Macbook good enough?

[jerryrock]

Apple has announced a "notebook" event:

 

http://www.macworld.com/article/135988/2008/10/notebookevent.html

 

Jerry

[Brad_]

Also, worth waiting for Apple notebook/laptop announcements next Tuesday, the 14th. New models and faster more power

efficient processors. And maybe lower prices too.

[alex_lee5]

<p>Apple just sent invites to their Oct 14 event to unveil their updated notebooks:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/09/apple-notebook-event-is-on-october-14th/">Engadget</a><br>

<a href="http://gizmodo.com/5061113/apple-announces-macbook-event-for-october-14">Gizmodo</a></p>

<p>Alan, I think it it'll depend on the software you use and your image sizes. I have a 1st generation MacBook (mid-2006, 2GHz, 2GB

RAM) and it's adequate for 6 megapixel RAW images in Adobe Lightroom. It's not a speed demon, but it's no slouch either and the

current MacBooks are even faster than my machine. I've tried Apple Aperture, but it is very graphics card intensive, so it is slow on my

machine; a MacBook Pro would be much more suitable for it.</p>

<p>I used to own a 15" PowerBook, which are similar in size and weight to the current 15" MacBook Pro, and I find the difference in

size and weight compared to the MacBook to be surprisingly negligible for travel.</p>

<p>That said, the MBP has a number of advantages that everyone else has mentioned (larger screen, matte screen, better overall

performance, etc.) and I would personally go for a MBP, but a MB is not a bad choice at all.</p>

Alex.

[Carl Stone]

Now, we have an official announcement, where yesterday all we had was rumor. It's still a little strange that Apple waited

until a mere 5 days before the release to announce it. Oh well, better late than never.

 

For anyone using a card reader to transfer images to their Mac, Firewire 800, with an appropriate reader, is much faster

than Firewire 400, and WAY faster than USB 2. Current MacBooks do not have a Firewire 800 port, only Firewire 400. the

MacBook Pro does have Firewire 800. Of course this is subject to change with new models on the horizon.

[nikuser]

I use a Macbook with 4GB and I am able to run both Aperture and Capture NX very smoothly. I understand that the previous generation of Macbooks probably couldn't cope, but the current generation is more than adequate - even without the dedicated graphics processor.

[alan_vanderhaegen]

Thanks again to all of you. I will certainly wait and see what Oct 14th has in store for us. Cheers, Alan

[tallnbig68]

Eventually the rest of the world will gravitate to a Macintosh computer.

 

Start with the following URL: http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#MacBook_Pro

then look for some other URL's regarding Apple products.

Yes, there are new laptop models about to be produced with apparently

 

a much better chip setup for graphics. Time will tell.

 

If you can afford,purchase the machine which suits your applications best,

look around for a local Macintosh Users Group (MUG) ask questions.

One point about Macintosh computers is generally the price is higher

than equivalent Windows based machines.

 

Macs are different, no two ways about it.

 

The hardware and the software are integrated. If you're doing graphics, and have the space, as suggested, a BIG

monitor is blessing and perhaps use said monitor with a physically smaller laptop.

 

I have always had a laptop, although my first iMac was one of those coloured stand alone

units. It is long gone, and the laptop is the preferred machine, for me.

However about six months ago came across a used large screen iMac for a very low price. Two years old it was surplus to a company. I have a G4 iBook, and a G5 iMac.

 

I have not graduated to an Intel chipped machine, however when either

one or both of the present machines die, then I shall upgrade.

 

Macs tend to either be dogs or saints when it comes to models. There are any number of web sites

which explore the pros and cons of various models.

 

May your own search be as successful.

[sbp]

FWIW, i use a Mac Book 2.1, with 4 gig added memory, running Aperture 2. This is routed to a 22" hi-res monitor for a better view.

All was well with RAW files from my 5D and 40D. Then i started using a 1Ds3, and it was as if i poured glue in the Mac. It takes

forever to download RAW files from the camera or card reader, and editing is slower than slow. So now i need to upgrade

computer to process files from upgraded camera. Where does it end?

[dippe1]

I have a Macbook 2 GHz and 2 GB RAM (and an external 22" monitor) and it works fine for me with my D2Xs and 5D

RAW files but I don't think it is fast enough for eg. 5D mkII. In my experience (I used to be a salesman focused on Apple

products) try to get this generation of Mac immediately before the next one is released. Spend the money left (?) on as

much RAM as you can and possibly get a third party hard disk installed because Apple for some reason always seems to

fiddle around with the original HD cache making their modified disks quite a bit slower than necessary. I never managed to

find out why.

[Carl Stone]

Apple does not discount current models before new models are released.

[bruce_martin3]

Steve - it never ends. Every 6 months or less, newer, faster, better performing machines come onto the market, and those

with limited funds can be caught in the lurch if not aware of the coming changes. My first Mac was a 512K machine that

was purchased in 1984 for a price of - ready? - $4,800. The screen was B&W, 8" across, and it used 3 1/2" floppies for

everything. You had to load different floppies to run different programs every time you turned the machine on. We've come

a long way in 23 years, just as in photography. If you're downloading files from a 1Ds3, no wonder they're slow - that's 23

MB each, I believe, and will take 4 times longer than a 5D 12 MB file to download.

