Computer?

jmtonkin · Nov 30, 2012

I have no idea if this is where I should post this, or even if this is a topic that I'll get a lot of feedback on; if not, I'm sorry.

So, after much consideration and debating with myself and weighing the pros and cons, I decided that rather than buy myself a new lens, that I should, instead, get myself a decent computer. My theory: I could have the best lens in the world, but if I do not have decent equipment to process them, I'll still have mediocre photos.

Now for the question part of this post: I was wondering if any of you have any experience building computers. If so, what would you recommend for parts. I have looked into different components of computers and how to build one, and my assumption is that I'll need a decent-very decent video card and monitor. Also, I'm going to get myself a screen calibrator.

If you have suggestions about what, specifically, I should get, please let me know! Also, if you think I'm way off base with deciding on the computer versus the lens, let me know! I want to make a purchase that will better my photography the most!

[Side Story:
This last summer, I shot my first wedding. Having only a laptop to do edits on, I was miserable. I remember doing my edits, printing off a few samples, bringing them home, making adjustments, printing off the same samples, bringing them home...etc. It was a very tedious, time consuming process.]

[Side Story II:
My only lens is a Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6. While this is a very nice lens, I find it to be quite limiting. I would love either a prime, or a fixed aperture lens. I'm looking at either a used Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 or an "off-brand" equivalent, or a 50mm f/1.4. I really want/need a lens that lets me shoot at lower f/stops.]

I'm sorry that this post is so long, I just want to make sure that I can give as much information about my situation, so hopefully I can get a lot of responses!

To sum up: Should I build myself a computer or purchase a lens? If I build a computer, do you have any recommendations?

Thanks for taking the time to read this obnoxiously long post!!!

texkam · Nov 30, 2012

A Mac Pro desktop will give you what you need no muss, no fuss, but at a premium price. You can get the same horsepower with a PC for less $$$. Adobe doesn't care if it runs in Windows or Mac as long as you give it the power it needs. The $$$ you save by doing the Windows dance could be applied to a lens purchase.

jmtonkin · Nov 30, 2012

I have my iPad and I think that's about as much Mac products that I'll want for a long time. I'm definitely a PC type of guy

John27 · Nov 30, 2012

Here are the specs for a machine I built a couple years ago that runs photoshop and lightroom absolutely fine, and very quickly;

AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE @ 4GHz (Quad core)
8GB DDR3-2100 RAM
ATi Radeon HD5870 1GB <-- A good video card is a great way to really speed up photoshop and lightroom, though I do some gaming, one THAT fast isn't necessary
500GB 7200RPM HDD <--- Most photos are on network storage, you'd likely need much more than that otherwise. I HIGHLY recommend a RAID setup, you don't want your entire collection of photos to rest on one mechanical part do you?

I like Macs, and there are definite serious advantages, but on a budget you can get a Mac Pro spec'd PC for the price of a Mac Mini. One of the most essential components though, is the monitor. You absolutely must have a high quality, color accurate, IPS display. Bonus points for adding a little bit of cost into getting a tool to calibrate that monitor. These monitors run close to about a thousand bucks. This is part of the reason why iMacs are so popular for photogs, because it IS a high quality IPS display, but with a computer built in! It becomes a bit more economical that way. ($1300 for the 21.5 inch model, $1800 for the 27 inch) BUT, you can still get more horsepower for the same price running an IPS display and a homebuilt computer combo. $1800 can either get you an iMac, which is a high quality display with, essentially, a mid-spec laptop computer stuffed inside. Or, it can get you a $1000 Apple 27" display (same display), and an $800 powerhouse PC that will be more aligned with the Mac Pro in terms of spec. It's all relative, as the OS is the reason you buy a Mac, not the performance features, but if you are comfortable with Windows and that's what you want to stick with, the latter can be a better value.

I've built a few PC's, I'd be happy to answer specific questions if you have any. Realistically, I think $1500~$2000 is a good budget for a photography computer, which is part of the reason, again, why the Macs are popular (because when you figure in the cost of components, the Macs come within your budget!) But if that's outside your budget that's fine too, we can work with that.

Here are some links to a couple good displays. Pick your budget, and your display first, then we can see what we can do for a computer with the rest. I really think the display is the best investment here. I think you are better served waiting for photoshop to load on an accurate display, then flying through pictures that will be off or inaccurate!

