My MBP is a bit past 3 years old and due for replacement because warranty is expired and it's showing its age. It's still going strong though.
I'm really tempted with the latest base iMac - it's fast and cheaper (than 15" MBP) and has a much bigger screen. I'm thinking of getting one for my home base and keeping my MBP for tethered and on-location work. And when my MBP dies, I replace it with a new one - but would end up being a bigger cost overall.
Or should I just go for the newer 15" MBP to skip having to juggle 2 systems?
I don't like having to plug in all my peripherals and drives whenever I get home to work, and it's one of the attractive things of having a desktop - it's just there and you don't have to keep plugging/unplugging stuff. I know I have the option of having a 2nd LCD but I think it'll be a hassle to keep plugging it into my MBP when I get home for work.
I do a lot of tethered work though so I always need my laptop at shoots.
Can anyone with dual computer system share their experiences? Insights from others? Thanks!
Been using two iMacs as my desktop work stations in the studio and a Macbook Pro for tether and location work for some time now ... great combo of tools ...
soccerjoe5 wrote:
In case you missed it, I said I need a laptop for tethered work.
Fair point. My wife chose to get rid of hers and use my Macbook Air for location work. However, it looks like you're contemplating keeping your older mobile system for tethered shooting? It probably has the horsepower to handle it.
As a workstation, my wife has found that the iMac has been an ergonomic and workflow upgrade over her MacBook Pro. (She also hates having to plug and unplug things, or deal with the mess of cabling that inevitably arises from such an arrangement).
Thanks for the input Arka. Will shooting tethered on the newer Macs be significantly faster? If not, then I think I'll be fine with my current MBP for tethered/on-location work and then use the iMac as my main workstation
soccerjoe5 wrote:
Thanks for the input Arka. Will shooting tethered on the newer Macs be significantly faster? If not, then I think I'll be fine with my current MBP for tethered/on-location work and then use the iMac as my main workstation
We were using a 2.2 GHz C2D (from 2008, I think) for tethered shooting, and it was quite adequate. The new Sandy Bridge MacBook Pros are definitely superior performers, but I don't know that it will make that much of a difference. On the other hand, we really like the ergonomic and functional advantages of having a really killer workstation. You could accomplish much of what an iMac offers with a MacBook Pro hooked up to external monitors, but it will cost you more, and I also find the cable clutter, and the need to unplug/replug your primary workstation computer to be a bit of a pain.
There's not a lot to plug in to the MBP. If you have a bunch of USB 2.0 devices then use a powered USB 2.0 hub so that you only have to plug the hub in. Then there's a single FW 800 cable (because there's only one port) and the single monitor/thunderbolt cable (again because there's only one port). Just four connections to your laptop when you include the power cable.
The iMac does not contain everything you'll need and so you'll still have cables floating around on your desk even without a MBP. There's the mouse, keyboard, back-up drives, card reader, modem, printer, scanner, etc. It doesn't look a whole lot neater than a MBP-based system except in the advertising, where you'll notice that everything is wireless including the mains power
I personally do not like the iMac screens because they're too bright and especially because they're too glossy. My latest MBP has the anti-glare screen and it is a big improvement over the glossy one of my older MBP. For accurate colour work a wide gamut monitor with built-in look-up table and uniformity processor is arguably beneficial but admittedly expensive. Those monitors also tend to be non-glossy. If the price is taken in context with the cost of your photographic and computer gear then it may not be so expensive. In a year or two you'll have forgotten the price and still be appreciating the excellent monitor.
Apparently it is not so easy to change or upgrade the drives in the new iMacs except by using the limited range of Apple-supplied drives - because they use odd-ball connectors.
The MBPs can now handle 16 GB of RAM (e.g. from OWC) but affordable RAM stops at 8 GB. Everything is faster than on previous models. However, it is not all good news. The SATA 3.0 6 Gbps port on the new 17" models seems to have troubles with SATA 3.0 drives and eSATA (via the expresscard port) upsets product activation with Microsoft programs such as MS Office 2011 for Mac. Unfortunately these are both significant for me. I'm hoping that USB 3.0 adapter will get around the eSATA problem. Only the 17" MBPs have an expresscard port these days, which is largely why I did not go for another 15".
If you're determined to go for a desktop computer then consider waiting to see what the new Mac Pros will offer. If you need or will benefit from lots of RAM and lots of speedy internal storage then a Mac Pro is worthwhile but it too is expensive compared with an iMac - especially if you also go for that wonderful monitor. However, the present models are already old hat - no thunderbolt, no SATA 3.0, and processing that is not a lot faster than a new MBP unless heaps of RAM is required.