 

The Mac Book Pro is the machine of choice - the difference in speed is incredible,

[aplumpton]

I cannot be but amazed at how few have discussed picture quality in technical and comparative terms and how we are instead over-

impressed by the specifications of the computer and its speed and worry less about the colour rendition of the monitor.

 

As photographers, our interest should be mainly in colour fidelity of the monitors. Apart from the Europeans who seem to

understand that (the comparative reviews in their photo magazines measure many parametes of image quality, including

colour space fidelity, unifomity across the screen, color temperature, angle of constant vision, and many other technical aspects that I only

partly understand) we see few real comparisons elsewhere. When they credit Apple with great computers (and the architecture that makes

them that is highly appropriate for images and graphics) they at the same time have found few Apple monitors that are really up to the

task. One of the reasons, perhaps, why many pros use monitors from other sources than Apple for their MAC Pro computers (or MacBook

Pros).

 

Again, if anyone can indicate where some rigorous comparison articles have been produced in my native language

(English), I would be most appreciative to have the link. For the moment, I will accept the results and comparisons of our Gaullois friends

as the best on the block and put my faith only in the iMAC 24 or their separate 24 inch monitor. They are beaten of course by the best of

the expensive top monitors, but not by a great amount, and they are the best that Apple has done to date (and the only Apple monitors that

the magazine in question has ever given an approval to).

 

And they still must be calibrated externally, and with the printer, for best results.

[wrmccombie]

I will add a counter to this. You mentioned you travel a lot. So do I, about 150,000 miles a year minimum. There is no doubt that you would get better performance on a Mac Book Pro, but how much and would be noticeable in everyday use is a different story. And I would HATE traveling with a MacBook Pro. If possible try to see the difference. I use Lightroom and have a few thousand RAW images on it. It meets my needs. Im thinking of buying another copy of Lightroom for my Mac Book Air in fact. I think that the MacBook with an external monitor of your choice is a possibility to really consider.

[sbp]

Bruce - agreed. I am old enough to have used MS-DOS, and the speed at which technology develops is amazing. Funds are not

really a problem, but I keep wearing out shoes running back and forth to the camera and computer shops. ;-)

 

Arthur - Good point. Display quality is exactly why i use another brand hi-res monitor. Even when adequately processing smaller

files, the Mac Book screen is too small and too inaccurate for serious editing. I live in Europe, and you are correct - the locals are

more concerned with IQ than pixel count.

[alan_vanderhaegen]

Hi Richard, why is it that you would "hate" to travel with the MBP? I looked at both. Yes the MBP is quite a bit bigger. Is that why? I just purchased a 50D and plan on getting the 5D MK ll. I keep most of my raw files on an external hard drive though. Will Aperture handle large raw files on the regulal Macbook? I would get the black which is 2.4 Ghz.with 4 Gig of RAM. I would then get an external monitor for editing where I spend most of my time. After some disappointments with Windows based systems, I thought of hedging my bets on go for Mac. Cheers, Alan

[sbp]

Alan - I have exactly the setup you describe, including added 4 gig RAM. This worked perfectly until i started shooting

1Ds3, then the black Mac struggled with RAW files. The 5D2 should generate the same size files as 1Ds3, and may have

the same issues.

[alan_vanderhaegen]

Hi Steve, yeah, I was afraid of that. Depending on what happens on the 14th, I'll go top of the range MBP. After all, this has to serve me for the next two years.

[Brad_]

>>> And I would HATE traveling with a MacBook Pro.

 

I'm somewhat in agreement with this. While I don't hate traveling with my MBP, it sure is inconvenient and a hassle -

something I think about. Especially on planes - not enough room on the fold-down tray. And am always on guard for a sudden

movement from the seat in front.

 

And, it's a heavy machine to slog around;especially when you add in the charger and bag.

 

Will probably look at and downsize to a Macbook. The screen on either machine (any laptop actually) is not adequate for

critical photo editing; thus that's done on my home machine. But for dumping photos into LR, looking them over, initial edits,

etc my MBP is fine; and no doubt an upcoming speedier Macbook would be fine, and handier as well.

 

I had a 2003 vintage G4 12" Powerbook. That was an ideal size for travel...

[jerryrock]

Arthur,

 

I fail to see any documentation to support your arguments. You continue to blast Apple as inferior, yet provide no

evidence.

The Apple Cinema display has been an excellent monitor which is SWOP certified. It is due for an update that we will

see shortly. Apple like other monitor manufactures are switching to LED backlighting that is not only a greener solution,

but provides a more accurate color gamut. Currently the MacBook Pro models all have white LED backlighting and are

probably the most accurate of any laptop display. The beauty of the MacBook Pro aside from it's power and portability,

is support of an external monitor up to 30".

