coffee, The low prices I've seen on PC laptops are what got me thinking about getting a new one. Doing a few family portraits on location and downloading and previewing the photos to the customers to take orders at the location, recently, made me want something faster with a better display screen. Also, the prospect of connecting to people's HD tv's in their homes to give previews appeals to me a lot and the IQ is terrible from connecting with my current laptop unless the tv has a pc connection. In addition, I'm going to be working away from home for the next month and a half.

I don't understand how a laptop would give any less editing capability than a desktop if it has the same processor, Ram, HD and graphics card. Admittedly, the screens are smaller and that's an issue, for sure. Are the current laptop screens equal in IQ to the desktop screens? If they're more contrasty, like they used to be, and like my 2003 Inspiron is, that's an important issue. But, are they? If not, why would a laptop be just as good for editing?

mike, What other things besides RAM make a bigger difference than the difference between 1.8 vs 2.0 ghz? And aren't most current models between 2.3 and 2.8 ghz?

Brian Lingle wrote:
coffee, The low prices I've seen on PC laptops are what got me thinking about getting a new one. Doing a few family portraits on location and downloading and previewing the photos to the customers to take orders at the location, recently, made me want something faster with a better display screen. Also, the prospect of connecting to people's HD tv's in their homes to give previews appeals to me a lot and the IQ is terrible from connecting with my current laptop unless the tv has a pc connection. In addition, I'm going to be working away from home for the next month and a half.

I don't understand how a laptop would give any less editing capability than a desktop if it has the same processor, Ram, HD and graphics card. Admittedly, the screens are smaller and that's an issue, for sure. Are the current laptop screens equal in IQ to the desktop screens? If they're more contrasty, like they used to be, and like my 2003 Inspiron is, that's an important issue. But, are they? If not, why would a laptop be just as good for editing?



Brian--

To me, it is all in the screen. My business went from editing on my Dell 8100, to a Compaq laptop, to a Dell with CRT, to a Dell with a wide flat-screen. The latter generating the overall best picture, workspace and processing efficiency. Two main reasons--

1- I have yet to see a laptop with true calibration capabilities which is extremely important for editing/printing.

2- Size; it matters. Wide screens make program tool usage unbelievably more efficient when processing images. There is simply no comparison.

Having written that, for your intended purpose [client previews, location work] laptops are indispensable. Again, almost any of the Dell laptops offered today will provide enough performance to meet your needs. But, rather than spending $2500 on a top of the line laptop, I'd opt for a $800 laptop for location work and $1500 desk top system for serious editing. You'll end up with a far better overall system.

Lastly, from a business standpoint, I'd give serious consideration to using in-home TVs for your presentations. First, you'd have to make certain the TV was optimized for pictures. I've hooked my camera and laptop to our home TV with less than stellar results. Secondly, unless this will be an uninterrupted slide show, you'll be kneeling on the floor or standing on top of the TV to manipulate the computer.

I'm with you regarding cost. Though my 'many year old' 8100 still works, the idea that I can pick up a $600 laptop which would be light-years ahead...is very tempting.

Happy New Year!
>rw

mike reid wrote:
Brian,

I am saying that RAM and other things play a larger role than the difference between say 1.8ghz and 2.0ghz.

....wow inspiron 8100....my old inspiron was a 8200...large dual rear cooling fans

anyway great deals on dell's outlet...always send friends there

I remember hearing Ballmer on stage talking about how Macs dont have viruses because with relatively few users compared to PC's...there is little notoriety to be gained writing Mac viruses...

Yes, the 8100 has those fans. Truth be told, I cannot remember how old the unit really is. But, it is still going.

That is the reason for the lack of viruses I heard as well. My wife uses an older mac laptop as well. As a teacher, she was given one. Her school uses both PC and mac. They don't even bother with virus software for the mac systems. It is one of the biggest selling points to the school.

I agree with the RAM over processor for real speed as well. It is the only thing that prods me into upgrading to Vista from XP Pro. We use Pro with the 3gig switch, so some of our RAM isn't even used now. I am simply not a fan of Vista.

>rw

coffee, I went from editing on my laptop to laptop with CRT to laptop with Dell 20" full screen to desktop computer with the Dell full screen. I agree with most of what you're saying. I still think wide screens are a waste of screen space and they make portrait oriented images too small. Regarding the ability to put the tool pallets out to the side of the image on a wide screen - it's just as fast to hit the tab key to make them appear and disappear as it is to slide the cursor out to the side.

