Macbook good enough?

[alan_vanderhaegen]

Hello All, I have had an HP laptop that has served me well over the last 2,1/2 years. It is however somewhat slow

when working with RAW files. I decided to upgrade and bought a new windows based laptop. After 3 days, I sent it

back. I then bought another windows based laptop. 320GB HD, 4 GB Ram, 2.6 Ghz processor, 1 GHZ dedicated

graphics card. I just repackaged it and sent it back. In the 4 days that I've had it, it froze up on me twice! I have now

decided to go the Mac route. I looked at both the Macbook and Macbook Pro. I like the size of the Macbook. (I travel

a lot) and I wouldn't mind getting an external monitor. Now my question is: should I rather go for the Pro since it has

a dedicated graphics card or will the Macbook black suffice? Thanks, Alan

[hernan_navarro]

Alan, I don't think so. MBP has a better graphics and you can get the mat screen. I use the 15" and it is speedy with Capture NX2 and not a problem to transport. I had a 13" G4 so I understand nod to the smaller size, but I like having the increased screen area.

 

Go to an Apple store or Best Buy and try them. I found the MB noticeably slower compared to the MBP. Note that I and others have had intermittent problems with the video display on the 15" MBP when on battery power. Apparently the video chip is defective, power management is messed up or both. Apple now admits to the problem - sort of. If you can, wait for the new version of MBP that are due out soon. Otherwise, get a MBP. In my opinion they are better for photo processing.

H.

[joseph_martines]

In the long run, if you are going to do your processing of images on the computer, you will be happier with the Mac book

Pro. Go for the 17" if you can handle it. I know a lot of people who use it for the same and are very happy. Try the screen

first to see if it is bothersome to you. I think there is a choice on the 17" between glossy and/or matte screen.

[jerryrock]

Wait until October 14th before you make your decision. Apple will be releasing it's latest batch of MacBooks with solid

aluminum bodies, LED screens and dedicated Nvidia graphics cards.

[Carl Stone]

"Wait until October 14th before you make your decision. Apple will be releasing it's latest batch of MacBooks with solid

aluminum bodies, LED screens and dedicated Nvidia graphics cards."

 

As of right now, that is an unfounded rumor, Apple has not invited anyone, including the media, to an October 14th product

release. While updates are overdue, there is no firm date for new releases, yet.

[alan_vanderhaegen]

Hi All, OK, MBP 15" it is. Matt or glossy? I'll wait till the 15th and see if there is a new one coming. I'd hate to spend that kind of money and end up a week later regretting the purchase. Thanks everyone.

[aplumpton]

I don't want to add a wet towel to the conversation, but I would mention that the 17 inch MacBook Pro was my first

choice until I talked with a friend and also read a review of extensive tests of it (albeit the 15 inch model), of the iMacs

(20 and 24 inch), and of the the separate Mac as well as some other (professional and more expensive, about 1600 to

2000 Euros) monitors.

 

Of the Macs, the only ones to come out on top were the separate 24 inch monitor (which can be run off the MacBookPro

or other MACs I guess) and the iMAC 24 inch. All the other MACs under test registered poorer performance, but whether

this is important to you (it was for me - I settled for the iMAC 24 inch with a graphics card the equal of that of the

acBook Pro 17 inch) is up to you. The small downside to the iMAC 24 inch is the shiny screen (had there been the choice I would have

gone for a matte screen) and a too bright screen (has to be turned down fully to get anywhere near a good correspondance with printing

results), but you can control the shiny screen a bit by choice of the nature of the surroundings and thereby limiting consequent reflections

on the screen.

 

I was disappointed by the published test results for the MacBook Pro (15 inch, and I presume the screen on the 17 inch

is of similar quality from a screen performance (not just size) viewpoint), as I was hoping to choose it. Apart from its less

accurate colour reproduction, the MacBook Pro showed a very limited angle of optimum viewing (vertically and horizontally). The results

were in a summer edition of "Chasseur d'Images", one of the better of the French photo mags.

 

The differences may or may not be important to you. And the iMAC 24 inch doesn't work very well in the field.

 

If anyone is really interested, I would be happy to try to translate and communicate some of the relative ratings of

performance between the diffrent MACs tested (You might have to wait a few days until I can find the areticle and translate parts of it).

 

Is anyone aware of whether stringent testing of monitors and laptops has been done in North American publications?

[aplumpton]

Sorry for the orthographics! I need to pass a spelling check separately from PN texts and am a bit lazy to do so.

[alan_vanderhaegen]

Bonjour Arthur, what is the best alternative though? Notebook not bigger than 15". Cheers, Alan

[aplumpton]

Hi Alan, if you need a MAC notebook, I guess there may be no difference between the 15 and 17 inch models, although I

forget whether the 15 has all the computing advantages of the 17. The French guys seemed to be not too impressed

with MAC notebooks and until the iMAC 24 arrived they had not given any MACs the higher ratings for monitor performance.

 

I don't know enough about the laptop competition for MAC and also whether or not there are any quality monitors at a reasonable

price that you could hook up to your MacBook Pro. Maybe you could chat with some graphics persons or pro photographers

for comments and who might be more picky about monitor quality. Maybe also the wait for the new Macs, as others have mentioned, will

be worth the candle, to see if any gains are made regarding the monitor part.

 

Je l'espère! Cheers.

[jerryrock]

I currently own the 2.5 Ghz 15.4" MacBook Pro (2008 model)

 

Cnet review: http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/apple-macbook-pro-2008/4505-3121_7-32868776.html

Gizmodo review: http://gizmodo.com/362049/new-macbook-pro-review-verdict-penryn-%252B-leds--efficiency

Macworld review: http://www.macworld.com/article/132407/2008/03/macbookprocore2duo.html

Mac Pro vs iMac: http://www.barefeats.com/imp01.html

[hernan_navarro]

I believe you can get a high resolution screen on the 17" for an additional charge. 17" is my likely next purchase once the new models come out - unless the MB Air specs have been upgraded and an USB2 or firewire port has been added.