 

The iMac line, on the other hand are not recommended for professional color work. The display is obscured by a piece of

tinted glass to "enhance" color and contrast. The glass has a highly reflective surface and does not calibrate/profile

accurately because of the light diffusion caused by the glass covering. Cold cathode fluorescent tube backlighting is a

technology that has seen better days. Not only does it color shift over time, it provides uneven lighting.

 

The best monitor for color critical work is backlit by RBG LED diodes that are independently controlled from the video

card's LUT. This provides for wider display gamuts that have ever been produced. Currently this technology has been

developed to a degree where it is no longer cost prohibitive for the end user.

 

Most graphic professionals I know work with a MacPro and a MacBook Pro for travel. They are IMHO the best machine

produced for the job.

 

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8741-9027

 

http://h20331.www2.hp.com/hpsub/cache/596803-0-0-225-121.html

 

http://www.itechnews.net/tag/lacie-700/

 

 

 

Jerry

[dippe1]

Carl Stone wrote

"Apple does not discount current models before new models are released."

No, but the store selling them usually tries to get rid of the old ones if they still have any in stock by lowering the price.

[johan_niels_kuiper]

Ah, a 12 inch G4, not that's what I call travelling light.

 

I have bought a MacBook 13.3 inch, had 2Gb installed, am running LR 2.0 on it and it's doing fine. I'm not a fine art photographer, but transferring the images from my D300 is a walk in the park, as is batch correction and individual correction in PS.

 

Yes, you have to consider the reflective screen, but once you start doing so, it quickly turns to an automatism. I never do any outdoor editing anyway, will always look for a coffee shop or library when processing away from home.

 

Any really critical shots are processed at home, using a Windows 2000 machine with 21 inch calibrated monitor. This however might not be your suitable approach. Merely adding the info here for future readers contemplating their use and needs.

[aplumpton]

Hi Gerard,

 

The tests of monitors suitable for photo use (including MacBook Pro, iMAC (20 and 24 inch), the stand alone MAC 23 or

24 inch, and a few high end Eizo models) was in Chasseur d'images (who refer to themselves somewhat immodestly as the first magazine

of the image in Europe), May 2008, Edition No.303, Page 154 on. They have given their checkmark to the iMAC 24 and to the stand-alone

monitor.

 

You can visit their (French speaking) website at www.chassimages.com. I cut out the article as it guided my Apple

purchase in June, but maybe I can relocate it. The diagams and graphs of the several test parameters are probably

decipherable. I know of no other serious comparative tests anywhere and my purchase would have been less open-eyed

had I not come across the tests by accident. How accurate are their tests? I'm no expert, but I do know they have a good reputation for

in-depth tests on lens, cameras and accessories that are not simply fancy re-phrasings of manufacturers' specs.

[aplumpton]

Gerard, thanks for the link to Mr. Galbraith's quite detailed account of the two (15 and 17 inch MACBook Pro monitors),

as for the other links. I add here an excerpt from the former's test:

 

(MacBook Pro):. "Numerous colour hues were wrong: skin tones were overly yellow-green, for example, and gray balance

in light greys was a bit too far off. Other colours were oversaturated. The usable viewing angle of the screen was also

too narrow; shifting an inch left or an inch right changed the hue of certain colours noticeably, while tilting the screen up

or down slightly showed not the typical top-to-bottom uneveness in brightness, which can be worked around, but instead

a contrast and density shift on the top and bottom of the optimum viewing area, a shift that made it look like some of the

screen had a plastic film overlaid. We tried reprofiling at each screen's native white point, but that didn't help."

 

It is worth reading his full article.

 

You may well be right that their new model will show improvements. We will have to wait and see.

 

Yes, the reflective screen of the iMAC 24 was also noted as a deficiency in the C.I. article. My working area has been

arranged to minimise that (a black curtain behind the operator).

[aplumpton]

....And sorry for my long-windedness, but I got to Galbraith's section on the new LED backlit 15 inch MACBook Pro. It is

indeed better than the old model (the previous excerpt above) and maybe the best laptop monitor to date, BUT, here is what he

had to say:

 

"To sum up, the new MacBook Pro 15 inch's LED-backlit display is very, very good. It's the best laptop display we've

seen and one we'd use in the field without reservation. But its minor colour quirks, tight head position requirements and

relatively small colour gamut when compared to a desktop display means there's still lots of room for improvement in

future laptop offerings."

 

I will stay with my choice, as I do not need a field laptop for photo work. The Hoodman viewer is all I need there.

 

Thanks again for the heads-up on the Galbraith tests.

[wrmccombie]

Yes, I have traveled with a 17 in Mac notebook and the smalled MacBook makes a world of difference to me because

of both the size and the weight. It is a lot harder to deal with the larger notebook at security lines because

it is bulkier, it is harder to use on the plane and it takes up more room in the bag. I dont use Aperature much,

I had it and ended up preferring Lightroom, but I use RAW files from a 20D which are smaller than a 5D but I dont

know that it would make much of a difference. Either case is a compromise. The question is whether the hit is

speed with the Macbook is worth the easier portability. To me it is, and if needed I hook it up to a large monitor.