The Biggest News from Apple in Years

The all-new Apple Mac Studio computer

I can hardly believe my senses, but Apple yesterday appears to have introduced an all-new computer designed and aimed exactly at us—PHOTOGRAPHERS. Excuse the shouting.

The all-new Apple Mac Studio looks like a bulked-up and pumped-up musclebound Mini with two supercharged versions of the high-performance M1 chip—M1 Max ($2,000) for still photographers, M1 Ultra ($4,000) for videographers. With industrial-size fans. The M1 Ultra chip being basically two M1 Max chips joined at the hip, thus requiring less power than two separate M1 Max chips. 

Its shape is kinda reminiscent of the Power Mac G4 Cube that appealed to me so much back in 2000. Neat, clean, contained, smallish and easy to site on a desk. John Gruber wrote of the Cube in July 2020: "The Cube was a worthy failure, deserving of our utmost praise in hindsight. Powerful computers needed to get smaller, quieter, and more attractive. The Cube pushed the state of the art forward." Apple could have called the Studio the Cube II—except that the Cube, which was before its time, was a commercial failure.

There's a matching monitor, the 27-inch 5K voice-and-video-ready Studio Display that has its own A13 Bionic chip onboard. It has a nanotexture glass option to cut glare and an adjustable-height stand as an option. Suitable for graphic arts professionals who use their monitors all day.

The Mac Studio's memory is "unified," (i.e., not user upgradeable), but you can choose 32GB or 64GB for the M1 Max version and those options plus 128GB on the M1 Ultra version. 512GB SSD storage is standard with options available from 1 to  8 terabytes. According to Apple, the new Mac Studios are significantly faster than the 27" iMac and the existing Mac Pro, from 50% to 3.8X.

Both the Mac Studio and Studio Display will start shipping March 18th.

Yay, I say. Although I can't afford one myself.

Pet peeve no more
And—OMG, be still, my beating heart—not only is there a built-in SD card slot on the Mac Studio, but it's on the front.

I couldn't believe my eyes—sat there blinking stupidly—but then I remembered, oh yeah, Jony retired. Apple has always wanted everything to be designy and clean even at the expense of usability, so it insisted the ports be on the back, out of sight. Bugged me for years, but then, the world is the world. The card slot on the front won't mean much to most people, but to me it's a flag that proclaims changed intentions for this product and renewed respect for the needs of photographers. Oh, okay, "creatives." (Man I hate that word.)

Because not only is an Mac Studio an all-new computer, for today's Apple it's an all-new computer category. For years you have been dutifully enduring my griping:

• Apple didn't make a good midrange desktop for a separate monitor, so we could upgrade separately and/or use third-party graphics arts monitors such as my NEC. Apple's choices were too much (the Pro) or too little (the Mini). High end or low end, nothing in the middle.
• Apple's focus was on lifestyle and the high end, and what photographers needed was a good solid middle-range workhorse, affordable but capable.
• Apple had forgotten the graphics arts market that had once been its most loyal constituency.
• Apple always put the bleeping card slot on the side, and then on the back, so we could get irritated just a wee bit every single time we had to get up and lean over and crane our necks to put a card in or pull a card out. Which was often.
• Well, then it solved that problem by eliminating the card slot altogether. Of course, we all still use cards on a nearly daily basis. So they cleaned up the sleekness of the computer just a tiny bit...at the cost of the outboard docks that now sit on our desks. Thanks for that.
• Couldn't we please get one or two ports on the front, where they'd be accessible, for frequently swapped peripherals? We already have cords all over our desks, we really don't mind one or two more. Ours are working offices.
• Apple's Mini, post-2014, was designed for switchers (from PC) and thus could be crippled. Didn't need the latest or best chips, didn't need upgradeable RAM. The fan could be an afterthought and too small, because grampas and soccer moms and humanities majors were only going to use the thing for email and YouTube—and now Zoom—anyhow.
• In short, Apple didn't deign to make a computer for us...or so I b*tched, when of course the iMacs worked well enough and I shoulda stopped my kvetching and gone along with that program like a good sheep customer. (I do have an iMac, upstairs.)

Happy day, Apple has just shut me up entirely. By addressing all those criticisms. In one fell swoop.

