Reading mode: Light Dark

iMac vs. MacBook Pro for photography

Go to last post
I

Igor_KV

Leading Member
Messages
773
Reaction score
3
Location
Thornhill, ON, CA
Hi,

I am considering buying one of these for photography PP.
My question is which one is more convenient in use? Is MBP is suficient for PP?
Actually I am lost. Will I regret loosing mobility if I buy iMac?

Any opinion will be appreciated...

Thanks in advance...

--
D90+18-105 VR, 35 F2 AF-D, 50 1.4 AF-D, 85 1.8 AF-D, SB-600
 
If you edit at home, get the imac. Preferably the i5 with 27" screen. There is a significant performance difference between i5 and dual core and I would step up to i5 if not i7. If you can't spend that much, look at the same chip running Windows 7.
 
I'm not a professional so raw computing power between the MacBook Pro and iMac is of little difference to me. I just like the screen space on my iMac. If you go the MBP route I'd get a big display to plug it into.
 
I use a 13" MacBook when traveling, which is certainly more convenient. But at home I'd never consider using it, my iMac (27") is far superior.

--
Equipment in my User Profile.
Personal gallery at http://almy.us/gallery
 
I have a nice iMac at work (24") and it crunches through some pretty heavy files with little effort. On the other hand I use a MacBook at home with a 23 inch Cinema Display and crunch 200 to 400 meg Photoshop files with little effort. I did max out the ram in the PB and popped in a 7200 rpm HD and to tell you the truth I can not tell a performance difference between the two. SO my advice is if you want mobile max out a PB or if you want stationary go with the iMac. The cost for the imac in less when you figure in a wide gamut LCD, which in my opinion is easier to calibrate than the iMacs.
Good Shopping
Bob
 
Igor_KV said:
My question is which one is more convenient in use? Is MBP is suficient for PP?
Actually I am lost. Will I regret loosing mobility if I buy iMac?
Click to expand...
It seems like it all comes down to how important portability is to you. Well, how important is it? If you buy an iMac, you can't be mobile at all, is that acceptable?

If you require battery portability, you need a MacBook Pro, since you cannot be portable with the iMac unless you are Panera Bread Man.

http://gizmodo.com/5429732/you-have-nothing-to-apologize-for-panera-bread-imac-man

If you do not require portability, or if you value performance over portability, the iMac is far superior, especially with its i5/i7 and IPS display.

If you require both portability and a large screen, just plug the MacBook Pro into a huge screen when you are home; it will drive up to a 30" monitor.

The answer lies in how well you have clarified your requirements.
 
Nobody can help yo decide the laptop/desktop question. Only you know how much you travel/like to sit at the coffee shop, etc..

What I can tell you is that I have a new i7 27" and a new MBP with 8 gigs of ram. Working with LightRoom and photoshop on either is very fast. Don't know that I see a big difference. Where I have seen a difference is when using something like imovie and lightroom is open, along with safari, mail, etc... The imac is the clear winner.

But, for day to day work either machine will work for you. You get a LOT more machine for the money with the imac. My laptop is about $1,000 more than my new imac and isn't as powerful.

The new 27" screen is extremely nice. After you work with it for a few days you will truly wonder how you got along without it before.

If you want the laptop and can also swing a monitor you will be really happy. If this is your only machine, the laptop may get old after a while.

--

http://www.courtlevephoto.com
http://www.courtlevephotography.com
 
... particularly when money is an issue and you can only afford one Mac. There are some very good 24" monitors in the $400-$500 price range, as well as plenty of alternatives depending on your budget.

Just be sure to get an external drive and use SuperDuper! to create a cloned volume of the MBP in case it should be lost or damaged. Then a new/repaired Mac can resurrect the MBP at the click of a button.
 
I started out with an iMac, 24" white version (sent back a 21" aluminum one due to problem with the screen for photo work). A year later I added an MacBook pro, both are ver similar in spec and speed tests in photoshop show nothing in it.

If I was doing it again I would get a MacBook Pro and add a 24" monitor from Ezio, along with a magic mouse, wireless keyboard and Wacom Intious 4 table.

If you need to be portable, then go for the MacBook, as long as you are not a serious power user in photoshop you won't see that much difference. You can't lug the iMac around!

Also when the current range of iMacs I would not touch them for photo work, the glossy screens are a deal breaker for me. At least you can order the MacBook in a non glossy screen and also order the faster hard drive. You can order memory later from third part companies as it is a look cheaper.
 
... for a 13" MBP with an anti-glare screen option sooner than later. On my last trip to Europe I had to leave behind the 15" MBP because of size/weight considerations. My iPhone kept me connected throughout the trip but it didn't help much when it came to PP!
 
I use a 2.53GHz MBP as my main computer and its more then up to the task for Aperture and Photoshop. So much so, I have little desire to replace the machine when apple refreshes its MBP line shortly.

That being the case if you need mobility, the MBP is a great choice. If you don't need a mobile solution then an iMac may be a better option but overall, I'm very pleased with my MBP.
 
The 13" MBP isn't very good for photo editing, the graphics card eats up too much RAM thanks to the nasty little IGP.
--
Rob - A picture is worth a thousand words, but which
ones?
http://robdphotos.smugmug.com/
 
Rob Gailbraith found the MBP 13" to be perfectly adequate for image editing:

The 15 inch can be ordered with a combo of the embedded NVIDIA GeForce 9400M and the discrete NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT, whereas the 13 inch is available with the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M only. Apple Aperture becomes more sprightly with a faster graphics card, and when comparing how responsive the program is when layering RAW adjustments such as Highlights & Shadows on a Nikon D3 photo that has also been corrected to straighten a horizon, the GeForce 9600M GT definitely makes Aperture feel snappy and responsive. But, the GeForce 9400M is no slouch in this department; Aperture's interface does drag slightly by comparison, but the difference is less pronounced than we were expecting.

In addition, the GeForce 9400M can play Canon EOS 5D Mark II 1080p video full screen on an external 1920 x 1200 pixel monitor, without stuttering or hesitation. This camera's unedited video tends to cause lesser video cards to collapse during playback, but is no problem for the MacBook Pro 13 inch.

Without question, the GeForce 9600M GT is the more powerful graphics option, but the GeForce 9400M is none to shabby and seems more than adequate for various photo and video tasks.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10041-10146

With any luck the new 13" might have a better graphics card...
 
I'm not talking about Apertures interface. The 9400M steals 256MB of system memory, which can be a problem when you are using brushes, as your system uses a lot of memory when you painting stuff in. Lets put it this way, I've had nothing but trouble with Aperture 3 on my 13" MBP.
--
Rob - A picture is worth a thousand words, but which
ones?
http://robdphotos.smugmug.com/
 
Going to Apple Store I found that:
1 Refurb. MacBook + 1 Refurb. iMac i5 27" equal 1 equipped MacBook Pro 17"
in $$ value.

Interesting :)
--
D90+18-105 VR, 35 F2 AF-D, 50 1.4 AF-D, 85 1.8 AF-D, SB-600
 
PB PM said:
The 13" MBP isn't very good for photo editing, the graphics card eats up too much RAM thanks to the nasty little IGP.
Click to expand...
The 13" MBP can take up to 8 GB of RAM. Are you really going to tell us that 7.75 GB of RAM is "not enough"?
 
I just bought an iMac i5, 27" for editing ... WOW. Amazing difference between my old Macbook pro 17" in terms of speed. Out of the box this thing screams. Capture NX 2 crunches along much faster. It's a welcome change in my studio...

--
'Procrastinate now, don't put it off.'

'Vista is the ME of our generation.' - John C. Dvorak

 
Considering that I've seen swap files up to 10GBs in size, no, 8GB is not enough. That is 10GB of swap files on top of fully using the 4GBs of RAM my 2.53Ghz 13" MBP has.
--
Rob - A picture is worth a thousand words, but which
ones?
http://robdphotos.smugmug.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top