Apple - Thunderbolt Display - More pixels and more possibilities. <--- Apple 27" Cinema Display, $999

Newegg.com - Dell UltraSharp U3011 30" Black 7ms IPS-Panel Height, Swivel Adjustable Widescreen LCD Monitor 370 cd/m2 DC 100,000:1 (1000:1) <--- Dell Ultrasharp U3011, $1199

Newegg.com - ASUS ProArt Series PA246Q Black 24.1" 6ms P-IPS Height/Swivel/Pivot Adjustable LCD Monitor w/2 USB hub, Card Reader & Display port 400cd/m2 50000:1 DCR <-- Asus PA246Q, $460. Good budget option. Not optimum (But ya guessed that didn't ya), but much better than your typical off the shelf monitor.

The last one is lower resolution, which is it's biggest issue (aside from being a little less accurate and having poorer backlighting.) When you work on a photo you should really work on it at a 1:1 pixel ratio (aka 100%). Otherwise, software is cramming several pixels into one and you can have distortion that affects the quality of your final product. With an ultra-high resolution monitor, you can work at 100% while having the image at a workable size. At the lower resolutions, the image will be very blown up, making working a little bit more difficult. It's up to you to determine how much you want to invest in this. Also, a monitor hood is a good investment to keep stray lighting off. Calibrate the monitor with the hood and pay attention to what lighting exists in the room (the type of bulb, etc.) and keep it consistent. In my home office where I do post processing work, I use daylight CFL bulbs, keep the blinds closed and the door shut. The reason is, if it was as simple as set-and-forget they would just be calibrated at the factory, but a lot has to do with how it is rendered in the lighting you are viewing it at and the computer you are using. All of that may be overkill and that's fine, that's absolutely your decision. But it's food for thought.

FWIW, I use one of the cheaper IPS displays, 1920x1080 resolution. It's decent, it's effective, though I'd like to upgrade to another display in the future. I'll probably go with the Apple Cinema Display.

Let me know a budget and I'll let you know what components I think would work with that budget. You can also PM me if you'd like. I ask a LOT of questions on this forum, but computers is something I know, I'd be glad to have the opportunity to give back to this community with a question that I can actually answer!

eltebe · Nov 30, 2012

I5 3570k or i7 3770k 212 cooler dont remember the name
Gigabyte z77 d3h or similar model
G skill ripjawsx 16gb (2x8)
Crucial m4 + wd green 2tb
Psu around 500w 80plus silver/gold/platinum
Case nzxt switch 810
For display new dell 27"
If you want to play games as well add amd radeon 7950 and psu with ~750w
I switched from phenom 965be to i7 3770k added ssd for system now programs and ligtroom is much faster

also transfers from hdd doubled compared to amd(same hdds).
Even if you pay someone for assembly it still should cost less then apple.

jmtonkin · Nov 30, 2012

John27 said:
Here are the specs for a machine I built a couple years ago that runs photoshop and lightroom absolutely fine, and very quickly;

AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE @ 4GHz (Quad core)
8GB DDR3-2100 RAM
ATi Radeon HD5870 1GB <-- A good video card is a great way to really speed up photoshop and lightroom, though I do some gaming, one THAT fast isn't necessary
500GB 7200RPM HDD <--- Most photos are on network storage, you'd likely need much more than that otherwise. I HIGHLY recommend a RAID setup, you don't want your entire collection of photos to rest on one mechanical part do you?

I like Macs, and there are definite serious advantages, but on a budget you can get a Mac Pro spec'd PC for the price of a Mac Mini. One of the most essential components though, is the monitor. You absolutely must have a high quality, color accurate, IPS display. Bonus points for adding a little bit of cost into getting a tool to calibrate that monitor. These monitors run close to about a thousand bucks. This is part of the reason why iMacs are so popular for photogs, because it IS a high quality IPS display, but with a computer built in! It becomes a bit more economical that way. ($1300 for the 21.5 inch model, $1800 for the 27 inch) BUT, you can still get more horsepower for the same price running an IPS display and a homebuilt computer combo. $1800 can either get you an iMac, which is a high quality display with, essentially, a mid-spec laptop computer stuffed inside. Or, it can get you a $1000 Apple 27" display (same display), and an $800 powerhouse PC that will be more aligned with the Mac Pro in terms of spec. It's all relative, as the OS is the reason you buy a Mac, not the performance features, but if you are comfortable with Windows and that's what you want to stick with, the latter can be a better value.

I've built a few PC's, I'd be happy to answer specific questions if you have any. Realistically, I think $1500~$2000 is a good budget for a photography computer, which is part of the reason, again, why the Macs are popular (because when you figure in the cost of components, the Macs come within your budget!) But if that's outside your budget that's fine too, we can work with that.

Here are some links to a couple good displays. Pick your budget, and your display first, then we can see what we can do for a computer with the rest. I really think the display is the best investment here. I think you are better served waiting for photoshop to load on an accurate display, then flying through pictures that will be off or inaccurate!

