For those who don't follow Apple news (who are you?), Apple announced their rumored 5K 27" Retina iMac today. While we're sure options can drive the price up, the new iMac starts at a lower price than many of the decent 4K displays sell for on their own: $2,499. With shipments beginning today, there's no doubt this is the best new deal in the Apple Mac lineup.
The Retina iMac starts with the 3.5GHz quad-core i5, 1TB Fusion Drive, and a 2GB AMD Radeon R9 M290X GPU, which can be upgraded to a 4.0GHz quad-core i7, a 3TB Fusion Drive or up to 1TB SSD, and the 4GB M295X, respectively. While the base starts at $2,499, higher configurations can hit $3,749 with the 3TB Fusion Drive or even $4,399 at the highest end with 1TB of 100% solid state storage.
The Apple Store website has now been updated along with a brand new website redesign that conforms more to the new design standards set forth in Apple's new Yosemite operating system, which also launches today for free.
If you're looking for a deal, don't forget that B&H orders ship tax-free to most states. We'll have order links up soon.
On another note, if you've been waiting for a Mac Mini update, today's your lucky day. The new Mac Mini starts with daul Thunderbolt 2 ports, a 1.4GHz processor, a 500GB hard drive, 4GB of RAM, and an all-new starting price of $499. Specs can bump that up to over $1,000 with faster processors, more RAM, and solid state or Fusion drives.
Just a heads up, you can't actually use the retina iMac as an external display like you can with the other iMacs.
Correct the only model iMac that can be used as an external display was the 27inch (2007) imacs. I know cause I used to use it as an external display, Also Windows 7 OS and windows 8OS is not a high quality OS to begin with so their is no reason to have 4K for those OS's. They should have just made the world thinnest Cinema 5K display.... but im assuming it would cost almost the same price.
They should have sold it as a stand-alone display.
they are also coming out with a 5k thunderbolt display for Mac Pro or for use as a second display, but not until spring
Can't. Thunderbolt 2 won't drive a 5K display, not enough bandwidth. Gotta wait for TB3 with DisplayPort 1.3 specs.
A good monitor will last 6+ years. . . a good computer may last you what, maybe 3? So with this, when your computer dies, so does you're monitor. You also can't upgrade it which means in the future which means it is going to become obsolete even faster. Also, what's with the i5 processor? That can run 5k video smoothly?
The 5K running smoothly is mostly reliant upon the GPU, which is decent in this one. I think anyone editing photos or 1080p/4k@30fps video will be happy. Those require the GPU and SSD speeds more than anything. Those running 60fps+ in 4K, 5K, 6K, etc.....they'll likely need the Mac Pro...
For those who don't follow Apple news (who are you?) .. it is me..... hello
i rather stick with mine nec spectraview II ...or if i have to change then maybe i can go with eiso ...but not this one.
sRGB value?
Other than perhaps sharpness I don't see much of a reason to leave my NEC PA 27" monitor. The calibration on it is spectacular. Not to mentioned the screen is a semi-gloss(not fully gloss) so it is much easier to actually see what I am editing without having to work in a darkroom.
Oh I'm already expecting a bunch of thumbs-down by the Apple die-hards.
So then, you've actually worked on the new 5K iMac and know this for a fact?
No, didn't think so. New specs, matte finish, no space between front glass and panel which reduces reflection. Lame dude. Seriously.
I've gone to several websites and and seen some of the unboxing videos. Looks glossy to me.
Don't know why you're attacking someone who doesn't share the same zeal for this product as you might. Like I said, I already predicted this type of response.
No attacks here, just saying that unless you've actually gone to an Apple store and played with it, you can't judge the product. I have. You're wrong. End of story. Ciao. :)
"For those who don't follow Apple news (who are you?)..."
People who work on real computers...
People who like slow computers that get viruses all the time and BSODs. ;) Oh and that are too afraid to use their real names...
slow computers ? are you from this world ? there are more computers then apple in real world. and most of them cheaper and faster. apple is not the best brand but most common ... it is just good minestream. there are profesionals over them.
I love the smell of tee'd off Mac zealots in the morning.
It smells like........victory.
Someday this war's gonna end...
Yep, war's gonna end and it's not looking good for your team buckaroo. Apple just became the #3 PC maker behind only HP and Dell. Steadily eating away at your team's market share for the past 11 quarters doesn't look good for your side does it now, hmmm? ;)
I hate that people keep spitting out this BS that PCs are slow and doomed to get viruses. I haven't had a virus on my PC in over 5 years. Maybe it's b/c I don't go to seedy websites, or download "free smileys."
SLRLounge has done a head-to-head video of a specced out MacBook Pro vs specced ASUS ROG, and the ROG clearly outperformed the MB, and at about 2/3 the price (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meX6UxWtcW8).
Scott Bourne, photographer and owner of Photofocus.com, wrote and article about his switch from Mac to Windows and the first thing he noticed was the speed increase (http://photofocus.com/2013/06/10/about-my-switch-from-mac-to-windows/).
If you like Apple computers for the ecosystem, OS, screens, aesthetics, build or ergonomics - fine. However, don't make it seem like they're giving you performance that you can't get on PC.
Stick with your theoretical benchmarks, I'll stick with my real world experience. Ever since Macs went Intel they've outperformed PCs pound for pound, mainly because the OS is custom built for their hardware whereas MS has to support every tom dick and harry building a PC. Running GPU and CPU intensive apps like NLEs and PS/LR the Mac far outperforms a similarly outfitted PC no contest. Hell, Windows even runs faster in a virtual machine on a Mac than it does on a PC. Enjoy your PC fandom, while the rest of us who actually want to get some work done do it on a Mac. ;)
I love delusional Mac zealots. They can never let go...
Broken record much? Here's a quarter, buy yourself an original thought...
See what I mean? Can't let go...
I'm just going to leave these here and stop having this discussion with you. BTW, these are POST switch to Intel.
"The one difference that WAS immediately noticeable was speed. It’s one of my favorite words – SPEED! These babies are F A S T!" ~ Scott Bourne, About My Switch From Mac To Windows (http://photofocus.com/2013/06/10/about-my-switch-from-mac-to-windows/)
SLRLounge - Macbook Pro Retina vs ASUS G75VW-DS73: Premiere CS6 Speed Test!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meX6UxWtcW8
Film Riot - Switching From Mac to Windows PC!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi5Qh1UgUik
Congrats Apple! 5K monitor but doesn't have powerful enough hardware to even play it back in real time. Proxies Bitches!
Nope. I'm not paying the Apple Tax. I'm sticking with my dual boot Hackintosh with 4k display. Better, way faster, and with the advent of Adobe CC, I find myself booting Win 8.1 far more frequently to run CC than the Hackintosh. CC is installed on both. A simple choose at boot is all that is required to run either. Frankly, now that Apple is soldering in the RAM and playing games with the HD BIOS, my MacBook with 16 gigs and a 1TB ssd, (my RAM and SSD), is probably my last MAC. Absolutely no way I'm paying Apple to duplicate that on the desktop. It's too bad really.