I hope you all don't mind if I tag on to this thread. I was about to start a similar one of my own. I just splashed out for a Macbook Pro 17-inch. I want to love it, but I am not used to laptop vs. desktop computing. From an ergonomics standpoint I prefer the latter, however there seems to be a consensus that the glossy screens are not optimal for photo processing. Is that the case? (My new pro has the anti-glare screen.)
An important question for me is does one get used to the monitor, and proper positioning for glare, colorwork, etc? May seem silly, but I need convincing that once I'm used to it I will love the Macbook Pro. Thanks for allowing me to hijack the thread!
Sharona wrote:
however there seems to be a consensus that the glossy screens are not optimal for photo processing. Is that the case? (My new pro has the anti-glare screen.)
You do realize that it wasn't all that long ago that ALL computer monitors had a "glossy" or glass screen ... we called them CRT's ... and the consensus then was that no upstanding, reliable, living, breathing and thinking human being would ever trust an LCD monitor of any kind for photo editing ... things change ...
While I do agree that a matte screen is preferable ... when it comes to desktop units, it isn't very likely that you will not be able to adjust your work area to compensate for unwanted reflections in the monitor ... now location work with a laptop is a whole other issue ...
I have a close friend who operates a graphic arts lab. He employs a dozen artists and techs designing artwork and composites for advertising agencies serving quite a few major interests for their CMYK pre-press setups ... he has 14 workstations ... all are either 24" or 27" iMacs ... all with glossy screens ... I stop by there on a regular basis to help him with IT maintenance and routine monitor calibration/profiling ... I don't recall ever hearing him or his staff complain about the screens ...
I just wonder about the advantages of the laptop, and if those who use them can recall when they first started out, whether it was easy to get used to it, and whether it is a reasonably good way to process photos?
Also - I do understand that we all have our own preferences, etc., but as someone who is starting to take her photography a bit more seriously, it's all just stuff to ponder and bounce off the pros, so thanks for any musings...
One thing to think about is getting a MBP with a new Apply cinema display. You should be able to use only the thunderbolt port to connect your laptop to the display and access any device plugged into the displays USB or thunderbolt ports.
Get an Air 13" for ultra portable. Can do editing just fine on it with a 27" TB display using only one cable. otherwise get a 15" base model MBP, and upgrade the RAM and put an SSD in and call it a day.
MBP is fine for editing photos except that a bigger and (importantly) better screen is beneficial. That can be handled quite ok with an external monitor.
I like using the 17" MBP with anti-glare screen but I need portability more than many people do because I don't have a single home base.
The MBPs are nice to use but only the 17" version can have eSATA or USB 3.0 access, via an expresscard adapter that is not applicable to smaller MBPs or iMacs. None of the Macs come with Blu-ray support or Blu-ray drives. The 17" is not a whole lot bigger than the 15" (which is actually a 15.6" or 15.4") but you'd notice the extra size in a cramped aeroplane or when squeezing it into a backpack. Personally, I'm happy with the extra screen resolution.
One thing you may miss on any Mac if you are coming from a Windows background is the lack of support for screen image scaling. In a windows box you can specify the pixels per inch to match your monitor but in Mac you cannot - you get smaller or bigger icons, etc., depending on which monitor you have.
Alan321 wrote:
However, it is not all good news. The SATA 3.0 6 Gbps port on the new 17" models seems to have troubles with SATA 3.0 drives and eSATA (via the expresscard port) upsets product activation with Microsoft programs such as MS Office 2011 for Mac.
Pardon me for straying a little away from the topic of iMac and MBP, but:
The problem is here the "product activation."
What prevents computer users all over the world from saying "NO" to product activation, which means software which is incapable of being installed and run on a new drive or computer without dependence on an activation service and its availability?
Every piece of software should be capable of being installed and run on compatible hardware with no dependence on any form of external "activation." Also, all software must be capable of being backed up locally and re-installed on a future new drive or machine. Likewise, it must be run and controlled locally by the user.
Alan321 wrote:
Apparently it is not so easy to change or upgrade the drives in the new iMacs except by using the limited range of Apple-supplied drives - because they use odd-ball connectors.
Is that for the very latest (Thunderbolt/Sandy Bridge) versions? My father-and-law and I recently put a 3TB drive into his iMac, and while I wouldn't call it a simple procedure, it was doable.
If you're determined to go for a desktop computer then consider waiting to see what the new Mac Pros will offer. If you need or will benefit from lots of RAM and lots of speedy internal storage then a Mac Pro is worthwhile but it too is expensive compared with an iMac -
As a current Mac Pro user, I am hard pressed to recommend the new systems to anyone. They are solid computers, but the costs are way too high. Unless we see some serious CPU upgrades in the coming months, it seems to me that a Pro is hard to justify unless you are willing to keep a computer for many years, and need the upgradeability. I've loaded mine up with extra drives and tons of RAM, but am always dismayed that the new iMacs and MacBook Pros can routinely perform as well or better than it, at a far lower cost.
