# Mac Book Pro or Asus N55SF or something else for photo editing?



## ZeuZ (Jan 19, 2012)

Hey guys, what laptop would you buy for photo editing? Thx for the help 

Mac Book Pro 15"
Asus N55SF 15"
or something else?


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 19, 2012)

i use the 15" macbook pro it has plenty of power for PS and lightroom
depends really if you prefer mac os or windows but I still dont think anyone else competes with apple on build quality yet


----------



## dstppy (Jan 20, 2012)

If it's between the two, I vote for MBP, but if you can at all do post-processing on a desktop, I think you'd be better off. 

From my last few years experience, I'd say stay away from any sort of small/slim form factor of PC (laptops included). I've been living in a laptop/media center support nightmare (various family members, wife, etc.) -- google cs5111 asus problems as an example of what I've seen.

That said, do you NEED a laptop or just prefer one? If you're going to spend a lot of time post-processing, you can get a 64-bit win7 box with an i7 from dell for under a grand, and it'll go a long way (I have three of these at work) for being usable for time to come.

Being that you said you wanted a laptop, I assume it's for other things and I can tell you the macs are a great user experience. I highly recommend if you go with a Windows laptop that you try it out in person (at a store) to make sure the touchpad is to your liking as well as the keyboard. Google around for support articles about the product before you buy as well -- in the case of the media pc I mentioned above, they tend to overheat and cook drives due to poor design; cost us a lot to rebuild, then it burned another HDD.

Good luck


----------



## Picsfor (Jan 20, 2012)

What do you want?

The MBP is pretty much unrivaled in quality and screen quality, but often the price is an issue.
For the same price you could get a 27" iMac - which is a stunning piece of kit.

The question really needs some more meat, to give a better answer.

Is this gonna be your only computer? Do you need to the portability? Is photo editing all it's gonna do?

I find very people who go down the Apple route ever go back to Microsoft. But then i'm maybe biased. But then i suppose os are the other dozen or so people who saw my iMac at work and went out and bought their own iMac or MBP's and swear nether to darken Microsoft's doors again.


----------



## jonathan7007 (Jan 20, 2012)

I recently bought a Lenovo ThinkPad W520 for tethered shooting and editing when I cannot use my desktop for some reason. This has been a good machine so far (bought in late November). Purchase tip: much less expensive on TigerDirect than through Lenovo. TigerDirect had the configuration I wanted for around $1300. The motherboard I have can handle up to 16Gig RAM. This requires buying a four-core i7, however. I stopped at the installed 8Gig. Two slots remain for me to use.

This unit comes with a standard Photoshop-smart nVIDIA discrete graphics miniboard that speeds image processing (CUDA cores). Mine is the "1000" board and there is a "2000" with more cores. There's an active forum for questions and Lenovo is OK for support. I have had other ThinkPads. I don't know when a W530 will be released, but if you need one right now I say go for it.

Mine has a higher-gamut "FD" screen that's 1920x1080 and there is a visibly better gamut. Very bright, so can be used for editing in more environments than my last ThinkPad (an X61t tablet)

I made a worthwhile DIY upgrade by installing an mSATA 80Gig solid-state mini drive card in the internal PCI slot, which was empty in my model. (This is the slot used by a WLAN card for cell service.) I transferred the OS into this card and left the spinning hard drive in place as a data drive. (I actually swapped the stock drive for a Hitachi 750 HD during my DIY effort. Super easy.) Having the OS and Photoshop, Lightroom, etc. on the SSD is very fast. I do install some programs on the data drive to keep the mSATA from filling up, but there is some headroom left on this little SSD. This is a solution limited to a very few laptops, because the PCI slot has to be able to handle the drive. I don't know why there are few machines that have this architecture but I know it's the case.

Not a lightweight machine, and the 15.6" screen means it's bigger than that wonderful X61t. But it IS fast and the screen is wonderful. I just made my custom tripod-laptop-support platform out of nice birch plywood, which I enjoyed. 

Here's the forum for this line of ThinkPads. Of course, those who have no problems never post, so keep that in mind. But if you are like me I like to look in such resources before a buying decision.