A win for photographers and we might as well shout it
The Studio is ours. It's for us. Finally, that midrange workhorse utilitarian monitor-less high-connectivity accessible affordable PHOTO-CENTRIC computer I always thought Apple should make for photographers. And for videographers. (It's for musicians, too.)

I'm getting carried away, so I'll just say thank you, Santa Apple, and go calm down.

But oh, happy day. This one's for us.

Mike

P.S. I have no connection to Apple except as a customer, and was privy to no prior notification or information about any of the products introduced yesterday.

UPDATE: Thom Hogan has weighed in on the Mac Studio. One thing he points out that I should pass along is that the previous photographers' workhorse, the Intel 27" iMac with Retina 5K display, has been discontinued by Apple and is a bargain from resellers who still have stock (I believe it's what Ctein uses). Check out Thom's article. (Thanks to Richard Nugent for pointing this out—I hadn't caught up with it before he did.)

Book of Interest this Week

Gregory Crewdson: Alone Street. "Filmic" seems the best single adjective to describe Gregory Crewdson's work; his directed and carefully managed tableau are the still photography version of scenes in movies. As such they are hyper-real; more beautiful than life and more poetic, and more concerted. They're also very easy to enjoy and a pleasure to look at.

This book link is a portal to Amazon.

Today at B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Richard Parkin: "I solve the problem of the connections at the back by simply having the back at the front so all the ports are accessible."

Mike replies: Ha! I did the same thing with my subwoofer for my desk system...it's downward-firing, so I simply turned the front to the wall so I could access all the controls and connections.

Yuan: "Although it's drool-worthy, I'd rather call the Mac Studio video-centric. For the majority of still photographers, even the $2k version is over-kill. Nowadays you simply don't need to spend $2k to get a perfectly fine still photo computer."

James: "It's $2,000 before a screen. Five of those and you can have a pool shed."

Mike replies: True, but the Pro is $6k and up, and a Fuji X-Pro3, Panasonic S5, or Sony A7III are all the same price, and you could also spend the same on a Sony FE 50mm ƒ/1.2 GM or a Fuji XF 8–16mm ƒ/2.8. And some people already have monitors. But sure, it's not for everyone.

Michael Fewster: "SD card slot at the front! Loud cheers. Let's hope that the cheers are heard by laptop makers. In recent years SD card readers have almost completely disappeared from the laptops we photographers like to take when we travel. A MicroSD card reader doesn't do it."

Steve W: "This is good news. I have a 2018 Mac Mini, and I'm getting close to wanting to upgrade. The current Mac Mini has even fewer ports: it's been reduced from four Thunderbolt/USB-C ports to only two. That's not going to cut it. The Mac Studio is configured almost perfectly, and the SD card slot is frosting on the cake. The price seems about right given that a 14" MacBook Pro costs $1,999 as well."

Rob de Loe: "I used to teach in a lab full of Macs. Someone who wanted a nearly endless bounty of free SD cards could be happy in that room. There they were in the back of the monitor, forgotten by the previous user, waiting to be collected. There probably was someone coming around harvesting them each day, like the people you'd see running from pay phone to pay phone checking for uncollected change."

Mark replies to Rob: "What's a pay phone?"

Danielsroka: "I am just as excited as you are. My beloved 'trashcan' Mac Pro has been a workhorse, and served me well. But it is now eight years old now, and I've been waiting for a solid professional desktop Mac to come along to replace it. It feels like this machine was designed with the professional photographer in mind. Fast, efficient, and bang-on with the price. I calculated that $3–4,000 will get me a fast (but not outrageous) setup, which is the same price range I've paid for my high-end Macs in the past. And these new M1 Max chips are proving to be groundbreaking in speed and energy efficiency, a significant upgrade from the old Intel framework. Can't wait!"

Larry Angier: "Faster, cheaper, better continues! In 1984 my original Mac 128 with external floppy and ImageWriter printer cost (then) about $2,500 and it had a nine-inch monitor, 128 KB ram and 400 KB floppies.... Things keep getting better and better for us!"