 

Mat or glossy: I would get mat. Friends that have the MB say they can get annoying glare.

[Brad_]

I have a 15" MacBookPro. While it's a great laptop, I would not use it as my primary computer for image editing - or any laptop for that

matter. The display (as are all laptop TN displays) isn't really suited for that purpose.

 

Of course it's fine for working images on the

road in a pinch. Or, you can plug in an external display. Also, there is a pretty large performance hit, as expected, between my MBP and

my MacPro

desktop system.

 

If your computer doesn't need to be mobile, I'd strongly suggest a 24" iMac. Pretty awesome machine and a great value.

[alan_vanderhaegen]

Hi Gerald, this is very usefull. Thanks

[aplumpton]

Brad has nailed it.

 

With all respect,Gerald, those reviews are just extended versions of the specifications. You might as well read Apple's publicity.

 

Why is the North American press (and some of the other overseas press) so clearly timid when it comes to testing equipment?

Good info perhaps on comparing computer speed when treating Photshop or other applications, but virtually nil on critical

comparisons of renditions of monitors, scientifically based lens tests, or of cameras.

 

Is it too expensive to rigorously test products, or is the expense incurred that of possibly turning off an advertiser?

[alan_vanderhaegen]

Thank you all for your input. My question however was whether it is worth going for the MBP instead of the MB. As I said, I travel a lot, therefore an imac 24 is rather cumbersome on a plane. Yes, I did say I could buy an external monitor, this for when I am home. I found Gerald's contribution the most helpful answer to my query. Please no disrespect to others. Thanks again. Alan

[craig_neuhardt]

I have about everything Apple as produced. I travel with a MB---'cause of the size, but a photo editing machine it is not.

I have Aperture on it and use it to back up CF cards, but it really does not have the graphics or screen to allow any

serious editing. However, it has proven to be hardy in travels.

 

I use a Mac Book Pro that is my every day computer at home....I will probably start traveling with it. If the MB is a 4 or

5 (on a 1-10 scale) for photo editing, the MBP is a 7-7.5, (and mine has all the options and matte screen). It works, but I

would not want to base a photo business on it.

 

The 24" iMac looks like a good value....and should be a competent near-pro level platform for photo editing. I have used

one a fair amount. It is not as fast as I would like and I don't fully trust colors.

 

There is a reason that the Mac Pro and pro quality monitors are what you see in major studios and design firms. They

are big bucks, but they are fast, high quality and give reliable results.

 

Bottom line, if you are not a full time pro, the Mac Book Pro is probably your best for travel and home use at a good

value.

[moultonphoto]

I have a 15in MacBook Pro, I LOVE it! It took a lot of bad apples ( no pun intended ) to find the laptop of my dreams! For the type I have been doing, I am happy I spent the extra money and purchased the Pro!

[godfrey]

I would prefer the MacBook Pro for its better screen, better graphics adapter, and slightly better performance. The

MacBook's size and weight are appealing, and it has adequate power to do a lot of work (with an external monitor and

keyboard) but the Pro's additional oomph is worth it.

 

Godfrey

[gabriel_mojay]

I would recommend a 17-in MBP with the optional high definition matt screen. I'm sure you'd be happy with it. But don't buy one immediately

because the

range is about to be upgraded...

 

http://buyersguide.macrumors.com

[mark_uhde]

A MacBook is certainly good enough for photo editing yes, the cramped screen is the only problem. It's a very powerful

machine by any reasonable standards and MORE than adequate. I love mine!

[jun_cordero]

I'd say go for the Pro and spec it up in terms of hard drive capacity, graphics card, and screen size (choose matt as

well). I have a MBP 15" and could use the extra inches of display. My wife has a MacBook and although it is

sufficient specs-wise (really depends on how you use it) screen size could leave you wanting. My $0.02.

[tom_barrance]

I'm using Aperture on an ordinary MacBook and it struggles - it works, but the cooling fan goes full blast when I do a large import which

suggests that the processor is working at full capacity. I think a Pro would be a much better bet, but as I don't really need to edit images

on the go I'm going to get an iMac desktop.

[kristian_dale]

I just bought a iMac 24" last week, and I am really blown away with its performance! its running so smooth, and the monitor is so amazing. I really like the glossy monitor, but i believe that you need to be able to control the light to avoid reflections to use it at its best. For a computer to work with photography, I wouldnt trade it for anything ;)

 

I dont think I answered your question here, but I would highly recommend you to take a look at the iMac aswell.

 

Kristian

[david_manning1]

FWIW,

 

I'm still using a three-year-old 15" PowerBook G4 and it runs image software fine (honestly it can ALWAYS be faster). I'm only using a

64mb VRAM card, but I do have 2GB of RAM installed. I use it as my only computer.

 

I find the 15" chassis perfectly-sized...the 17" was too big to travel easily by commercial air (I mean, using it in-flight). The PowerBook

G4 is powerful-enough to run Aperture and Photoshop, and access my external drives full of RAW images. Had no problem with client

work...just finished files for a cookbook due out next August.

 

Hope that helps. I think my G4 probably falls inbetween the MacBook and the MacBook Pro spec-wise, but it's kind of apples-to-

oranges due to my PowerPC chip, which I love.

 

By the way, I have read somewhere that monitor calibration hardware won't work properly with glossy screens...might check into that

before you pull the purchase trigger.

 

David.