Hope this helps.

jonathan7007


----------



## jonathan7007 (Jan 20, 2012)

Ooooops, link didn't get copied into my last post above. Here's the location of the forum for the W-line of ThinkPads:

http://forums.lenovo.com/t5/W-Series-ThinkPad-Laptops/bd-p/W_ThinkPads

One last thought. My wife has a 15" MBP and it doesn't seem to need less learning and Software maintenance than my Win7 machines. The OS is just as complex by now. You will be OK with either OS, I believe. I have owned Macs in the past. My 2 cents: Go with whichever OS you know best, which will save you time.

jonathan7007


----------



## Fandongo (Jan 20, 2012)

My 2009 MBP still handles raw quite well. 

One thing to consider is Firewire800/Thunderbolt vs. USB 3.
Sandisk and Lexar used to make a FW800 CF reader, super fast (8gb of video/photos in under 3 minutes w/extreme IV 45MB/s)... Now it goes for $300 bucks most places, since it's illogically become extinct.

There's USB 3 card readers everwhere for cheap (though I can't confirm transfer speeds), which would add further value to the ASUS. This is why I'm waiting for Ivy Bridge before I recommit to Apple or Windows.

Thunderbolt... I think Sonnet announced something for 2124... But i doubt it will be out before August 2200.


----------



## ZeuZ (Jan 20, 2012)

Thx Guys for the info 'till now!

The extra meat:
- I am not looking for the desktop versions (iMac etc.) because I need the mobility, plus in real need I can always use this iMac (otherwise I couldn't discuss it with you guys)
- I had a MacBook Pro, but it crashed a few days ago (the motherboard went RIP), the I like about Mac is the screen and the speed (which I need for CS5 and sometimes Final Cut)
- I don't like the price of the MacBook Pro

but so far I didn't find any real competitors (maybe the HP envy 17")


----------



## dstppy (Jan 20, 2012)

ZeuZ said:


> Thx Guys for the info 'till now!
> 
> The extra meat:
> - I am not looking for the desktop versions (iMac etc.) because I need the mobility, plus in real need I can always use this iMac (otherwise I couldn't discuss it with you guys)
> ...



If you're already a mac user, MBP hands down. And get it a little-brother MBA just for good measure 

I just added an air and it's been quite the gem.


----------



## jonathan7007 (Jan 20, 2012)

My college-age daughter has a HP EliteBook 2470 tablet and I have found HP logistics and support to be worse than Lenovo's. Especially handling shipping and repairs. True Keystone Cops style antics. So I would cross off an HP Envy. The EliteBooks are the better-built business machines. OK features but Lenovo still ahead of them for tank-like construction. 

If you like the MBP maybe that's the machine. My screen better than my wife's MBP at same size. My graphics processor, mSATA-based OS, and 4-core i7 (second generation) make this W520 MUCH faster than her machine (Lion). Air machines must be nice, though, for weight.

Bottom line is that in most cases the time spent taking care of software updates, every day stuff, etc., way outstrips the differences in editing images unless you spend a lot of time on deadline. I am not trying to start a Mac vs. Win7 argument here. I just think the differences have narrowed considerably.

Good luck. Sorry to hear your motherboard got fried.

jonathan7007


----------



## jcns (Jan 21, 2012)

it really depends on your objective/intended use
travel
heavy processing
do you need a DVD/CD writer built-in?
do you need a big screen?

In my case, I bought a netbook for trips because I am not going to process anything mid-trip. Just needed something to dump the pictures on to.
For processing, I have 15.6'' laptop and even that's not a big enough screen sometimes so I use my 24in monitor. 
Netbook does not have a dvd/cd writer
I love Apple products but some of their stuff is just too much for me to rationalize. MBP 15'' start at $1,799. Bought my netbook, PC laptop(windows 7 8gb of ram, 1gb of video, i7, 15.6"), and 24'' monitor for less than that.


----------



## gmrza (Jan 21, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> i use the 15" macbook pro it has plenty of power for PS and lightroom
> depends really if you prefer mac os or windows but I still dont think anyone else competes with apple on build quality yet



My wife has processed jobs where she has shot 6000 frames on her 15" MBP. We just moved the files to a Mac Mini Server (core i7) to run the export jobs in order to create proofs.
From my perspective, the support overhead on Mac OS is lower. The big deal-breaker on a Windows platform for me is that I am still not convinced by Windows 7's colour management. Even though I have profiled the monitor of my work laptop with a Spyder, often, when I lock the console and unlock it again, Windows starts by bringing up the display unprofiled, and then takes up to a minute to restore the correct profile. - Something is not right there. On Mac OS, on the other hand, I am far more comfortable with the maturity of colour management. - That said, some people may be happy with the colour management on Windows, but I am not.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Jan 21, 2012)

ZeuZ said:


> Hey guys, what laptop would you buy for photo editing? Thx for the help
> 
> Mac Book Pro 15"
> Asus N55SF 15"
> or something else?