Apple Point-Counterpoint

John Camp: "I'm typing this on a 2015 MacBook Pro, which will be my last Apple product, other than cellphones, and I'm taking a hard look at those. Most (maybe all) of what Studio will do can be replicated much more cheaply on Windows machines, although the Mac OS still seems easier and more intuitive that even the latest Windows 11. My problem is, if you interface (cliché) with the business world, the business world uses Windows, and even identically-branded software is not the same between the two worlds. I could no longer put up with the problems created by using Word for Mac when sending a manuscript to a publisher who is totally on Windows. Microsoft frequently updates Word, but not so frequently Word for Mac, which means there are always incompatibilities, and some of them can drive you crazy. So I'm forced to change.

"The Studio, it seems to me, is for professional videographers and perhaps professional still photographers, because Apple systems are widely used by 'creatives' (another cliché.) For artists and enthusiasts, who may only be dealing with couple of dozen photos a week, an expensive computer makes little sense. For somebody like Kirk Tuck, who may take several hundred photos at a single public event, with an ad agency demanding instant returns, the Studio may be something to seriously consider. IMHO.

"I will concede that changing operating systems is a pain in the ass, and I'm currently experiencing that. There is certainly a solid value in staying within a familiar, comfortable system, which is why I still shoot Nikons along with my Micro 4/3 stuff. But for me, from here on, it's Windows."

Alex Mercado: "I'm a staff photographer and certainly welcome the Mac Studio.

"My department is currently making use of a small fleet of Mac Minis from 2018 and, while the Mini I use exhibits no significant performance issues—as I have the luxury of only running Capture One—my colleagues in production have been feeling the limitations of theirs for some time. The suite of applications they need to run simultaneously on any given day visibly taxes the hardware of their 6-core Mac mini. And we even ponied up for them to have the maximum of 64BG of RAM from the start.

"If it were possible to cram even more RAM into the Mac Mini to help things run more efficiently, the dated CPU would still have trouble juggling the multiple threads of all the updated, and increasingly processor-intensive, applications. If the CPU could be upgraded, then every other part of the motherboard would likely become a bottleneck. The notion of long-term upgradability for an affordable computer is not terribly realistic; there will always be a component, either hardware or software, that will fail to deliver to the peak performance of the computer as a whole.

"This lack of upgradability for most of Apple’s current computers is a non-issue in our 'corporate' setting by the simple virtue of having to work within the recommendations of the IT department. Ours require us to update the OS and software regularly to keep up with security updates and network compatibility; meaning we eventually need to replace the computer to keep up with the times. Today’s Adobe Creative Cloud applications running on Monterey isn’t nearly as speedy on our Mac mini as the 2018 suite was on Mojave.

"Our replacement options before the Mac Studio were: The 2020 Mac mini. For $1,300, it has two additional CPU cores, but the RAM tops out at 16GB. It will logically struggle to keep up with demands rather quickly.

"We use Eizo displays so considering any iMac is basically pointless.

"Lastly, the 'base mode' 8-core Intel Xeon-based Mac Pro with 48GB of RAM will cost $6,500 (the next step up is 96GB for $7,200!) and is just overkill in more ways than one. Also, how long is Apple really going to keep supporting x86?

"Now, $2,600 for a Mac Studio with its 10-core M1 Max and standard 64BG of RAM is the Goldilocks Mac we’ve been waiting for. And I suspect it will remain usable for more than the four years we've managed to squeeze out of the Mac Mini."

Ed Hawco replies to John: "Another counterpoint to John Camp's point that 'if you interface (cliché) with the business world, the business world uses Windows, and even identically-branded software is not the same between the two worlds.'

"John says he wrote that on a 2015 Macbook Pro, and I think his thesis is also from 2015, if not earlier. I work in the business world, and have done so happily for over a decade on Macs. At my employer we're pretty much evenly split between Macs and Windows machines, and it is exceptionally rare to find any issues crossing platforms. My macOS MS Office interfaces flawlessly with MS Office files from Windows users. Ditto other applications we use.

"The only exception I'm aware of is the screenshot application called Snagit from Techsoft; the native image format on macOS is '.snagproj' and on Windows it's '.snag,' and they are not compatible. This is a very weird thing in 2022. Six or seven years ago I asked one of their product managers why they don't make the formats compatible across OSs, and the reply (which I don't remember verbatim) left me a bit stunned, as it implied the person did not understand what the 'use case' was for having cross-OS compatible files. Whaaaaaaa?"

