouTube videos?

What are a stripped set SSD's?

I'll make you as tech savvy as you want.

A Striped set of SSD's is when the computer treats two or more disks like one disk, and it stripes data across the disks. Two SSD's striped together can be twice as fast as a single SSD. Both SSD's must be attached all of the time, and if one fails, everything fails. But that's why we make backups.

Mac, Windows and UNIX are multi-user systems. For example, you can setup one computer with user accounts for you, your wife, and each of your kids. Each user sees their own desktop, and accesses their own Documents, Desktop, Pictures, Music, Movies and other folders, as well as their own preference settings. You can also install an Application so that all users see it, or just one user sees it.

The short version: On a Mac, you can edit the location of each user's Home directory. If you do this as part of account creation, it's pretty easy. The ideal way is to have a password-protected Admin user with a Home directory on the internal SSD, and a password-protected User directory without admin privileges with a Home directory on the external SSD. So the non-admin user will be your account that you use all the time, and since it won't have admin rights, all the applications you install will default to being stored on the SSD.

Here is one YouTube video which describes how to do this .

Here is a webpage which describes how to do this .



And here is the screenshot. Open the System Settings, select "Users & Group", and hold down the Control Key while clicking on your user name. In the box which appears next, click the Choose... button under "Home Directory," which I circled in red, and choose the root or a folder inside of the external SSD.

 

[MarshallG]

Still wouldn't recommend RAID 0 though

People go to a lot of trouble and expense to get the fastest performance. A RAID 0 Thunderbolt SSD can be incredibly fast. Apps will open faster, scrolling through 500 thumbnails of 61 megapixel photos will be faster... it offers a very significant performance boost.

The downside is that, if one drive fails, they both fail. But that's not a problem as long as you have a good backup system in place, and if you don't have a good backup system, then you're in big trouble no matter what. The bigger problem with RAID 0, I think, is that both drives must be attached at all times, so you might want to rig something that will physically hold everything in place. Traditionally, you'd house the drives inside the computer or in a housing of some kind, but with a Mac Mini, it would be two small SSD's attached with Thunderbolt cables.

I will say this "You double the odds of failure" argument isn't a very good argument. SSD failure is not common. For example: A Mac Mini with 256GB SSD has one SSD chip, and a 1 TB Mac Mini has four SSD chips... but you never hear anyone ever say, "Hey, don't buy the 1 TB version because its SSD is 4x more likely to fail. In fact, that 1 TB model will be way faster precisely because the data is striped across the four SSD chips.

RAID 0 with two external drives isn't for everyone, but it is the highest performance storage you can get... unless you use RAID 0 with three external SSD's, or maybe Thunderbolt 5 drives will come out with super-ultra speed.

 

[Frederico70x7]

I'll make you as tech savvy as you want.

Thank you again, Marshall. I think one crash course isn't enough for me

I'll watch Youtube like watching Netflix though!

 

[Nick on the Baltic]

Still wouldn't recommend RAID 0 though

People go to a lot of trouble and expense to get the fastest performance. A RAID 0 Thunderbolt SSD can be incredibly fast. Apps will open faster, scrolling through 500 thumbnails of 61 megapixel photos will be faster... it offers a very significant performance boost.

The downside is that, if one drive fails, they both fail. But that's not a problem as long as you have a good backup system in place, and if you don't have a good backup system, then you're in big trouble no matter what. The bigger problem with RAID 0, I think, is that both drives must be attached at all times, so you might want to rig something that will physically hold everything in place. Traditionally, you'd house the drives inside the computer or in a housing of some kind, but with a Mac Mini, it would be two small SSD's attached with Thunderbolt cables.

I will say this "You double the odds of failure" argument isn't a very good argument. SSD failure is not common. For example: A Mac Mini with 256GB SSD has one SSD chip, and a 1 TB Mac Mini has four SSD chips... but you never hear anyone ever say, "Hey, don't buy the 1 TB version because its SSD is 4x more likely to fail. In fact, that 1 TB model will be way faster precisely because the data is striped across the four SSD chips.

RAID 0 with two external drives isn't for everyone, but it is the highest performance storage you can get... unless you use RAID 0 with three external SSD's, or maybe Thunderbolt 5 drives will come out with super-ultra speed.

You can believe what you want, of course, but I have to say: what you've written above is a load of rubbish (to put it politely).

 

[Fazal Majid]

Get the M4 Mac Mini 24/512. 256 will be limiting quite fast.

You will need to move your data files to an external SSD eventually. Apple charges extortionate prices for storage upgrades. While those internal SSDs are fast, modern Thunderbolt/USB4 SSDs are more than fast enough.

I can recommend the ProGrade PG10, it is fast, performance does not degrade with sustained use unlike some, and it has more reliable TLC flash rather than the cheap but poorly durable QLC used by cheaper SSDs. The Crucial X9 is also a good drive, if slower because it uses USB3 rather than TB/USB4.