Since you don't seem to be on a very tight budget you may also want to look at the Sony Z series laptop which is a nicely designed and reasonably powerful laptop by itself but what makes it an excellent choice for photo editing is the docking station that contains an external GPU.

http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/sony-vaio-z/4505-3121_7-34845466.html#reviewPage1

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-VPC-Z216GX-13-1-Inch-Laptop-Black/dp/B0059095Z2/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1327130315&sr=8-2

I haven't tested it yet but it's most likely going to be my next laptop (combo) since I have been very satisfied with Sony's laptops over the past 5 years...


----------



## Caps18 (Jan 25, 2012)

I have been doing grat with my MacBook Pro 2010. If I were to buy another one today with $1500 it would be the MacBook Air 13". The SSD makes more of a difference than the CPU probably when compared to the MacBook Pro with the 5400 rpm drive.


----------



## sjprg (Jan 25, 2012)

Take a look at the HP Elitebook 17 (HP8760W). The Nvidia 5010M video option is a CUDA board and with an SSD and a Seagate 750 GB Momentous XT hybrid. This thing outperforms any laptop available except the $5800.00 Alienware laptop.
Paul


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 25, 2012)

I'd look at the display screen specs. Shiny screens are not my favorite, you can see everything around you reflected in the screen unless you turn out the lights. I'd also check brightness, some screens are too bright and can't be turned down enough to calibrate them. 

IMHO, the screen is much more important than processing power, as long as you have a decent i7 processor, it will do the job. If a SSD is not standard, you can put in a SSD yourself and get the best, like Samsung or Intel, and for less money.


----------



## melbournite (Jan 25, 2012)

My suggestion is that it doesn't matter much whether it's Mac or Windows, as Caps suggested, the most important factor is SSD. It makes a remarkable difference to speed, reading and writing, especially when using the apps you mentioned. If money is an issue, get yourself a second hand year or two old laptop (Mac or Windows) and put SSD into it - it will make it faster than the latest 'off-the-shelf' MBP.


----------



## willrobb (Jan 25, 2012)

Picsfor said:


> What do you want?
> 
> The MBP is pretty much unrivaled in quality and screen quality, but often the price is an issue.
> For the same price you could get a 27" iMac...
> ...



If you aren't needing it to be portable, the 27 inch iMac for about the same price as the MBP would be a much better deal I think. Lots more power from the iMac and editing on the big screen is a joy. When I go from mine to my little 13 inch MacBook screen I'm not a happy chappy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 25, 2012)

Caps18 said:


> I have been doing grat with my MacBook Pro 2010. If I were to buy another one today with $1500 it would be the MacBook Air 13". The SSD makes more of a difference than the CPU probably when compared to the MacBook Pro with the 5400 rpm drive.



Agreed. I have a 17" MBPro (2.53 GHz Core i5, 8 GB RAM) and a 13" MBAir (1.8 GHz Core i7, 4 GB RAM), and the Air is very fast thanks to the 256 GB SSD instead of an HDD. 

I can edit images on the 17" MBP, but the 13" display is too small, needs to be connected to my 24" display.


----------



## pakosouthpark (Jan 31, 2012)

if you go for a mac you will never go back to microsoft.. 
but the big issue is that mac is really expensive.. depends on a lot of other questions as well.. what else will you use it for? if you like games?

my 2009 macbook 13" handles well raw files and PS cs5.


----------



## erakepio (Feb 1, 2012)

The Mac is expensive. If you can justify the costs that's the option I would go for.

I use a 13" Macbook Pro solely for photo editing and it works a treat. 120GB solid state, photoshop CS5, lightroom and photomatix... I need nothing else. It literally just works, no fuss, no problems.

All my photos are stored off on NAS boxes (i've got a 4TB setup at home) so i don't need to worry about the small disk space. It gives me the freedom to be poortable and powerful enough to edit/post process my images on the move and not be too cumbersome.

As a backup I've got my PC which has a copy of GIMP on there or my work laptop which has CS4, but it's underpowered!


