| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
MacBook questions:
David Richard, Photographer
 |
Sheffield Village/Cleve. | OH | USA | Posted: 2:59 AM on 02.22.08 |
->> I'm looking at MacBooks and MacBook Pros.
Can someone please explain to me how much difference there is in say a 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo and a 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo.
Is this strictly a speed issue?
I'm also looking at the MacBooks and it appears they come without NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT graphics with 128MB SDRAM. Does this come in to play in PhotoShop and/or Photo Mechanic?
I'm going to use this solely for remote transmitting and some home image work.
Is the pro version worth the money for the work I will be doing?
I plan on ordering the max on RAM of 4 gigs.
I'm simply looking for a good computer that won't freeze up when working with a lot of large files.
Thanks for you input. |
|
Karl Anderson, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Lubbock | TX | USA | Posted: 4:37 AM on 02.22.08 |
->> I'm using a macbook pro 2.4 GHz with 2 gigs of ram and it works great for photo editing. My biggest gripe about the mac books is the glossy screen and lack of firewire 800.
4 gigs of ram with a 2.2Ghz processor is plenty for photo editing. any current apple graphics card will work fine for photo editing. |
|
Jack Kurtz, Photographer
|
Phoenix | AZ | United States | Posted: 4:40 AM on 02.22.08 |
->> I have a MacBook and a MacBook Pro. I really like the MB's small size, better battery life and I prefer the MB keyboard. The MBP better video support is important for editing video and if you use Aperture. I don't see much speed difference with Photoshop and Bridge between the MB and MBP.
One thing to consider is that the MBP has a Cardbus slot, which may be handy if you plan to use a 3G aircard for transmitting, although there are now cards available for USB.
Finally, the MBP offers the option of a matte screen. If I could change one thing on the MB it would be the glossy screen. I've learned to deal with it, but I am not a huge fan. I prefer working on the matte screen.
If the laptop is your only computer, the MBP might be a better choice. If you have a desktop and the laptop is only the road warrior, the MB might work for you.
jack |
|
Garrett Hubbard, Photographer
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 11:17 AM on 02.22.08 |
->> difference? All else equal I would guess the gain would be the less than 10% processor speed increase. And that isn't all that much especially for photography workflow.
For photography the times my processor is taxed the most is when I am loading a new page in photomechanic and that's it. I'm rarely running tons of filters in PS.
Video processing power. from what I understand video cards from five years ago wouldn't hiccup at what we throw at them with photos. There is almost nothing to render there. Gaming and rendering proggy's are what max's those cards out. Advantage to cards in these MBP's is running a 23" cinema display
I own a 2.2 MBP and and have a 2.4 MBP for work. both have 4gb and seem pretty much the same. Most important upgrade on that computer is the 7200 rpm hard disk. Matte screen is a must. |
|
David Richard, Photographer
|
Sheffield Village/Cleve. | OH | USA | Posted: 2:31 PM on 02.22.08 |
->> Thanks for the info.
What is the problem with the glossy screens? Reflections?
Thanks again. |
|
David Richard, Photographer
|
Sheffield Village/Cleve. | OH | USA | Posted: 3:54 PM on 02.22.08 |
->> Also, still looking for an answer in the difference between the 2.2 and 2.4 GHz processor. The price seems to be around $500 difference, but what would be the results in running PhotoShop and Photo Mechanic?
Thanks. |
|
Jim Comeau, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 4:21 PM on 02.22.08 |
->> David, I'm at the Apple site and the differences between the 2.2 MBP and 2.4 MBP include the 200MHz increase, 40GB hard drive increase, 128MB more video memory.
If I were in your position, I'd get the 2.2GHz modeland buy extra memory somewhere else. The video isn't that important. As for hard drive space, you can upgrade that through the site or you can buy your own drive and reinstall the OS.
Macbooks are really nice too and if you're not going to be using it as your primary computer, I'd save some cash and get that. As Jack suggested, the MBP is better for a main computer . |
|
David Meyer, Photographer
|
Orlando | FL | USA | Posted: 5:27 PM on 02.22.08 |
->> Check out http://www.barefeats.com. They have some MB/MBP comparisons.
While I don't think video cards are vital to digital photography, I believe some programs make relatively heavy use of them (Aperture comes to mind). If you plan on using such software, I'd get some input from somebody who's tried it on a Macbook. |
|
Garrett Hubbard, Photographer
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 5:53 PM on 02.22.08 |
->> David, did you read my post? I compared the 2.2 and 2.4 in the first graph. less than 10% processor power increase as long all else is equal (bus speeds are the same)
PM will use some horsepower to load the contact sheet.
If you're doing regular PJ work in PS it wouldn't make any sense in my book to buy a 2.4. |
|
David Richard, Photographer
|
Sheffield Village/Cleve. | OH | USA | Posted: 6:14 PM on 02.22.08 |
| ->> Thanks Garrett, yes, I did read your post and hundreds of other pages of stats, reviews and opinions. Sorry, I guess I'm just getting to the point of overload. Thanks to all. |
|
Nathan Welton, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | | Posted: 10:37 PM on 02.22.08 |
| ->> basically the speed difference between the two is not that huge. don't let it play too big a part in your purchase decision. think of the other things, such as cost, screen size, portability, etc. i have a macbook and have used it happily for a year editing shoots of 2500 raw files at a time. it's quite zippy, though it does get bogged down with huge photoshop files with lots of layers, since you can only put 2 gigs of ram in it. |
|
Scott Morgan, Photographer
|
Rockford | IL | United States | Posted: 11:16 PM on 02.22.08 |
->> it's quite zippy, though it does get bogged down with huge photoshop files with lots of layers, since you can only put 2 gigs of ram in it.
You can put up to 4 gigs of ram in any macbook released after Nov. 1, 2007 |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 12:40 AM on 02.23.08 |
->> Dave, I've got the 2.2 MB with 2 gigs of ram. If you want to check it out, give me a call.
Jeff |
|
Susie Lin, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Honolulu | HI | USA | Posted: 3:14 PM on 02.23.08 |
->> Thanks for the replies. Its been a question I've been wondering about too!
susie |
|
Jared Wickerham, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Pittsburgh | PA | U.S.A. | Posted: 3:17 PM on 02.23.08 |
| ->> I also purchased the 2.2Ghz w/ 2GB of RAM. I think it's perfect and I even do some video/soundslides on mine as well. |
|
Tom Knier, Photographer
|
Lancaster | PA | USA | Posted: 5:38 PM on 02.23.08 |
->> I've got the 2.16 (almost 2 years old now) with 2GB RAM.
I do extensive video editing, and it's great. |
|
Andrew Wheeler, Photographer
|
Capitola | CA | USA | Posted: 6:43 PM on 02.23.08 |
->> David,
I have the latest incarnation of the MBP, 2.4 and 4G of RAM and it flies. I also have the matte screen (although it's not quite as matte a my old G4 Powerbook.
Batch processing RAW files has been a breeze with this machine too.
Andrew
http://www.automotophoto.com |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|