Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Is macbook pro all you need?  (Read 3143 times)
soboyle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 269


WWW
« on: October 01, 2012, 01:51:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Looking to replace my desktop PC, and see that many photogs are using macbook pro's, even as a primary editing computer.
I would continue to use my NEC monitor plugged into the pro for color critical work.
But does the Pro have the horsepower to work with D800 files in lightroom? It would seem so with the quad core i7 processor.
Is the max ram 8 or 16 gigs, I can't get a straight answer on that?
After using a macbook air, I would want a machine with a SSD for the speed bump it offers.
Would prob use a thunderbolt external for a working drive.
Any thoughts on this setup as a home studio machine?
Logged

lfeagan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 208



« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2012, 03:30:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, it is powerful enough. I have a D800 and a loaded MBP Retina with 16GB, use LR 4.1, and do stitched panos without issue.
Logged

Lance

Nikon: D700, D800E, PC-E 24mm f/3.5D ED, PC-E 45mm f/2.8D ED, PC-E 85mm f/2.8D, 50mm f/1.4G, 14-24 f/2.8G ED, 24-70 f/2.8G ED, 70-200 f/2.8G ED VR II, 400mm f/2.8G ED VR
Fuji: X-Pro 1, 14mm f/2.8, 18mm f/2.0, 35mm f/1.4
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2012, 11:23:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I use an early 2009 aluminum unibody Macbook Pro 17", SSD, 4 ram, anti glare display

All processing with it using Capture One Pro

80MP Leaf digital back


It works very well, is portable and I can bring it anywhere, worldwide  Grin

Most durable, solid and advanced computer I have owned. Mac rocks!!! No sign of breaking down, will have to see if last another year or two. Was expensive but money very well spent...
« Last Edit: October 02, 2012, 04:34:04 PM by Anders_HK » Logged
StuartOnline
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 275


WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2012, 05:47:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I am also just using a 2012 MacBook Pro Retina display system. Could not be happier.
The current system is a 2.6 GHz Intel core i7
Memory 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
It is configured with 512GB Flash Storage

In most cases I do not keep any images in the system.
I have images stored on external USB 3 hard drives.
To me Thunderbolt drives at this time are over priced and I have found out USB 3 drives works just fine?
One of my main external drives is the Seagate Backup Plus 3TB that I am getting Read/Write of about 174MBs average.
I purchased a Iogear USB 3 4-Port Hub so I could have a number of USB 3 Drives attached at once.
No problem as they all mount and run with no issues.
 
Would defiantly go with the 16 GB for Ram as it is almost impossible to upgrade the ram with the Retina Display system.

Like Anders mentioned Macs are expensive but last. And they do rock.

Stu

Logged
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1411


WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2012, 07:41:41 PM »
ReplyReply

My only computer at work now is an 11.6 inch Macbook Air. The new one, with the fastest Ivy Bridge processor and 8GB of RAM and the 256 SSD. I use a NEC 26 inch calibrated external monitor in the studio for image editing. It's plenty fast enough for raw processing 16 and 21 megapixel photos in Lightroom -- about 25% faster than my 2-year old 17 inch Macbook Pro.

And it easily fits in my camera bag.

So yeah, I think a new Macbook Pro would be fine as a sole computer.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
AlexRobinson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2012, 02:35:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Currently using a late 2011 17" MBP with the antiglare display.
2.5 i7 processor
16GB of RAM
got an SSD and a hard drive in it instead of the obsolete optical drive.

Had no problems with running anything on it and processing files with no problems from everything I've tried up to a D800. Obviously decent external storage is required too. I changed to using a 17" MBP from a desktop in 2007 and never looked back. In the future I'd like to update to a Retina model but I'm waiting and hoping for a 17" model again. Obviously if you want the absolute bottom line in performance a desktop is the way to go, I could build a desktop for much less that'd run rings around my laptop but what's the point? Nothing I do requires any more performance than this and the portability is a godsend.
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2012, 04:55:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm waiting and hoping for a 17" model again.

+888

and if 18 or 19" high quality graphic retina display would be even better  Grin
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6926


WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2012, 10:19:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have experience from old (2009?) Mac Pro, using 16GByte and an SSD disk. I'm just shooting 24MP but I have worked on images from D800 and Phase One IQ180, too, mostly in Lightroom 4.2.

I think an MBP with quad core and 16GByte and external thunderbolt disk would be good enough. I would definitively opt for an internal SSD.

Best regards
Erik




Looking to replace my desktop PC, and see that many photogs are using macbook pro's, even as a primary editing computer.
I would continue to use my NEC monitor plugged into the pro for color critical work.
But does the Pro have the horsepower to work with D800 files in lightroom? It would seem so with the quad core i7 processor.
Is the max ram 8 or 16 gigs, I can't get a straight answer on that?
After using a macbook air, I would want a machine with a SSD for the speed bump it offers.
Would prob use a thunderbolt external for a working drive.
Any thoughts on this setup as a home studio machine?

Logged

Scott-Weaver
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #8 on: December 27, 2012, 07:34:11 AM »
ReplyReply

You say your system has 512 GB SSD storage. How well would it work for you with 256? Apple charges another $500 for the difference so I'm weighing this issue.
Logged
StuartOnline
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 275


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2012, 02:41:50 PM »
ReplyReply

You say your system has 512 GB SSD storage. How well would it work for you with 256? Apple charges another $500 for the difference so I'm weighing this issue.


Scott,

I assume you are talking about the MacBook Pro Retina 15"?

You should be able to do just fine with 256. In my case I did purchase the system with the 512 GB SSD. It was more costly, however I was looking down the road when I resell when I upgrade to a newer model. I figured it may have a better value. Most likely I could have got by with 256 since I keep all photos on external drives. I just keep daily items I use on the system besides the programs themselves. Like email and word documents that I use daily.

One thing I would do is get the max Ram installed at the time of purchase (16GB) because you will be unable to do that at a later date.

Stu
Logged
Scott-Weaver
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #10 on: December 28, 2012, 03:03:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for that, Stuart. Your  suggestions confirm where my thinking was going. Even if I did purchase the 512GB option,  I could use that up as well. Far better to use external drives. It seems there area already third-parties that are in process of work-arounds for increasing storage, despite Apple's attempt to limit that.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad