How much Laptop power is enough?

[DigitalEyes]

I'd like to know how much grunt I should be looking for in a laptop to use in the field.

I'm a little obsessive about checking that I've got the shot when there is a break in the shoot. I find the on-camera LCD screens too small for my liking and so would like to find a laptop suitable for this. In the past I've shot tethered to my iMac but it isn't always practical to lug that around.

I'm not loaded with $$ and I also know that you pay a premium for the latest greatest. If I were looking to go second hand how much grunt would be necessary to use the laptop in the field primarily to check images. I use LR3 at the moment. I know that it is basically a balancing act between $$ and the time taken in the field to check images.

Any thoughts? Anything to avoid?

Thx in advance.

 

[Tom_N]

If I understand the requirement, this is more about checking one image at a time, than about doing any serious editing or photo database organizing.

Suggestions (from most portable to least portable).

1. iPad (glossy IPS screen) + Camera Connection Kit.
2. 13" MacBook Pro (glossy screen).
3. 15" MacBook Pro with optional high-res + anti-glare screen.

4. 13" MacBook Pro (glossy screen) + external low-cost 22" non-glossy IPS display. (More "transportable" than "portable", but also the most full-featured. You could always leave the external screen at home on a case-by-case basis.)

This illustrates some of the options. You may be able to come up with others that are better.

 

[DigitalEyes]

Yes you are right it is mainly for review of images and those are all good options.

I've basically become convinced that an iPad doesn't offer enough in the field over a laptop because price-wise I can get a new 13" macbook for not much more and gain a lot more functionality. iPad is still not available here in NZ.

Any suggestions on 2nd hand MBPs if I look second hand? How much grunt is needed to run LR3 without major delays in processing? I know my older iMac Duo struggles with the latest software.

 

[owenleve]

I would disagree with the ipad suggestion. I have one but I don't think they are 'all that' for in the field viewing. A few problems with them for this.

1. No way to sort/tag/name/reference any given photo. (Okay if YOU are the only one looking at photos). But get a client involved and you won't be able to communicate which shot you liked, etc..

2. The screen. I guess any glossy screen will have the same issues for viewing in bright light compared to a mat screen of the mack book pro. Compound the issue with fingerprints and there are times in bright light the ipad is basically a mirror.

My advice is buy as much ram and the most current OS you can afford. I personally would never buy a glossy screen for a laptop. Simply too much glare for me. I have the new imac glossy but it's in an environment that you can control the light.

--

http://www.courtlevephoto.com
http://www.courtlevephotography.com

 

[Tom_N]

I personally would never buy a glossy screen for a laptop.

All of the 13" Mac laptops (MB, MB Pro, MB Air) have glossy screens. You have to go up to the 15" or 17" MBPs to be able to get an anti-glare screen as an option. (It really ought to be an option on the 13" MB Pro and Air, too.)

I believe there is one third party vendor who will replace the screen on a 13" MBP with a matte / anti-glare screen. But the service costs something like $200.

 

[Tom_N]

I know my older iMac Duo struggles with the latest software.

I don't believe there ever was a Mac called the "iMac Duo". Do you mean an iMac that uses an Intel Core 2 Duo chip? If so, there have been a number of those. If you tell us the speed of the CPU, that may give us an idea of which iMac you have.

 

[DigitalEyes]

Sorry but I'm out of town at the moment so my iMac details were fuzzy. It was about the second wave of Intel processors released and a 20" for what it is worth. I'm planning on upgrading that machine too, but that is an easier choice. A field work machine is a harder choice.

I have to agree that I like the matte screens personally. I'll use whatever push comes to shove, but given the choice I'd go matte. Right now I'm typing on a newer iMac with a glossy screen and I can see the view out of the window behind me quite clearly.

I guess I'm in the market for the 15 or 17" MBP's then, matte screen option. Thanks for the help.

 

[Tom_N]

That would suggest "iMac (20-inch Late 2006)".

MacTracker includes performance ratings for many Macs. The ratings are overly simplistic: a single score for each system (and one that probably does not reflect a photo workload). But with that large caveat in mind, the following may be of interest:

"iMac (20-inch Late 2006)" - 2856 to 3058

MacBook Pro (Mid 2010) scores (same scale):
http://www.macnn.com/articles/10/04/15/core.i5.more.than.sufficient/

The 15" and 17" MBPs turned in scores ranging from 4806 to 5423. Again, I can't guarantee that this is applicable to your application ... I'm just not sure where to find Lightroom benchmarks comparing that iMac to the latest MBPs.

 

[DigitalEyes]

Thanks Tom, that is really helpful! I've not come across mactracker before and it is perfect for me right now when comparing $$ and power especially when looking at older second hand models.

 

[Mauro.B]

Consider adding to your purchase a screen calibration kit, either Sypder or Eye One. Just be sure to pick the version allowing to set screen temp (6500 k), gamma (2.2) and luminance (90 to 120, your choice).

That will add an extra couple hundred dollars to the bill, but the rewards are immense.

I use Eye One Display II, and got from Xrite better customer service than Colorvision when I had issues with color mapping (Xrite sent me a new unit, Colorvision told me to buy a new one - in both cases warranty had just expired).

Without calibration, even the 17" screen is too cold for sensible photo processing. The Mac Os calibration app can't fix that.

Best regards,

M

Ps - I bought the antiglare 17" i7 due to cpu benchmarks and some advice on photo processing speed in the Apple Store. After some proper testing having the i5 and the i7 side by side, I realized that with standard photo processing apps (LR3, CS5, NX2, Ap3) the performance difference between i5 and i7 is virtually undetectable and does not justify the extra price. If you look for an upgrade, the 7200 rpm hd has more impact on performance than the i7, even if at the expense of some battery endurance.

--
Mauro

http://www.maurobenphoto.com

 

[DigitalEyes]

Thanks for the advice. I've seen first hand the difference that screen calibration makes, I'm a firm believer in it too. I'm likely to pay a visit to my old workplace to calibrate initially. My experience has been that once the original calibration has been made the monthly tweaks are almost a waste of time. I'm guessing I could get away with borrowing my old bosses unit overnight 3-4 times a year.

Thanks for the heads up on the i5 vs i7 too. I'd wondered about that, there's only so much that you can tell from the benchmark tests.

 

[Mauro.B]

On led lcd's calibrations lasts a very long time.

M

--
Mauro

http://www.maurobenphoto.com