----------



## 7enderbender (Feb 1, 2012)

If I had to get a new laptop anytime soon I'd go again for a Lenovo Thinkpad. Not only because I like the layout and the keyboards best (especially for non-photo applications if you do a lot of writing) but because I always liked the high resolution screens available. Not sure if the latest models live up to that but worth checking. I haven't really found anything else that works for me that way since (on a laptop) I prefer smaller screens with high resolution (and I'm glad that mine is still in the 4:3 format but that's a thing of the past). Macs don't really offer that last time I checked. I f things were more compatible and if CS5 worked across platforms I might consider an Apple desktop but the Macbook pros I find just too big and don't like the screens.


----------



## kennykodak (Feb 1, 2012)

i carry a Macbook Pro 15" with the non glare screen on commercial shoots. it rocks.


----------



## ctmike (Feb 1, 2012)

Would the OP consider a refurb MBP? Apple's warranty on refurbs is still quite nice.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 1, 2012)

I'm a Lenovo/homebuilt PC user and here is a case where even I advocate the MacBook.

the simple reason is the screen. the SSD's, RAM, processors, pretty much everything is identical within a given price bracket for laptops these days, so those aren't the issue. I've used several Lenovos, a Sony, and a Toshiba to do my portable processing and have found that their screens all lacked the precise color adjustability to do accurate photo editing. When I loaded the PP'd images I'd finished onto another computer, I was always disappointed in the color balance. I now have to use my Lenovo hooked up to a secondary monitor to ensure accuracy, which defeats the whole purpose of it being a laptop.

While I'm happy with the IBM/Windows laptops for everything else, I've had disappointing results with their screens, while everyone I know with a Mac is very comfortable doing photo editing work on its screen. go with the Mac.


----------



## Dianoda (Feb 1, 2012)

ZeuZ said:


> Hey guys, what laptop would you buy for photo editing? Thx for the help
> 
> Mac Book Pro 15"
> Asus N55SF 15"
> or something else?



I'm not sure which laptop is the best choice between those two (I have no familiarity with the ASUS at all), but after skimming through the discussion here, I'm surprised there isn't more talk related to display quality.

At minimum, for photo editing I'd want a display with the following features: decent contrast ratio (I'd shoot for 500:1 at a brightness of 120cd/m2), capable of saturating the sRGB colorspace, minimal vertical and horizontal colorshift. Resolution is another consideration, I'd recommend aiming for a display with a resolution of 1920x1080 or 1600x900, as more work space is always nice (assuming your vision is good enough to deal with the dense pixel pitch of a high resolution display). I also recommend steering clear of displays with the ultra-typical resolution of 1366x768, if for no other reason than this resolution is often associated with inferior laptop displays. Regardless of what you end up with, do yourself a favor and calibrate the display, it will make a huge difference in color accuracy.

There are several LCD display technologies found in laptops, each with its own strengths and weaknesses - namely TN and IPS panels.

IPS panels represent the ultimate in display quality and are the best for critical work. The downsides are that they are quite rare in laptops, and when they are available they cost a pretty penny - it could be as much as a $400+ add-on to the base cost of the laptop. IPS panels have good to great color depth (capable of reproducing anywhere from 70-100% of the adobeRGB colorspace), contrast ratios (700:1 or better), and superior viewing angles with minimal colorshifting, and sometimes come factory calibrated (a few laptop models even have built-in calibration).

TN panels, on the other hand, are available in varying levels of quality. Color depth is all over the place, poor displays might be limited to reproducing just 40% of the adobeRGB colorspace, decent displays are good for about 70% (and can saturate the sRGB colorspace), and there are a small number of high gamut displays good for 95-110% of the adobeRBG colorspace. TN panels are also prone to vertical and to a lesser extent horizontal color shifting depending on viewing angle - again, the extent of color shift varies by display quality (some are actually quite good indeed with respect to minimizing colorshift). Contrast ratios vary from 230:1 at the low end to 1000:1 at the high end.

Macbook Pros are generally well regarded for overall display quality, so that option is probably a pretty safe bet, but I'd recommend finding a review for the specific model you are planning to buy to confirm (check anandtech.com, they do a pretty good job with laptop and display reviews, another good resource for general LCD display information is tftcentral.co.uk).