Thom Hogan replies to John: "Message to John Camp: stop using Word on the Mac. The best, most compatible word processor on the Mac is Nisuswriter Pro. Has been for years as Microsoft slowly let their Mac software slide. But that should tell you something about reliance on Microsoft software in the first place. Office is a lowest common denominator product now, and as such is going to have problems long-term even for an all-Windows user."

Eric Brody (partial comment): "Like Larry Angier, my first Mac was purchased for US$2,500. I got it on April 18, 1984! 400K single-sided disks, no externals. My first external drive was a 20 megabyte, not terabyte, drive that cost hundreds! It always seemed to me that one spent the same $2,500 every few years, but got a lot more computer power."

Mike replies: My first computer was the 512K Macintosh, 1984–86, which I got for a graduation present from art school in May of '85. It was called the "Fat Mac" because it had, woo-hoo, 0.000512 GB of memory, which was a lot. Like you guys, my Macintosh and an Imagewriter daisy-wheel printer cost about $2,600. For the same dollars you can get a Mac Studio with a 2TB SSD, which can do even more than my old Fat Mac could. (I kid, don't yell at me.)

Comments

[psu]

Of course, as I have said for a long time, the iMacs (or laptops for that matter) are fine for *most* photo people, and a lot cheaper than this new toy which while very shiny and zippy is also pretty pricy ($3K to $4K in most normal configs, I imagine). Because that's what it ends up costing to make enough margin.

I'm sure Apple will sell a lot of these, but IMHO it's not a great value for money move for most people. Even the cheaper hardware is faster than you could possibly have imagined 5-10 years ago.

I am sort of curious about the fate of the 27" iMac, given this machine.

[Robert Roaldi]

Great news.

[ASW]

You don't mention the price, but I don't think these products will be mid-range in any sense of the word. I know that time is money, but unless you're a pro photographer I don't see how having the bestest/biggest/fastest computer offers a return on investment. Definitely not for a hobby photographer.

I don't want to start any sort of Mac war. I've used them in the past (when provided by my work) and they were OK, but I personally can not justify buying a computer that will cost more than my car (and it's not a junk car), and which I can never upgrade should my needs change.

FYI, Thom Hogan posted about this system today as well. He doesn't argue against it, but does make the point that many folks will be better served by picking up the remaining stock of the Intel processor iMacs at a lower cost.

[Chris]

How people can get excited by a new desktop computer today I find extraordinary. To me they all work and do the same thing and all competently. "White goods", like cookers or toasters. But then I think the only Apple product really worth having is the iPad.

[I always say the iPad is my "least necessary but favorite" device. --Mike]

[Greg]

Agree on your list. Accessible SD slot. For some reason I have two add-on USB-A docs; so yes to ports. For what: USB back-up drive, charger cord for mouse, cord for mini-USB, wired mouse for when wireless mouse won't connect, etc.

I'm not ready to buy but was reviewing Mini M1 vs. M1 Studio Max and was wondering if the Mini wouldn't be good enough for photography.

Upgradeability is still a negative. But I would have bought one of these instead of an iMac five years ago. I hate to give up on the iMac monitor to upgrade.

[John Bour]

Mike...you could have avoided all the gripes, irritations, problems and frustations, AND saved lots of money, had you just bought a windows PC..
The Apple/PC, Nikon/Canon etc wars are utterly stupid imo, but most of the 'fanboys' defend their camp willfully ignoring the downsides of their choice. You..for years defended your choice while acknowledging the obvious idiosyncrasies of Apple. Strange;-) Anyway, hope you have the possibility to acquire one of the new models. In the meantime, I'll just spend a couple of hundred dollars to upgrade my pc to state-of-the-art;-)
Keep up the good work!
John

[James]

That looks just like my next desktop...

[MikeK]

And it only took them about 17 years!

[Ken Bennett]

When Apple got rid of the card slot on the Macbook Pro, they said at the time something along the lines of "all cameras have wi-fi now, so no one needs a card slot. Just download via wi-fi."

Right. When I get back from an assignment, I'll just let my three cameras download 60 or 80 gigs of raw files over the wi-fi. Uh huh. That shouldn't take more than a couple of weeks.

Of course I'm using external fast readers, but the internal slot is a good backup, and it's often convenient. I'm glad it's back on my new Macbook Pro, and I'm glad it's on the front of the Studio.

I'll need to think about the Studio, whether it makes sense to have one master photo editing station permanently in my, well, studio, and have the laptop for travel and remote editing.

[Michael Matthews]

Affordable?

[Bill Tyler]

Nitpicky Spelling Note: It's "terabytes," not "terrabytes."

[Kenneth Tanaka]

These do look like terrific new desktops for photographers, Mike! I spent a bit of time reading the specs this morning. If it was last year I'd have one already on pre-order!

But last year I faced the obsolescence of my gorgeous-but-dead-end Mac Pro tower and my NEC monitor. Both were a decade old. So I made a radical (for me) update to using a brawny 16" Mac Book Pro (M1 Pro) as my sole working computer. I also updated my monitor to the latest NEC. Life has never been better. The new M1 platform absolutely screams. Not even my toughest tasks make it breathe hard. (In contrast, the old Intel processor on my previous system would sound like a 737 taxiing for take-off after a few minutes of PS.) So these new "Studio" boxes with even newer M1 chips should really shine!

It does make you wonder what the future of Apple's current Intel-based Mac Pro tower might be, if any.

[James]

Not that I necessarily recommend getting a $400 econobox. But it has been a long time since even cheap computers have been "good enough" for photography. Sure, this sits in the "middle" of Apple's lineup, but it is supposed to outperform the last generation's "pro" desktop. Do you really need it? If the last time you bought a desktop was 5 years ago or more, maybe it is time to get the Mac Mini, and deal with dongle life. And buy a nice lens with the leftover money.

[Well, perhaps it depends...for example if you shoot with a ~50 or more MP camera now, and use 128GB UHS-II SD cards, and do processor-intensive tasks semi-regularly and so forth, it could make a big difference. You can also say that you can easily be a photographer with a 2-generations old Micro 4/3 camera and a couple of inexpensive primes, and you can, but, having options is good. There's also the possibility that you wanted last generation's pro computer but couldn't afford it. Now maybe you can. --Mike]

[Steve Biro]

I'd love a Mac Studio with the base M1 Max chip. I'm assuming 32GB would be enough RAM. The only upgrade I'd go for is a full TB on the SSD. That's still $2199 without monitor. Like others who have posted above, I have to wonder whether an optioned out M1 Mac Mini would be enough - especially after upgraded versions are introduced this summer or fall.

[Chris]

Apparently the two small vertical slots on the front are USB-C or Thunderbolt 4 ports.

[Henning]

The fate of the 27" iMac is known. It's done. It's dead. Same as the Norwegian blue. I could go on.

Now, if you want a larger than 24" monitor in an Apple product, the Studio probably is the logical (if expensive) basis.

[James]

I'm a computer programmer at work. If you've ever run a program called "Docker" and a program called "Slack" (especially for screen shares) on a Mac at the same time, you are in some very processor intensive territory.

Yes, modern 50 megapixel cameras require more computer than a decade old laptop. But I still think this is a videographer's computer, not a photographer's computer. Which is what you're asserting this is. What makes an M1 Mac Mini not a photographer's computer? The lack of forward facing SD card?

Also, until the M1 chips (so not since 2014), Apples and Oranges had the same Intel chips, so it is not like switchers were going from underpowered PCs to dominant Apple hardware. Dollar for dollar, you could get much better chips in Orange land. It was only since the M1 chips that Apples clearly had better hardware, and that was only the last couple years.

I mean, have a Mac Studio if you want, I guess. But in that case, I stand by my old point, that Apple is a jewelry company specializing in brushed aluminum.

And who says I have a 2 generation old m43 camera? That thing is at least 3 generations old. =P You know me too well, Mike.

[John Shriver]

I bought one of the last-generation 27 inch iMacs back in November, because I have Windows 10 running in a Parallels VM to run Nikon Scan for my CoolScan V. There are things Nikon Scan can do that neither SilverFast or VueScan can do at all, or do well.

It replaced a similar iMac from 2014, which was falling off the software support cliff.

But I have also setup an old MacBook running the last OS X version with Rosetta so that it can run the PowerPC version of Nikon Scan, for the day when I don't have a Mac that can run x86 Windows in a VM. Tested it, working fine.

