13" MacBook Pro Retina

[richarddd]

I'm considering getting a 13" MacBook Pro Retina, 2.6GHz Dual-core Intel i5, 8gb ram, 512gb SSD, October 2013 as a traveling and sometimes at home computer for photo editing, mainly LightRoom, but some Photoshop and assorted plugins.

I'm currently using a Thinkpad x220, but the screen is an issue, especially the resolution. 

- Would the 13" be adequate or will it be annoyingly slow?

- Is anyone using this model and can give some feedback?


I see an earlier thread on the 15"
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=92366.0 Many prefer the 15" MBP for the larger screen, faster processor and dedicated graphics card, but I'd rather have a smaller and lighter machine. The 13" from 2011 seems inadequate, but the October 2013 version seems much improved.

[David Anderson]

The Retina screens are awesome.
With the SSD, my 15" (2.3/16gb) is so much faster than my previous computers it's crazy.
The newer models are also much thinner and lighter.

I don't think you will be unhappy.

[jjj]

I've seen video edits with multiple cameras including GoPros [which are a complete bitch to render out] all dumped on the timeline with tweaks and colour correction all being done in real time in FCPX with no glitches on last years 15" MBP and your new MBP should be even faster than that one. That video work I just mentioned is far more stressful than LR or PS stills work tends to be.

I'd go for the 15" myself as 13" is a bit small for my liking and the 15" is pretty light. Particularly if you want to use it at home.

[Czornyj]

I have the earlier version and love it - I only regret I didn't max the RAM to 16GB, this is not upgradable. My 128GB SSD also ran out of free space, but I'll repleace it to 0,5GB Transcend/OWC drive, so it's not a big deal.

[richarddd]

Would 16gb be all that different from 8gb?  On my 8gb windows 7 machine, I'm usually around 30% physical ram usage for normal editing, although I can go to around 50% usage merging to panorama or HDR in PS (assuming I'm not running much else). Would a MPB use more ram?

It's very annoying that ram and ssd are not upgradeable on the MBP.

For travel, a the difference in size and weight makes a meaningful difference to me.

[jjj]

Would 16gb be all that different from 8gb?  On my 8gb windows 7 machine, I'm usually around 30% physical ram usage for normal editing, although I can go to around 50% usage merging to panorama or HDR in PS (assuming I'm not running much else). Would a MPB use more ram?

More memory is always good. No point limiting yourself now, even if 8GB is ok this year, in a few years it may be a bit weedy.

It's very annoying that ram and ssd are not upgradeable on the MBP.

Indeed, now you have to max out your computer when you buy it and at Apple's premium upgrade prices too. It used to be that you could upgrade as and when you could afford to and more importantly to better than what Apple would offer too. That's what I did with my MBP.

[Czornyj]

Actually you can replace SSD module. Only RAM is soldered on the logic board, so it cannot be replaced. In my case I'm getting out of RAM quite frequently, so I'm quite confident 16GB is the way to go.

[richarddd]

More memory is always good. No point limiting yourself now, even if 8GB is ok this year, in a few years it may be a bit weedy.

In a few years, I'll likely buy a new computer.  Do MBP users tend to be on a slower upgrade cycle?

[richarddd]

Actually you can replace SSD module. Only RAM is soldered on the logic board, so it cannot be replaced. In my case I'm getting out of RAM quite frequently, so I'm quite confident 16GB is the way to go.

It's good to see you can replace the SSD.  I thought I'd read that the most recent MBPs have a proprietary connector.

[Ken Bennett]

In a few years, I'll likely buy a new computer.  Do MBP users tend to be on a slower upgrade cycle?

We have a lot of Macbook Pros and some Macbook Airs in our office (designers, mostly, plus a bunch of writers and a photographer.) They do seem to last awhile, certainly longer than the inexpensive PCs that other departments use, though of course many of those folks travel with theirs. We usually go 4 years or more before replacement, and the old machines are still usable and get either handed down or placed in the emergency reserve.

I'm among those who would recommend maxing out the machine from the get-go, especially RAM.

Also, just be aware than Macbook Pros below the midlevel 15-in Retina no longer have a separate video card; it's built into the main processor. Given that some photo apps are written to take advantage of the GPU for processing, this could be an issue for a few people. I suspect this was done for both cost reasons and to extend battery life, which is an important metric when selling laptops.

[jjj]

We have a lot of Macbook Pros and some Macbook Airs in our office (designers, mostly, plus a bunch of writers and a photographer.) They do seem to last awhile, certainly longer than the inexpensive PCs that other departments use, though of course many of those folks travel with theirs.

So cheaper PC kit that gets taken around the place doesn't last as long as more expensive Apple stuff that sits in an office. No surprise there. 
My last PC laptop lasted as long as my MBP, but then they also cost about the same to buy. £2k

Which makes me think, Richard, why don't you simply buy a nice PC for the similar price as you would spend on a Mac? Possibly much power for your money, it was last few times I looked.
Unless there is a pressing reason to change, say to use Mac only software, there's no particular benefit. Both systems are very good and very annoying too.    But once you are in LR/PS etc it's hardly relevant what system you are using.
Also I'd say that if I didn't live near an Apple store, I probably wouldn't buy Apple products. But having one 15 mins away is really handy as all my Apple kit bar the barely used Nano have been back for multiple repairs or exchange.  

[richarddd]

<snip>
Also, just be aware than Macbook Pros below the midlevel 15-in Retina no longer have a separate video card; it's built into the main processor. Given that some photo apps are written to take advantage of the GPU for processing, this could be an issue for a few people. I suspect this was done for both cost reasons and to extend battery life, which is an important metric when selling laptops.