Apple - Thunderbolt Display - More pixels and more possibilities. <--- Apple 27" Cinema Display, $999

Newegg.com - Dell UltraSharp U3011 30" Black 7ms IPS-Panel Height, Swivel Adjustable Widescreen LCD Monitor 370 cd/m2 DC 100,000:1 (1000:1) <--- Dell Ultrasharp U3011, $1199

Newegg.com - ASUS ProArt Series PA246Q Black 24.1" 6ms P-IPS Height/Swivel/Pivot Adjustable LCD Monitor w/2 USB hub, Card Reader & Display port 400cd/m2 50000:1 DCR <-- Asus PA246Q, $460. Good budget option. Not optimum (But ya guessed that didn't ya), but much better than your typical off the shelf monitor.

The last one is lower resolution, which is it's biggest issue (aside from being a little less accurate and having poorer backlighting.) When you work on a photo you should really work on it at a 1:1 pixel ratio (aka 100%). Otherwise, software is cramming several pixels into one and you can have distortion that affects the quality of your final product. With an ultra-high resolution monitor, you can work at 100% while having the image at a workable size. At the lower resolutions, the image will be very blown up, making working a little bit more difficult. It's up to you to determine how much you want to invest in this. Also, a monitor hood is a good investment to keep stray lighting off. Calibrate the monitor with the hood and pay attention to what lighting exists in the room (the type of bulb, etc.) and keep it consistent. In my home office where I do post processing work, I use daylight CFL bulbs, keep the blinds closed and the door shut. The reason is, if it was as simple as set-and-forget they would just be calibrated at the factory, but a lot has to do with how it is rendered in the lighting you are viewing it at and the computer you are using. All of that may be overkill and that's fine, that's absolutely your decision. But it's food for thought.

FWIW, I use one of the cheaper IPS displays, 1920x1080 resolution. It's decent, it's effective, though I'd like to upgrade to another display in the future. I'll probably go with the Apple Cinema Display.

Let me know a budget and I'll let you know what components I think would work with that budget. You can also PM me if you'd like. I ask a LOT of questions on this forum, but computers is something I know, I'd be glad to have the opportunity to give back to this community with a question that I can actually answer!

Thank you for the awesomely detailed answer! I'm really looking for a starting point. I only want to invest about $1000 right now with the intent to upgrade in the near future. I'm a pretty poor college student, so saving up the money to buy/build a computer takes a bit of time. Like I said, something to get me started is really what I'm looking for.

This is the stuff I currently have my eyes on, what are your thoughts?

AMD FX-8150 Zambezi 3.6GHz Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core
Mushkin Enhanced Silverline 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin
Seagate Barracuda Green ST1500DL003 1.5TB 5900 RPM SATA 6.0Gb/s
RAIDMAX Blackstone series RX-700AC 700W

I've not really looked much at screens yet!

John27 · Nov 30, 2012

jmtonkin said:
Thank you for the awesomely detailed answer! I'm really looking for a starting point. I only want to invest about $1000 right now with the intent to upgrade in the near future. I'm a pretty poor college student, so saving up the money to buy/build a computer takes a bit of time. Like I said, something to get me started is really what I'm looking for.

This is the stuff I currently have my eyes on, what are your thoughts?

AMD FX-8150 Zambezi 3.6GHz Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core
Mushkin Enhanced Silverline 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin
Seagate Barracuda Green ST1500DL003 1.5TB 5900 RPM SATA 6.0Gb/s
RAIDMAX Blackstone series RX-700AC 700W

I've not really looked much at screens yet!

With that budget, stick to one of the $300-$500 IPS displays. Perfectly doable.

Everything with that setup looks good, you'll want a good compatible motherboard and a decent case. The only thing I'd add, is a second identical hard drive to run a RAID setup. Essentially, what this will do is it will still 'look' like a 1.5TB drive, but each drive has a copy of the other. No, it's not a backup, it's a little better. The computer will write to both at the same time. This means if one fails, then data can be recovered from the other. 7% of Hard Drives fail within their typical lifetime. That's not ultra significant, but it's significant enough. I REALLY recommend using a RAID setup to keep your photos safe.

A couple other thoughts;

You may want to consider modifying your build to include a good graphics card. Plenty in the $150 range that will do the job. This will make working with high resolution images much quicker. Things will move smoothly with that. A cheaper CPU coupled with a good graphics card would be a faster setup for the type of work you are doing, then a faster CPU and the onboard video.