I like the idea of being able to use in-home tv's for presentations. I'm thinking that having a DVI out on the laptop will give the best potential for connectivity to most people's tv's now. SVGA isn't the same quality of signal, is it?

The Toshiba L355-57835 that WalMart sells for $600 with 4GB DDR2 Intel Centrino, 320GB HD, r/w CD/DVD and a 17" screen was tempting me, but I read a user review that said it was junk.

you'll notice a difference in speed as well if you upgrade to a 7200rpm versus the standard 5400 found in most laptops.

Brian Lingle wrote:

Italo, Thank you for taking the time to respond to all those questions. Parallels doesn't sound like something I'd want. thanks for the warning on that. Toshiba, Acer and HP. Acer and HP used to be considered the cheap, lower quality brands. Good to know they've improved. If an Acer display is just as good, why would I get an Apple cinema display? If your MBP works on an Acer though, I guess the Dell display will work, too. iMac? Nobody has mentioned those up to now, have they? If the iMac is just as fast and costs less, why hasn't anyone else recommended it? Smaller screen size? Thanks for the info, Italo.



You're very welcome Brian.

You can use any LCD display with the MBP. All LCDs have either VGA or DVI. DVI is a higher standard and absolutely recommended due to the quality improvement, which is why MBP's have a DVI port to extend the screen use.

Everyone talks about Dell screens, I've seen very few and they're pretty crisp looking. I just mentioned Acer as a brand because it's one I've had for some time and it works just fine. As for Apple Cinema, they're much better (higher in resolution) and use real colors if calibrated well, but that's just up to you and your pocket to decide. I'd opt for refurbished or like-new condition if I was getting started.

iMacs have one defect only and it is that they have a glossy screen. I'm anti-glossy that's why I have the previous version of MBP. Sam just gave me a brilliant idea about the HD upgrade because I'm still on 160GB and I just never paid attention to the whole upgrading factor and left it at that. Since 500GB HD's are so cheap now, you can grab one for $100 bucks on ebay.

So:

320GB HD upgrade = $70
500GB HD upgrade = $100
4GB RAM upgrade = $70
2.4GHZ MBP 15" (previous gen) = $1,300 ish

You're MUCH better upgrading all the good junk and getting started with a very powerful laptop. Or just get a very powerful desktop if you dont need portability.

I'll add one more thing for your thought.

I could edit stuff on a $300 laptop. The question is: is it worth sacrificing to save more money from buying an expensive laptop and work like a turtle or is it better to invest in equipment that will maximize workflow times 4? x8? x16?

That should help you see where you're standing and whether you should settle for the best at this point or not. Heck, I admit my first digital SLR camera was a Rebel XT with an 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 Sigma lens. Was it fast enough to handle a $3k event? NOpe.

Thanks for all the valuable input, Italo. If money was no issue, I wouldn't spend this much time considering all this. I really like Sam's idea, too.

Like someone earlier in the thread mentioned, you can get a good price on Ram at critical.com I think that's' the name of the site.

Like the line in the movie, "I've got the need. The need for speed!"

I saw a photographer 2 years ago using an XT and kit lens to shoot a wedding. When I asked about it, he said, "yeah, and I have it turned down from 6 megapixels to 4. You can print a 16x20 from that if it's a good exposure." He charges $5,000 min for his weddings. Things is, his dad owned a photography school and he grew up assisting from the age of 11. The images looked really good on his website, too.

I'm going to be in the SF Bay area for the month of January. I'll check the computers in some stores and check Craigslist while I'm there.

All the best for the new year.

Brian Lingle wrote:
coffee, I went from editing on my laptop to laptop with CRT to laptop with Dell 20" full screen to desktop computer with the Dell full screen. I agree with most of what you're saying. I still think wide screens are a waste of screen space and they make portrait oriented images too small. Regarding the ability to put the tool pallets out to the side of the image on a wide screen - it's just as fast to hit the tab key to make them appear and disappear as it is to slide the cursor out to the side.

I like the idea of being able to use in-home tv's for presentations. I'm thinking that having a DVI out on the laptop will give the best potential for connectivity to most people's tv's now. SVGA isn't the same quality of signal, is it?

The Toshiba L355-57835 that WalMart sells for $600 with 4GB DDR2 Intel Centrino, 320GB HD, r/w CD/DVD and a 17" screen was tempting me, but I read a user review that said it was junk.