I also have an M1 MacBook Air, which I love dearly. Typing this on it.

Yes, Apple Mac computers are much more expensive than Windows. But I'm paying for much better software, reliable, with attention to detail. I'm also paying for superb integrated backup software that's easy to use. My data on the machine is far more valuable than paying $1000 more every 5-7 years for a computer.

[John Krill]

You still may have one major bottle neck with these new Mac Studios and that is the speed of the SD card reader itself. There is no standard. So if you are, say, a wedding photographer you just may be going on an extended coffee break while the Studio reads the thousands of photos you took on all those SD cards.

What is really needed is the CF Express cards. They may even have faster card readers.

Any experts out there why can provide some good info on the subject of SD and CF card readers?

[Mike Potter]

Would have ordered it yesterday, except for one thing - no option for the M1 Pro. The M1 Max is more CPU than I see me needing for at least five years, for more than I want to pay. The Mac Studio with an M1 Pro and 32GB RAM and 512GB SSD for $1500 was what I was hoping for. Yes, it's one additional SKU for Apple to manage, but only one. Releasing the Mac Studio with only the M1 Max and M1 Ultra, and the accompanying price points, reminds me of when they released the updated iPad Mini a few years ago - greater capabilities than most (but not all) folks were looking for at a correspondingly higher price.

The M1 in the Mac Mini is probably more than adequate for my needs, but it is limited to 16GB of RAM, and I really want to future-proof my purchase with 32GB. I REALLY don't want to spend $2000 on the M1 Max Mac Studio. In a frustrated quandary...

[Kodachromeguy]

The frugal photographer: I bought one of the Intel i3 Mac Minis at (possibly) a close-out price from B&H, and I am amazed how well it works. I never have any issue with processor speed or memory restrictions when using Photoshop CS6, DxO FilmPack, XNViewMP, or Silverfast with my scanner. I sometimes scan files that end up as 400 mb TIFF files. I wanted an Intel model because of older software; no complaints at all. I do not process any video and cannot comment on that.

[Bryan Geyer]

Those who use an Apple iMac display don't really have to tolerate those irksome rear-mounted USB ports. Simply move (some of them) to the front! Buy a couple of these gadgets from OWC…https://eshop.macsales.com/item/Bluelounge/JMUSB01/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=shoppingengine&utm_campaign=googlebase&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIvqyN4v-M8AIVIppbCh2F9wHVEAEYASABEgJ0B_D_BwE

[Tom Burke]

The Mac Studio does look very good, but it's more computer than I'll ever need - very much for professionals, especially the versions with the Ultra chip. (They were a bit quiet about the fact that the entry level versions 'only' come with the M1 Max processor, I thought.) And even those cheaper versions quickly go up in price by $/£400 if you opt take the first processor upgrade and increase storage to 1 TB. So not for me.

In fact after agonising for several months I bought a 14" MacBook Pro in February, It's just the base-level machine but it will do me for a long time - possibly forever. I'm reassured that I've bought into the latest technology, both processor and display. Depending on how the finances look, I may make that my 'do everything' computer - connect it to a display when at home, but also take it with me on trips. And it has an SD card slot! On the side rather than the front, but at least it's there.

[Grant]

Show me the difference between a TOP comment made on an M1 Mac and one made on a Google Chromebook.

I rest my case.

[Roger Bradbury]

Following Rob de Loe's comment about SD cards getting forgotten in the back of the machine, I've done this a few times.

I try to check before I go out, but still carry a spare SD card in my wallet, in case I get the dreaded "no card in the camera" message again, miles from home.

[Rob L]

$2k isn't cheap, but as my son is waiting to get my current 27in iMac from me when I get a a Mac Studio so he can stop using his 2011 iMac - it's the old Mercedes ad again - 'The cheapest car you'll ever buy' - IF you keep it long enough. A Studio even at it's entry level is pricey, and overpowered for today - but it will continue to be good without needing additional investment for a lot longer than most options.

It really is the elegant descendant of my beloved Cube, tho - i'm seriously excited to finally get the computer I've wanted for a very long time.

[Marcelo Guarini]

I have an eight core iMac Pro with 1T SSD and 32 G of memory and to tell you the truth, it is to much for photography alone. The new Mac Studio would be just an expesive overkill.

