Photographer Austin Mann Reviews the iMac Pro

Photographer Austin Mann, who is known for the in-depth camera reviews he conducts on each new iPhone iteration, this week shared his thoughts on the iMac Pro after using the machine to edit photos and videos shot with a Hasselblad camera after visiting South America and Antarctica.

Mann's review focuses heavily on the experience of editing with the iMac Pro rather than on raw speed and performance alone, making it an interesting look at how the iMac Pro performs on a day to day basis in a photography workflow.


According to Mann, without the power of the iMac Pro, he would not have been able to do certain things, like create the high-resolution multi-image panoramas featured in his review. A panorama composed of 14 images at 100 megapixels each would not even process on the MacBook Pro, he said, while the iMac Pro handled it with no issue.
Without the Hasselblad's ultra sharp clarity, I couldn't have captured the Superpano above, and without the iMac Pro, I simply wouldn't have attempted to assemble it. But now, informed by this gear, I'm asking myself new questions like, "Where could I install an extremely high-res, 30-foot panorama in print?"
For photographers, Mann recommends a 10-core iMac Pro with 128GB of RAM and a 4TB SSD to future proof the machine as it is not user upgradeable for the most part. "My advice when upgrading your machine at any time is to give yourself as much room to grow as possible," he said.

One of Mann's Antarctica shots, edited with iMac Pro

Mann said that his favorite iMac Pro features are reliable support for wireless input devices, which includes the Magic Keyboard and the Magic Mouse 2 (both of these can be charged via Lightning and don't require batteries), a swappable VESA mount for different workflows and conditions, and the FaceTime camera, which was much improved over the camera in his MacBook Pro. He did say, though, that he wished the Magic Mouse 2 was usable while charging and that he'd like to see more software that's optimized to take advantage of the machine.

Speed, while not the main focus of the review, was an important factor for Mann. The machine, compared to his in-the-field equipment that includes a MacBook Pro, was "insanely fast." Exporting 20 RAW images took 61 seconds, compared to 185 seconds on the MacBook Pro, while assembling an 8-image panorama took 33 seconds on the iMac Pro, compared to 357 seconds on the MacBook Pro. Mann describes how much time can be saved with the iMac Pro:
As a professional photographer, let's conservatively hypothesize you shoot and process 25,000 images a year. Let's say the difference of choosing the faster computer saves you one second per image. That's 25,000 seconds, which is 416 minutes, which is about 7 hours. Remember, this on the assumption of one second per image. As a creative pro, what's the time worth to you?
Mann also used an older 15-inch MacBook Pro for saving media while in the field, a 10.5-inch iPad Pro for in-field editing with Lightroom, and the iPhone X for quick shots and panoramas not captured with the Hasselblad H6D-100c or the Sony A9 that he also brought along.

A superpano assembled on the iMac Pro, with 100% crops from the panorama located underneath

Mann's full review, which also delves into his personal history with the iMac and traveling with the iMac Pro, will be of interest to photographers, videographers, and other creatives who are considering an iMac Pro desktop machine to bolster their workflows.

Related Roundup: iMac Pro
Buyer's Guide: iMac Pro (Neutral)


Top Rated Comments

(View all)
Avatar
11 weeks ago
"As a professional photographer, let's conservatively hypothesize you shoot and process 25,000 images a year. Let's say the difference of choosing the faster computer saves you one second per image. That's 25,000 seconds, which is 416 minutes, which is about 7 hours."

That seems anticlimactically small actually lol
Rating: 23 Votes
Avatar
11 weeks ago
Wait a second... he upgraded from a MacBook Pro... an old one at that.

So his review can’t tell us anything we didn’t already know!

I don’t get this “pro” who buys a Hasselblad and recommends expensive iMac Pro RAM and CPU upgrades with zero knowledge of the capabilities of the base model (4TB SSD at Apple prices? LOL go to hell)... yet he worked on a laptop before this?

What has this guy been doing for the past 3 years that he didn’t get a 5k iMac? Hard to take him seriously.

What I want to know is: what’s the ROI on an iMac Pro vs. an i7 iMac with 32GB of RAM, SSD, or the latest iMac with 64GB. That would be a useful comparison! Should we spend double for the pro, or not? That’s the question.

No **** it’s faster than a MacBook Pro. So is my 2014 i7 iMac.
Rating: 10 Votes
Avatar
11 weeks ago

"As a professional photographer, let's conservatively hypothesize you shoot and process 25,000 images a year. Let's say the difference of choosing the faster computer saves you one second per image. That's 25,000 seconds, which is 416 minutes, which is about 7 hours."

That seems anticlimactically small actually lol

Yeah, really not much. I would think it's more about not having to be frustrated with a slow machine.
Rating: 9 Votes
Avatar
11 weeks ago

"As a professional photographer, let's conservatively hypothesize you shoot and process 25,000 images a year. Let's say the difference of choosing the faster computer saves you one second per image. That's 25,000 seconds, which is 416 minutes, which is about 7 hours."