Hi, again, Brian:

As you'll see, it will really come down to personal preference. For me, as you can tell, I don't want to be a computer "geek" [complimentary not derogatory]. When I traveled weekly, I lived with an IBM thinkpad and couldn't imagine owning a desktop. They were big, ugly....Since going digital with photography and having a central office...I couldn't imagine spending more than $1000 on any laptop-- they're small, difficult to work without additional keyboards, screens, etc...You get the picture. It is all a matter of perspective.

At this point in my professional career, when I need a system, I call Dell; they build one to my specs; I lease it for 3 years; then get another. Brainless...and I'm thankful for it.

Simply keep in mind, today's minimum laptop offerings will provide you more than what you need for your described use. If you want speed, think RAM and HD speed as much or more than processor speed. It takes far longer to pull information from your HD, than it does to process from RAM.

For me, I cannot wait until HD are a thing of the past and the whole system works off of solid state memory.

>rw

coffee, Thanks for the recommendations. Solid state memory sounds great. Are there any using it in laptops now?

Yup there are a few laptops out there with solid state memory but it's so expensive it's not even worth the investment considering what you could get for the same amount of money. I havent looked at competition but Macbook Air offers solid state drive @ somewhere over the $1800's for 80GB.

...........once again, upgrade to a 7200 drive and it'll be like doubling your ram. 5400's are crap, Mac or PC.

tcamper wrote:
...........once again, upgrade to a 7200 drive and it'll be like doubling your ram. 5400's are crap, Mac or PC.

YUP

Brian Lingle wrote:
Did you guys check out the link Mac posted for the Lenovo? It sounds amazing. The display shows 72% of the RGB colors compared to 30% on most displays. Anyone know the specs on the MBP matte displays for comparison?

Thanks for the link, Mac. Sounds awesome, but starting at $2,500, it's a little more than I want to invest in a laptop, right now. But, wow!

gzasi, sboerup, Tony, Italo, Richard, Red, Shane, Andy, ai3x, Matt, Thanks for your recommendations for the MBP and the advice regarding the glossy screens vs the new models. My girlfriend's sons are web professionals who used PC's for years and recently switched to MBP and they love them. They said for the cost difference, I might be well served with a PC for now, though, until I'm more profitable with my photography business. But that's a lot of people recommending MBP and I'm going to have to take another look-think about that.

Sam, That's a really great idea. Once again, the creative, out of the box solution. Brilliant! If I go with the MBP, I'll definitely do that. Puts it in a much better price range.

JLinkowitz, Thanks for the info on the Dell. That sounds like a lot of bang for the buck.

Zach, Thanks for the detailed info and the tip about the front end bus. I know there are a lot of things that effect processing speed and with all the technical variables, it gets pretty confusing to me. Sounds like 2.5 ghz processor, 4 gb ram, and 800 mghz front end bus are about as fast as it gets unless you make the jump to something like the Lenovo Thinkpad. I've heard that the graphics card makes a big difference in the speed, too. If the processor is 2.5 ghz, does it matter whether it's duo or quad core or whatever? Regarding the high def screen - are all 1080p screens high def? Do you need a DVI out to show the images in high def on an LCD or plasma screen tv? Is Vista still problematic? I tried editing a bunch of Raw files on my external HD and the cache on my main drive filled up so much I couldn't do anything until a friend who knows more than me deleted the cache. Had the same problem recently and I couldn't figure out how to find and delete the extra cache, so I had to run the system clean up program and wait forever until it removed the extra cache.

Questions:
Can you make a direct comparison between MBP's and PC's regarding processor ghz, ram, front end bus and all that?

That info on the Lenovo Thinkpad has me wondering about the % of the RGB gamut the various screens display. Do most laptops give that info in their specs? I haven't noticed it before. Not that I've spent much time studying specs. I guess I'd have to go to a computer store and look at them to see how much the difference really shows.

If I switch from PC to MBP, can I upgrade from PS-CS2 PC software to PS-CS4 for Mac or will I have to start over and buy the full priced version for the Mac?

Regarding PC's - in the past, I heard that some brands, like Dell, are better quality than others. Who are the best manufacturers these days? Also, the whole Intel Centrino vs AMD vs all the other kinds of processors - does the type matter much, or just the ghz?

Also, would images from the MBP show well on my Dell monitor or would I need to get an Apple monitor for editing at home on a larger display?

BTW, am I the only one here who's frustrated that the only kind of displays you can get now days are widescreen? Seems like a ridiculous waste of screen space for photo editing. The reduced size on images in portrait orientation and not having a choice on display formats really bugs me.


Hey dude! To answer your questions.