There is also a French company that is reverse-engineering the proprietary Apple SSD in the Mini, so you can expect more reasonably priced upgrades to become available in a year or so:

Mac Mini M4 – Part IV | Photographs, Photographers and Photography

 

[MarshallG]

Still wouldn't recommend RAID 0 though

People go to a lot of trouble and expense to get the fastest performance. A RAID 0 Thunderbolt SSD can be incredibly fast. Apps will open faster, scrolling through 500 thumbnails of 61 megapixel photos will be faster... it offers a very significant performance boost.

The downside is that, if one drive fails, they both fail. But that's not a problem as long as you have a good backup system in place, and if you don't have a good backup system, then you're in big trouble no matter what. The bigger problem with RAID 0, I think, is that both drives must be attached at all times, so you might want to rig something that will physically hold everything in place. Traditionally, you'd house the drives inside the computer or in a housing of some kind, but with a Mac Mini, it would be two small SSD's attached with Thunderbolt cables.

I will say this "You double the odds of failure" argument isn't a very good argument. SSD failure is not common. For example: A Mac Mini with 256GB SSD has one SSD chip, and a 1 TB Mac Mini has four SSD chips... but you never hear anyone ever say, "Hey, don't buy the 1 TB version because its SSD is 4x more likely to fail. In fact, that 1 TB model will be way faster precisely because the data is striped across the four SSD chips.

RAID 0 with two external drives isn't for everyone, but it is the highest performance storage you can get... unless you use RAID 0 with three external SSD's, or maybe Thunderbolt 5 drives will come out with super-ultra speed.

You can believe what you want, of course, but I have to say: what you've written above is a load of rubbish (to put it politely).

 

[MarshallG]

I have three SSD's: The internal 512 GB, a Thunderbolt SanDisk 4TB, and a Thunderbolt Orinco enclosure with a 2TB WD NVMe stick inside. Here are the Amorphous benchmarks of the three SSD's. I've used a variety of benchmarks and the Internal always comes out nearly twice as fast.




Internal 512 GB SSD




External SanDisk 4TB Thunderbolt SSD




External Orinco 2TB Thunderbolt SSD

 

[Nick on the Baltic]

Still wouldn't recommend RAID 0 though

People go to a lot of trouble and expense to get the fastest performance. A RAID 0 Thunderbolt SSD can be incredibly fast. Apps will open faster, scrolling through 500 thumbnails of 61 megapixel photos will be faster... it offers a very significant performance boost.

The downside is that, if one drive fails, they both fail. But that's not a problem as long as you have a good backup system in place, and if you don't have a good backup system, then you're in big trouble no matter what. The bigger problem with RAID 0, I think, is that both drives must be attached at all times, so you might want to rig something that will physically hold everything in place. Traditionally, you'd house the drives inside the computer or in a housing of some kind, but with a Mac Mini, it would be two small SSD's attached with Thunderbolt cables.

I will say this "You double the odds of failure" argument isn't a very good argument. SSD failure is not common. For example: A Mac Mini with 256GB SSD has one SSD chip, and a 1 TB Mac Mini has four SSD chips... but you never hear anyone ever say, "Hey, don't buy the 1 TB version because its SSD is 4x more likely to fail. In fact, that 1 TB model will be way faster precisely because the data is striped across the four SSD chips.

RAID 0 with two external drives isn't for everyone, but it is the highest performance storage you can get... unless you use RAID 0 with three external SSD's, or maybe Thunderbolt 5 drives will come out with super-ultra speed.

You can believe what you want, of course, but I have to say: what you've written above is a load of rubbish (to put it politely).

So here is a video of a Mac Studio being upgraded to 8TB. To do this, he replaced the four NANDS with 1TB nands and then he added a second NAND card which also had 1TB NANDS, and then benchmarked them, observing that the speed increased. Obviously, this is because the computer striped the data across the NAND chips.

Turns out, in this upgrade it was four chips to eight, not one to eight, but the point remains that not just larger capacity NANDS are involved. Indeed, if you look at the disk benchmarks, they improve with higher storage capacity Mac models.

The speed increase he found was small. It's not obvious what the reason was, and there are many factors at play: using two slots instead of one, using different chips, using freshly formatted storage vs. and SSD that had been used for some time. I don't know how Apple's storage controllers manage the internal SSDs; I doubt anyone outside Apple does. If assuming there is some kind of striping going on (across 8 chips? across two slots?) makes you happy then I'm also very happy for you.

However, this all has nothing to do with RAID 0 on external SSDs, and a simple read/write speed test with one file size tells you nothing about real-world performance. RAIDing external SSDs will not make a noticeable difference to anyone processing single images. If your use case is professional video processing, then you probably want something like this (and can justify the cost).