I'm currently using a Dell U2711 (a high gamut IPS panel) for my desktop photo editing and a Dell Precision 4600 workstation laptop for on the road. The laptop has a 1920x1080 TN panel display (an IPS panel is available, but would have cost another $400), before I had it in hand I was a bit worried the display wouldn't be up to spec, but after calibrating with a Spyder3Pro it's really quite pleasant to work with. It's also a matte display, which is great for minimizing glare in bright environments.

Oh, one last note before I disappear into the ether: all the talk about SSDs is true, they make a huge difference in loading times for programs and files, everything is much more responsive. With SSD, the boot time of my laptop is crazy fast - under 10 seconds. The only problem is cost (very high cost per GB), and SSD quality is about as fickle as display quality - there are good SSDs and bad SSDs. Samsung 830 series, Crucial M4, and Intel 320 series SSDs are probably you best bet for reliability, and the samsung 830 and curcial M4 will be faster provided you laptop supports the SATA 3.0 spec. Sorry for the huge wall of text and good luck!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 1, 2012)

7enderbender said:


> If I had to get a new laptop anytime soon I'd go again for a Lenovo Thinkpad. Not only because I like the layout and the keyboards best (especially for non-photo applications if you do a lot of writing) but because I always liked the high resolution screens available. Not sure if the latest models live up to that but worth checking. I haven't really found anything else that works for me that way since (on a laptop) I prefer smaller screens with high resolution (and I'm glad that mine is still in the 4:3 format but that's a thing of the past). Macs don't really offer that last time I checked. I f things were more compatible and if CS5 worked across platforms I might consider an Apple desktop but the Macbook pros I find just too big and don't like the screens.



I bought a Lenovo X200S 4GB Win 7 64 bit with extra high resolution screen about two years ago. Then, I added a SSD, so it runs photoshop, lightroom, etc quite handily. The optional larger battery also lasts at least 7 hours while working, so that part is great.

BUT --- The 12 inch high resolution screen is horrible, colors are washed out, move even a couple of inches off center, and it fades, I have calibrated it over and over, and that helps, but I could never recommend that screen for image editing.

I noted that they have changed it on the newer models, but the only way to try one in my location is to buy and then return if its not right.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 1, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> 7enderbender said:
> 
> 
> > If I had to get a new laptop anytime soon I'd go again for a Lenovo Thinkpad. Not only because I like the layout and the keyboards best (especially for non-photo applications if you do a lot of writing) but because I always liked the high resolution screens available. Not sure if the latest models live up to that but worth checking. I haven't really found anything else that works for me that way since (on a laptop) I prefer smaller screens with high resolution (and I'm glad that mine is still in the 4:3 format but that's a thing of the past). Macs don't really offer that last time I checked. I f things were more compatible and if CS5 worked across platforms I might consider an Apple desktop but the Macbook pros I find just too big and don't like the screens.
> ...



without fail, all the lenovos I have purchased for my company have monitors that run very blue. it's almost impossible to correct for with in-computer settings, and thus while I love Lenovos for their productivity uses and their rock-solid builds (obviously, the corporate customer service as well), I really don't recommend them for graphics use.


----------



## bonedaddy.p7 (Feb 1, 2012)

I use Asus laptops and have been for quite some time. MBPs are good but I have to use mine for my day job too. most modern laptops ship with glossy screens and just whatever graphics solution is cheapest at the time and this is a big thing to anyone concerned with graphics quality. look for something with a non-glossy (non-glare) screen, the recent market push to these is because they make colors look more vivid and have darker blacks, but they are pretty bad for accurate reproduction. they are also more susceptible to color variance based on viewing angle and any dirt on the screen shows up very easily. the graphics chip on the laptop is also pretty important because it will dictate what controls you have to easily adjust the color reproduction. if you have the time and money to do proper monitor calibration with ISS profiles it's much less important. I have found that ATI/AMD graphics chips are the easiest to adjust for better reproduction than other brands, but it will only be as good as the display itself.

Commonly I will do quick editing on the laptop and if I'm going to really concern myself with printing I'l use an external, calibrated IPS display to get accurate color.