[Richard Nugent]

Mike, You might want to give a shout-out to Thom Hogan who just posted a nice overview of the new Macs from the photographer’s perspective.

[Eric Brody]

Like Larry Angier, my first Mac was purchased for US$2,500. I got it on April 18, 1984! 400K single sided disks, no externals. My first external drive was a 20 megabyte, not terabyte drive that cost hundreds! It always seemed to me that one spent the same $2,500 every few years, but got a lot more computer power.

I had a 2013 Mac Pro, the trashcan, not one of Apple's best products. Sold it last summer to purchase a tricked out i9 iMac 27 with a 4TB SSD and 64GB of OWC memory. I didn't really need the lovely 5K monitor since I had a lovely calibrated NEC 27. Maybe I should have waited but now I think I'll sit tight with the Intel iMac for a while. Speed is nice but it's expensive.

The Studio is the machine Apple should have produced a long time ago. There was too great a gap between the underpowered and spec's Mini and the beautiful but obscenely priced 2019 Mac Pro.

[Dave Stewart]

Mike, regarding your "Fat Mac" mentioned in the featured comments reply to Eric Brody - 512K would be half a megabyte rather than half a gigabyte.

[Ed Hawco]

I recently traded in my 2018 Mac Mini (which was always a lemon) for a new 2021 14" MacBook Pro with the M1 Pro chip. The new machine is a wonder inside and out. Outside, it's a wonder because it's a throwback to the 2015 model, with an HDMI port, three Thunderbolt/USB3 ports, and an SD card slot. This is a total turnaround of the design choices over the past half decade or so. The only downside is the return of the boxy shape; an unfortunate but inevitable departure from the previous generation MacBook Pro, which was almost as thin and sleek as the MacBook Air.

[DavidB]

The Mac Studio and Studio Display had me swooning for a few days.

However, the Mac Studio cannot be upgraded so one has to anticipate future RAM and storage needs and make that payment up front. I'm old school about that. I purchased a MacPro tower in 2010 with basic CPU, RAM, and storage. Over the years I have upgraded the CPU, GPU, RAM, and replaced small spinning drives with fast SSDs.

I don't know how much I have spent on the upgrades. Those, plus the original purchase price might even be more expensive than the current 2019 MacPro ($6k and up).

On the other hand, I keep computers (and cars and cameras) for a very long time so the total cost of ownership over these years is quite low.

In any case, my 2010 MacPro does a fine job running Lightroom, Photoshop, DaVinci Resolve, several scientific apps, Office, email, and browsers.

The bottleneck in my workflow is not the computer; it's me.

[James]

There is no way that a Mac from the 80s could have a half a gig of memory. That would have been supercomputer territory, if it was even _possible_. Even if it was storage, that would not have come in a consumer accessible machine.

Half a meg of memory sounds about right for a generous amount then.

Also, that 2TB is of storage, not memory. 2TB of memory is possible today, but probably out of reach. That is, again, supercomputer territory. Amazon will rent you servers with that kind of memory, but they do not say what the price is. If you have to ask, it's too much.

[Sorry! Yr. Hmbl. Ed. is innumerate. Fixed now. --Mike]

[Ian Goss]

“Mac mini” is the one true authorised name name, according to the Mothership.

[Ernest Zarate]

I just love the Point-Counterpoint! Had to get my my popcorn ready for those comments. Never fails to amuse me: Apple v PC, Nikon v Canon, Ford v Chevy, EVs v ICE… (for me: Apple, Canon, and Tesla). Neither side ever convinces anyone on “the other side” to convert, but the comments are fun to read. Thanks, Mike, for writing a lively topic to get it going. (I have a very useable late 2014 27” iMac that I plan on keeping for a bit longer.)

[louis mccullagh]

No 27" IMAC what do I upgrade my current 27"imac to?

Maybe just wait until they add a new 27" imac after they sell lots of STUDIOs in the the next 6 months!

Devious marketing and sucking as much money out of you as possible.

[Dennis Ng]

I did change the macmini back to front but it could be noisy for my intel mac mini.

Understand so happy about the Sd card. My nikon Z do not use Sd card.

I agree you really just want 32 or 64 gb with m1 pro for photography. And killing iMac 27 is sad.