As I understand, Lightroom won't work any faster with a better GPU, although some other apps will take advantage.

[richarddd]

<>?Which makes me think, Richard, why don't you simply buy a nice PC for the similar price as you would spend on a Mac? Possibly much power for your money, it was last few times I looked.

Unless there is a pressing reason to change, say to use Mac only software, there's no particular benefit. Both systems are very good and very annoying too.    But once you are in LR/PS etc it's hardly relevant what system you are using.
Also I'd say that if I didn't live near an Apple store, I probably wouldn't buy Apple products. But having one 15 mins away is really handy as all my Apple kit bar the barely used Nano have been back for multiple repairs or exchange.  

I haven't been able to find a PC that weighs no more than 3.5 pounds, has a 13" screen of comparable resolution and quality and similar speed and price as the MBP.  I can get nice screens with lower resolution and high or higher resolution screens that have issues with color calibration, but I haven't found anything as good.

I'd certainly appreciate suggestions as to PC laptops to look at.

I agree that the OS is irrelevant once in LR/PS. The possible exception is PS controls not scaling properly on high resolutions PCs, or have they fixed that?

[jjj]

As I understand, Lightroom won't work any faster with a better GPU, although some other apps will take advantage.

PS utilises GPU, both like memory!

[jjj]

I haven't been able to find a PC that weighs no more than 3.5 pounds, has a 13" screen of comparable resolution and quality and similar speed and price as the MBP.  I can get nice screens with lower resolution and high or higher resolution screens that have issues with color calibration, but I haven't found anything as good.

I'd certainly appreciate suggestions as to PC laptops to look at.

I agree that the OS is irrelevant once in LR/PS. The possible exception is PS controls not scaling properly on high resolutions PCs, or have they fixed that?

I vaguely seem to recall scaling had been sorted, but best check.
Not looked at PC laptops for a while, but Sony Vaios and Asus Zenbooks are light and have had good screens. I had a couple of Vaios and at the time they were the best screens including Macs. The last Vaio I looked at had a great non-glossy screen, even better than my MBP anti-glare screen. When working particularly when away, anti glare is more important than anything else. No point having the best screen in the world if all you can see is yourself, which is often the case when working on low key images in bright conditions with glossy screens.
I believe Asus actually make Apple laptops and Samsung and LG supply their screens which kind of makes their suing each other a bit daft.

[richarddd]

I vaguely seem to recall scaling had been sorted, but best check.
Not looked at PC laptops for a while, but Sony Vaios and Asus Zenbooks are light and have had good screens. I had a couple of Vaios and at the time they were the best screens including Macs. The last Vaio I looked at had a great non-glossy screen, even better than my MBP anti-glare screen. When working particularly when away, anti glare is more important than anything else. No point having the best screen in the world if all you can see is yourself, which is often the case when working on low key images in bright conditions with glossy screens.
I believe Asus actually make Apple laptops and Samsung and LG supply their screens which kind of makes their suing each other a bit daft.

The Zenbook was what I was thinking of when I mentioned uncalibrated screens. Reviews indicate the Zenbook has an uncorrectably yellowish screen, for example, http://www.ultrabookreview.com/4274-asus-zenbook-ux303ln-review/

The Vaois have 1920x1080 screens and I want a higher resolution.

Searching for a windows machine is what led me to a Mac.  All things equal, I'd prefer a windows PC, as it's all I've ever had and for the ability to upgrade.

[armand]

I don't particularly like Apple and would prefer a Windows laptop also. I expect I will need a new laptop in the next 6 months or so but it's difficult to find a Mac-like version in the windows environment.
The Dell XPS versions are quite close to the Mac Pros (don't know how good the screen is) but I have some concerns about their integrated batteries, they might go down in a year and be more difficult to replace than for a Mac which has a better system in place. Otherwise weight and performance seem quite competitive, probably a little cheaper also.

[richarddd]

The Dell XPS 13 has a 1920x1080 screen.

I was amused to read this in one of the first google hits for the Dell: "For the same premium price, you could get a MacBook Pro"
http://www.cnet.com/products/dell-xps-13-fall-2013-series/

I continue to think there must be a competitive windows laptop, but perhaps that's just prejudice.

The Samsung Ativ 9 plus http://www.engadget.com/products/samsung/ativ/book-9/plus/ has a very nice screen, but it's limited to 4gb ram and 128gb ssd.

[jjj]

The Zenbook was what I was thinking of when I mentioned uncalibrated screens. Reviews indicate the Zenbook has an uncorrectably yellowish screen, for example, http://www.ultrabookreview.com/4274-asus-zenbook-ux303ln-review/

The Vaois have 1920x1080 screens and I want a higher resolution.

Searching for a windows machine is what led me to a Mac.  All things equal, I'd prefer a windows PC, as it's all I've ever had and for the ability to upgrade.

The irony being Apple screens and laptops are made by what people think of as PC companies.
And at one time some Dell monitors were the same as the Apple Cinema display, but in a different wrapper. Some iMacs had NEC displays and so on.
 
One of the problems with Apple hardware is that sometimes some laptops screens are better than others for same model. The reason - one batch is Samsung and another LGs and maybe the LGs were flawed. It's been known that one set were iffy, but as you have no idea who the supplier was for any item, you couldn't avoid it.

[jjj]

One of the things with PC laptops is that there are a lot of interesting designs out there. This monster from a few years back being one aimed at photographers. Not photographers who travel light though!