That seems anticlimactically small actually lol

It's just an example. He already showed that the iMac Pro can process things much faster (not just one second faster). Plus, put that in context on how much one can get paid hourly. That hours saved becomes hours of earnings.
This is why we don't see much complaints on the iMac Pro (especially on its price) from the actual professionals, since it's their productive machine that help them make money.
Rating: 8 Votes
Avatar
11 weeks ago

"As a professional photographer, let's conservatively hypothesize you shoot and process 25,000 images a year. Let's say the difference of choosing the faster computer saves you one second per image. That's 25,000 seconds, which is 416 minutes, which is about 7 hours."

That seems anticlimactically small actually lol


Plus, small savings are hard to put into other productive uses. If counted together, perhaps, but that's not quite how real life seems to work.
Rating: 6 Votes
Avatar
11 weeks ago

('//www.macrumors.com/2018/05/08/photographer-austin-mann-reviews-the-imac-pro/')


Photographer Austin Mann, who is known for the in-depth camera reviews ('//www.macrumors.com/2017/11/06/austin-mann-dxo-iphone-x-camera-review/') he conducts on each new iPhone iteration, this week shared his thoughts on the iMac Pro after using the machine to edit photos and videos shot with a Hasselblad camera after visiting South America and Antarctica.

Mann's review focuses heavily on the experience of editing with the iMac Pro rather than on raw speed and performance alone, making it an interesting look at how the iMac Pro performs on a day to day basis in a photography workflow.



According to Mann, without the power of the iMac Pro, he would not have been able to do certain things, like create the high-resolution multi-image panoramas featured in his review. A panorama composed of 14 images at 100 megapixels each would not even process on the MacBook Pro, he said, while the iMac Pro handled it with no issue.For photographers, Mann recommends a 10-core iMac Pro with 128GB of RAM and a 4TB SSD to future proof the machine as it is not user upgradeable for the most part. "My advice when upgrading your machine at any time is to give yourself as much room to grow as possible," he said.


One of Mann's Antarctica shots, edited with iMac Pro
Mann said that his favorite iMac Pro features are reliable support for wireless input devices, which includes the Magic Keyboard and the Magic Mouse 2 (both of these can be charged via Lightning and don't require batteries), a swappable VESA mount for different workflows and conditions, and the FaceTime camera, which was much improved over the camera in his MacBook Pro. He did say, though, that he wished the Magic Mouse 2 was usable while charging and that he'd like to see more software that's optimized to take advantage of the machine.

Speed, while not the main focus of the review, was an important factor for Mann. The machine, compared to his in-the-field equipment that includes a MacBook Pro, was "insanely fast." Exporting 20 RAW images took 61 seconds, compared to 185 seconds on the MacBook Pro, while assembling an 8-image panorama took 33 seconds on the iMac Pro, compared to 357 seconds on the MacBook Pro. Mann describes how much time can be saved with the iMac Pro:Mann also used an older 15-inch MacBook Pro for saving media while in the field, a 10.5-inch iPad Pro for in-field editing with Lightroom, and the iPhone X for quick shots and panoramas not captured with the Hasselblad H6D-100c or the Sony A9 that he also brought along.


A superpano assembled on the iMac Pro, with 100% crops from the panorama located underneath
Mann's full review ('http://austinmann.com/trek/imac-pro-hasselblad-h6d-antarctica-lmm56'), which also delves into his personal history with the iMac and traveling with the iMac Pro, will be of interest to photographers, videographers, and other creatives who are considering an iMac Pro desktop machine to bolster their workflows.

Article Link: Photographer Austin Mann Reviews the iMac Pro ('//www.macrumors.com/2018/05/08/photographer-austin-mann-reviews-the-imac-pro/')


128gb 4tb?! Surely in the Apple distortion field that's going to cost the same as a McLaren supercar :p
Rating: 5 Votes
Avatar
11 weeks ago
I'm a photographer. Although I now have a 2015 MBP, I had a 2012 rMBP and processed a 960MP image as well. Although it did take a while (5 minutes?), it did complete it. I'm sure my 2015 would probably do it in 3 and frankly, that is a very special workflow. I've only done it once, but normal photo editing happens totally fine. If I were nitpicking, I'd say graphic performance could be a little snappier with my stander 24MP shots, but it does 95% of edits in under a second. So for those who do large panos for a living, I can see the gains, but for the average photographer this is lackluster.
Rating: 5 Votes
Avatar
11 weeks ago
The iMac Pro was a waste of R&D that Apple could have spent getting a new Mac Pro into production. I can’t imagine many professionals waiting for a new Mac Pro to buy an iMac. iMac Pro is a great computer but the name itself goes against the strategy that Apple used when Steve announced the iMac in the first place.

iMac consumer desktop
iBook consumer notebook
PowerMac pro desktop
PowerBook pro notebook

It was simple and elegant.
Rating: 4 Votes
Avatar
11 weeks ago
This article seems like so much fluff. Of course it does things a lot faster, the machine is a lot faster! Why is this somehow groundbreaking?
Rating: 4 Votes
Avatar
11 weeks ago

"As a professional photographer, let's conservatively hypothesize you shoot and process 25,000 images a year. Let's say the difference of choosing the faster computer saves you one second per image. That's 25,000 seconds, which is 416 minutes, which is about 7 hours."

That seems anticlimactically small actually lol


Of course if it is 5 seconds saved per image, then it is nearly a week.

And I suspect it would be more than that if you were coming from a 2011 or 2012 machine.
Rating: 4 Votes
[ Read All Comments ]