As far as Asus laptops go, they're pretty good, but like all brands you have to watch which models are good and which aren't. I find that they tend to ship with moderate quality power supplies that last a couple of years and then you either repair or replace it ($54 to replace the one for my G73, so not very expensive), and the batteries are not the highest quality (never allow them to fully drain, and replacements can be expensive), but at least you can swap those yourself whereas with the MBP you can't even have a spare with you as it is internal.

if I had no investment in PC software, more spare money and didn't need a PC for my day job, I'd gladly consider the MBP, but I'd probably get a decent PC and spend the rest on the camera gear. there is no real advantage for either platform as a whole. it all boils down to existing investment and preference.


----------



## flanniganj (Feb 1, 2012)

It should be noted that the MBP pro line is slated for a major redesign very soon. It's been pegged as Q2 2012, which could be as soon as two months. These will have the new line of Ivy Bridge processors. These are also strongly rumored to take their cues from the MBA in that they will switch to SSDs and a much thinner profile. Might be worth the wait.


----------



## Dianoda (Feb 1, 2012)

flanniganj said:


> It should be noted that the MBP pro line is slated for a major redesign very soon. It's been pegged as Q2 2012, which could be as soon as two months. These will have the new line of Ivy Bridge processors. These are also strongly rumored to take their cues from the MBA in that they will switch to SSDs and a much thinner profile. Might be worth the wait.



I'm all for it as long as display quality does not suffer as a result of thinner design. But as it stands the LCDs in the current MBAs aren't as impressive as those found in the current Macbook Pros. While the current MBA displays are decent compared to the rest of the laptop market, compared to the Macbook Pros they have poorer contrast ratios and black levels as a result of backlight bleed and viewing angles are subject to noticeable vertical color shift, especially in the 11" model.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Feb 1, 2012)

I have a 27" quad core iMac with 16gb of ram. The ram I bought afterwards and it was only 100 bucks to get from 4 to 16.

Obviously, if you don't want a big arse computer, then don't get it. But with a student discount I spent $2000 on mine and it completely punishes. Also, my prints are nearly identical to what my screen shows.

Once you go 27" everything else looks like a toy.


----------



## flanniganj (Feb 1, 2012)

Dianoda said:


> flanniganj said:
> 
> 
> > It should be noted that the MBP pro line is slated for a major redesign very soon. It's been pegged as Q2 2012, which could be as soon as two months. These will have the new line of Ivy Bridge processors. These are also strongly rumored to take their cues from the MBA in that they will switch to SSDs and a much thinner profile. Might be worth the wait.
> ...



The new ones will likely have "retina" displays from what I've read. Putting them at 2880x1800 for a resolution. This won't explain any color accuracy, but at least the definition is supposed to be there. This is all rumor of course. Lion and Windows 8 have/will have support for ultra-high resolution screens, so this lends credence to the rumor.


----------



## Grigbar (Feb 1, 2012)

I have never understood people who willingly chose to use mobile devices as their primary editing stations. If your going to be editing photos or anything else get a real computer. For doing any real work a 30" 10bit display is pretty much a necessity. 

I dont know of any laptop that comes with a 10bit display and its nearly pointless to edit your photos when your only seeing a small spectrum of the color in the image. Keep in mind that even an 8bit panel wont be able to show all the colors in the 8bit color depth. That means even if you are using an 8bit display your not seeing all of the colors even at JPEG level. The same goes for resolution, what exactly do you plan to do with all those 18-20+megapixles in your images with a 17inch display? I would sure hate to have to expand my image 1:1 or better on a display that small to edit my files  It seems like it would be a complete and needless waste of time.

Now of course I do have to use a laptop when im on the road for live updates. I work for a local website so i dont have choice. It sucks using one but when i can publish my photos within minutes its great! Two days ago i was at an event and i saw some guy editing his photos right there on the spot and i asked him if he was local. He told me he worked for the New York Times. Thats a great example of where a portable is perfect. But i sure wouldnt want to use it for more than a few quick updates to the web or of course for tethered shooting. 
Im going to get a new one soon but im waiting for Ivy Bridge before i buy one. When i do it will be something with one of those Ivy Bridge quad core procs and other high end stats. 