Secondly, it's up to you, but I'm not a fan of off-brand power supplies. The one you have isn't bad and has gotten some good reviews, it's probably fine, but they often lack the kind of protection a Corsair or an OCZ might give you (especially corsair). The goal here is, if the power supply takes a dive, you don't want it to take anything with it. Again, it's protection for an unlikely situation (even more unlikely than a hard drive failure), but that is completely up to you. Certainly not a deal breaker.

I've devised a wish list based on what you had picked plus the rest of the stuff to finish the deal;

Newegg.com - Once You Know, You Newegg

That skates in at just under your $1,000 budget, and should be plenty adequate to get you started with photo editing. Unless I missed anything, which is possible this late at night, that should be everything you need to get going (minus keyboard, mouse, and software).

You will still need an operating system. I didn't include that as I didn't know if you wanted to run Windows 7 or Windows 8. My suggestion is Windows 7. Win 7 Home Premium 64 bit will run you $99.99, which pushes you just over that $1k threshold. You definitely need a 64 bit version of windows in order to run 8GB of RAM. You should also run the 64 bit versions of photoshop and lightroom (and whatever else you use).

I think what we have here is a really good system. But if you must cut cost, you could run a cheaper CPU and still be fine, and if you want, you could nix the second hard drive and thus the RAID setup. If you do that though, please have SOME sort of a backup plan. A good backup is as easy as 3, 2, 1.

3 backups
2 forms of media
1 off site.

So an example might be, your RAID setup, a once every few months blu-ray or DVD burned backup (though I'll freely admit I skip the 2 forms of media part), and the offsite could be a number of inexpensive backup solutions (carbonite, etc.) that backup the entire computer each day to a cloud server, and you pay a monthly fee. The offsite one is one a lot of people skip but is really important. Houses catch fire. Computers get stolen. Weird freak accidents happen. Due to the file size, a blu-ray burner might be an option (I just included a cheap DVD burner in your build), with blu-ray discs, kept in a safety deposite box in your bank. Backup once every couple of months. A cloud-based backup setup, or even just a good sized external hard drive kept somewhere else (safety deposit box, desk at work, etc.) that can be taken home, updated, and brought back to it's safe place every now and then (however often you feel is necessary!)

-John

bratkinson · Nov 30, 2012

I built my computer in June around an FX-4100 Zambezi processor on an ASUS M5A97-EVO mobo with 8gb RAM, and a lower-end video card with 2gb on it (about $50 for the card). I then put in a 128gb SSD (solid state disk) and 1tb HD to complete the computer.

Why the 4100 and not the 8150? First, the 4100 is 4.1 ghz clock, but using the 'optimal' setting on the mobo, it typically runs at 4.6 ghz without ANY problems. Photo processing is CPU intensive, not so much I/O (input/output) intensive (I am not a gamer), so I figured the higher clock would be better than the somewhat slower clock on the FX-8150 3.6ghz. Although the 8150 has 8 processors vs 4 in the 4100, there isn't many software programs that can actually take advantage of the 8 processors. I don't think the current Adobe editing software has more than 3 concurrent threads, so 4 processors should be very sufficient.

Why the SSD? I put Windows 7, all programs, and My Documents on the SSD. Every thing else goes to the 1tb HD...my archive, if you will. When I first download the photos from the card(s), I put them into an appropriately named folder in My Documents. That gets lightning-fast bootup (20secs, give or take, to desktop screen!), 5-6 second program startups (Photoshop and Lightroom take about 30 secs apiece), less than 2 minutes to load 100 pix into Lightroom, and near instantaneous response any any photo editing I do. When I'm all done with my edits and printing, I move it to the 1tb for 'archiving'. Not including my twin SSD and 1TB (full backups), monitor, keyboard, and software other than Win 7, it came in around $900. I'm very satisfied with it.

Note, if you go the SSD route, check out this web site...lots of very good info here!

Sean's Windows 7 Install & Optimization Guide for SSDs & HDDs

DorkSterr · Nov 30, 2012

The PC I built myself specifically for video and stills editing:

Intel Core i7 980X Extreme
Asus Rampage III Extreme
16GB Corsair Dominator GT Memory
Corssfire 6970 2GB
Corsair 512GB SSD
And a NEC 30Inch monitor.

That's just the main components.

It runs through any editing I do with it.

If you want reliable I suggest staying with brands such at Gigabyte, Asus, EVGA, Intel and Corsair. Also have lots HDDS I don't know what camera you're using but if its anything like the D800 you will need a fair amount of space in the long run.

PlanetStarbucks · Nov 30, 2012

I'd like to add that I think an SSD is an absolute must. I just upgraded my computer with one and it completely changed the photo editing experience. 120 gig drives can be had for around $100. Also, considering you can buy 16GB of RAM for about $60...go big on that too.