I sure as hell wont get a Mac, thats nothing but a waste of money. I build my own computers and i actually understand basic computer science. When ever i hear people talking about macs they always seem to use ambiguous generic terms that dont actually mean anything to explain why their some how better. Well i live in the real world and i need real reasons to buy my hardware lol. And no, OSX is not any better than Windows. Even if it was those computers would STILL be a rip off. They use regular grade parts in their machines designed to keep you from upgrading outside of what they sell you for the most part. You cant over clock with them even tho you should be able to, you cant get one with a an AMD proc, you cant get one with a 6 core SB-E proc from intel if you want, your just stuck with the S___ they offer and then you pay to much for it. They usually get hardware updates months after parts are already available for Windows and major software vendors usually release updates for their products on Windows before Mac. I could go but i wont. Apple is a rip off, wake the h3\\ up  And no, I dont give a crap about your "Well I had a bad experiences on a 500$ used Dell but ive had nothing but bliss on my 2500$ Mac" story so dont bother!

So if i was you, i would wait for Ivy Bridge seeing as how its mostly an optimization for mobile computers in the first place, i wouldnt get a Mac at all and i would get a real computer to go with it or at least a good 30 inch panel to plug it in to. Ive Bridge is supposed to start appearing in a few months, it should save you some battery life and has decent integrated graphics so it could save you some money on that to.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 1, 2012)

Grigbar, when Ivy Bridge releases in Q2, I'm pretty sure the Macs will be getting them too. After all, Apple was the most excited when the Sandy Bridge processors released with a not-horrible integrated graphics component and immediately decided to cut out Nvidia GPUs.

Also, I don't know why you'd need to OC a machine which is being used to edit photos. That's a bit of overkill. By the time you have a system with components robust enough to handle serious overclocking, you've probably already got components that are good enough to get a job done without having to add multipliers.

I agree that if you're going to do laptop photo editing, you should invest in a good monitor to plug it into. That way, at least when you're working out of the home, you've got an ideal work scenario. While laptops are more expensive for the performance they provide, you can nowadays get a very strong i5 or i7 mobile processor in a laptop for $500-$700, which is very respectable. you just can't beat the mobility. there are times in my house where I want to work downstairs with family rather than alone in the study, and heaven forbid I have to haul around a 30 pound Coolermaster Storm Trooper to do so.


----------



## bonedaddy.p7 (Feb 1, 2012)

I haven't used one extensively but you can get the lenovo Thinkpad W series with a calibrated display and they are still built to the IBM quality for the most part on the thinkpad line. so that may be an option (the integrated Quaddro graphics are pretty nice so long as you aren't a gamers, and I'm not an NVidia fan). 

I do most of my editing for web use on the laptop because I can do it on the couch or right after I shoot. Most of my photos are from when I travel and I like to post them up as soon as I can or to kill time in the hotel room. so the usefulness of a portable machine is without question in my book, but for print I prefer to use a dedicated, calibrated monitor. I'm not sure that a 10 bit display is a requirement, but it does help, but even a matte 8 bit IPS display is really nice to work with.


----------



## jonathan7007 (Feb 2, 2012)

I'm glad someone else finally came back to the Lenovo W-series laptops. Bought primarily for tethered shooting, mine has a 1920x1080 higher-gamut screen. No. I don't have color science-based comparison for this unit (I have a w520) but I can see colors on this screen that my last laptop and other current units won't show. I plan to calibrate it.

I posted again because some of the mentions about Lenovo laptop suitability referenced older units or an inappropriate series of machine. The W-series has CUDA core discrete graphics cards. The W also allows a small SSD on its internal PCI slot on which the user loads the OS and the key programs. Then you still have your "normal" HD for lots of storage and scratch disk. I swapped the supplied 500 for a Hitachi 750. These little SSDs are called "mSATA" drives. Look it up. Great combination. There are 4 RAM slots that allow up to 16Gig.

The screen is wonderful.

jonathan7007


----------



## 7enderbender (Feb 12, 2012)

jonathan7007 said:


> I'm glad someone else finally came back to the Lenovo W-series laptops. Bought primarily for tethered shooting, mine has a 1920x1080 higher-gamut screen. No. I don't have color science-based comparison for this unit (I have a w520) but I can see colors on this screen that my last laptop and other current units won't show. I plan to calibrate it.
> 
> I posted again because some of the mentions about Lenovo laptop suitability referenced older units or an inappropriate series of machine. The W-series has CUDA core discrete graphics cards. The W also allows a small SSD on its internal PCI slot on which the user loads the OS and the key programs. Then you still have your "normal" HD for lots of storage and scratch disk. I swapped the supplied 500 for a Hitachi 750. These little SSDs are called "mSATA" drives. Look it up. Great combination. There are 4 RAM slots that allow up to 16Gig.
> 
> ...




Thanks for posting this. I have to look into those. I just looked at Mac Book pros again and also at the Dell XPS series. Somebody recently mentioned to me that part of the problem with the decreasing effective resolution is that most mass market screens are now geared towards "high def" TV so a lot of the stuff that used to be available is going away. Plus the Mac Books are just to big I find. The 13" might be ok but then their screens are horrid I find.


----------



## bonedaddy.p7 (Feb 12, 2012)

yes, you correct on both counts. Most modern screens are geared towards video playback and have screens that are more tuned for enhanced contrast and less towards accurate reproduction. And you're right that a small, good quality screen is hard to find. I do not know of any small screens that have either adequate resolution or anything beyond ordinary display quality, I wish you the best of luck finding something. 

I really do like the lenovo W series, if the current models were available when I was in the market, I most likely would have bought that instead of my asus (which I still love)


----------



## keithfullermusic (Feb 13, 2012)

Grigbar said:


> I have never understood people who willingly chose to use mobile devices as their primary editing stations. If your going to be editing photos or anything else get a real computer. For doing any real work a 30" 10bit display is pretty much a necessity.
> 
> I dont know of any laptop that comes with a 10bit display and its nearly pointless to edit your photos when your only seeing a small spectrum of the color in the image. Keep in mind that even an 8bit panel wont be able to show all the colors in the 8bit color depth. That means even if you are using an 8bit display your not seeing all of the colors even at JPEG level. The same goes for resolution, what exactly do you plan to do with all those 18-20+megapixles in your images with a 17inch display? I would sure hate to have to expand my image 1:1 or better on a display that small to edit my files  It seems like it would be a complete and needless waste of time.
> 
> ...



I think you find Windows easy because you understand computer science.

For people who do not give a crap about how computers work and how they are programmed Macs work wonderfully. I'm not hating on Windows - if you prefer them, then you prefer them. To say that my 27" better than HD screen on my iMac with 12GB of RAM and amazing wireless mouth and keyboard is a waste of $2,000 is absurd.

I bet I could get a Windows machine with similar specs for half, but I don't want to build it. I don't want to research how it works and order parts. I also don't want to run Windows. For a computer that absolutely punishes and is great and easy to use $2,000 is nothing.


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 13, 2012)

I vote for MBP as per display. Otherwise, any well-configured Linux outperforms Windows on any hardware. Macs run on Linux-based operative systems too and I do not have any first hand experience on how they compare to Linux-based GPL operative systems like Open SUSE or ubuntu. GIMP and its derivates are the main options for photoediting on Linux though... At least to my knowledge...


----------



## papa-razzi (Feb 13, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Caps18 said:
> 
> 
> > I have been doing grat with my MacBook Pro 2010. If I were to buy another one today with $1500 it would be the MacBook Air 13". The SSD makes more of a difference than the CPU probably when compared to the MacBook Pro with the 5400 rpm drive.
> ...



I got a MBP 13" last May, and opted for the SSD drive vs the standard drive. It is very fast, booting up, etc. Well worth it. Only problem is the SSD drives have a much smaller capacity vs standard drives. So you pay in cost, and size of drive. I push my photos on to an external storage unless I am working on them.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Mar 7, 2012)

Michael_pfh said:


> ZeuZ said:
> 
> 
> > Hey guys, what laptop would you buy for photo editing? Thx for the help
> ...



I changed my mind and got a MBP instead... ;-)


----------



## ippikiokami (Mar 7, 2012)

If you have the extra money and are used to macs. Get a Macbook. For people who say windows 7 is harder to use. Are you serious? Like a poster said earlier. Most of the people who have problems with Windows pcs are buying the door buster bottom line models that you just have to realize you get what you paid for.

Other than money the top of the line pcs vs macs you really won't see performance differences that really make a dent in your life. Things like a SSD and a nice large monitor that you can calibrate will reap you huge benefits in everything you do.


----------



## ZeuZ (Mar 7, 2012)

Oki finally decided on MacBook Pro 15" with SSD and demirrored display. Very happy now with my Mac  THX GUYS!


----------



## Michael_pfh (Mar 7, 2012)

ZeuZ said:


> Oki finally decided on MacBook Pro 15" with SSD and demirrored display. Very happy now with my Mac  THX GUYS!



Good choice - I did order the same configuration...


----------