"I've heard that the graphics card makes a big difference in the speed, too. If the processor is 2.5 ghz, does it matter whether it's duo or quad core or whatever?"

The duo processes stuff much faster when working on multiple things at once because it send the info through two streams instead of one like old processors do. So that is WAY important. My is the 2.5 gig intel (you want intel) and it is super fast.

"Regarding the high def screen - are all 1080p screens high def?"

1080 is the highest def there is on wide screen tv at the moment, so that is what you need to view the images on a 1080p TV. So just make sure that they match up. Our PC has an HDMI output to plug directly into my 42 inch Vizeo LCD TV, but if it does not have that, you can always get some kind of hook up converter for it.

"Is Vista still problematic?"

I am not really sure what all that was about, but I have not had any problems with it at all and you have to have Vista 64 bit to run 4 gig of ram. There was some compatibility issues with a few programs I have, but nothing post production wise.

As far as the catch thing goes, not sure about that and everything runs fast and smooth for me all the time! I deleted a ton of programs that came with the PC and only have programs that are needed on it too.

Hope that helps and good luck! You can always by a Mac if you want to be a cool photographer!! Unfortunately, they won't help any of us be better photographers.

-Zach

Zach, Grinning and laughing! That last paragraph - great zinger.

Thanks for clarifying some of that info about the duo processor, Intel vs AMD, etc, 1080p, and needing Vista 64 bit to run 4 gig of ram. I was going to upgrade my desktop to 4 GB, but it's running XP, so it sounds like it wouldn't have helped much.

We all spend thousands on cameras and lenses and then we skimp on the computer side of things. Since most digital photographers will spend more time in front of a computer than behind a camera that seems kind of weird to me.
But each to their own.

"If I switch from PC to MBP, can I upgrade from PS-CS2 PC software to PS-CS4 for Mac or will I have to start over and buy the full priced version for the Mac?

You can't use PC software made for PC on a Mac. You CAN use PC software made for Mac on a Mac. However, if you wanted to use PC software on a Mac, you could either run a $79 program called "parallels" which allows you to install Windows XP/Vista and any windows software. It's like using a PC and a Mac simultaneously, without owning an actual PC. However, I don't recommend using powerful software such as Adobe because you'd require more than 2GB on that PC alone and more powerful graphics which I believe Parallels won't support."

Not true. Adobe will let you switch platforms. You'll have to call them and you'll have to give up your PC licence, but it's possible.

The best current "laptop" is the Lenovo W700 series. This thing has a built in Wacom digitiser in the palm rest, built in calibration hardware (huey pro I believe) and there's a version with an extra 10" second screen. But if you need it on location it's a BIG machine to lug around.

Personally I use a smaller (12") machine and a a dock at the studio which is connected to a 24" Eizo monitor, which are the best monitors available anywhere. I have a Dell 24" and dock at home as well. So I can use the laptop on location and just drop it into a dock at home or in the studio. All screens (including the laptop screen) are calibrated. the laptops screens no where near as good as the big screens but I have come to be able to take its limitations into account and get very good results.

My current laptop has an AMD processor. It beats my business partners Macbook Pro (previous gen) with the same processor speed by a measurable margin. But I have more and faster ram and I manage my hdd space better. Personally the AMD/Intel thing is only a very small part of the performance difference between two systems. I'm looking at upgrading though as both CS4 and my new 5D2 both need a better graphics card than I have now. CS4 is the first PS version to use the capabilities of a better graphics card.

As far as internal HDD's go I don't worry about speed too much. 5400RPM sata is fine. The reality is that most photographers need external HDD's anyway. So make these as fast as you can. A 250GB internal drive doesn't last long with a 15MP camera. The Macs have an advantage here in that they can use external firewire drives which are much faster than external USB or network drives. I'm using 1TB USB2 external drives at the moment and they're OK. Would like more speed though as I've now got 100K images in my LR database and the drives are definately the speed bump in the system.

If you're only doing occasional field work a cheap laptop and a better desktop may be the better choice. If you're in the field a lot or have other needs just bite the bullet and get the best you can afford and an external drive. Most screens can be calibrated and you can add a decent monitor (the Dell is good value) later.

Gordon

flash wrote:
We all spend thousands on cameras and lenses and then we skimp on the computer side of things. Since most digital photographers will spend more time in front of a computer than behind a camera that seems kind of weird to me.
But each to their own.

"If I switch from PC to MBP, can I upgrade from PS-CS2 PC software to PS-CS4 for Mac or will I have to start over and buy the full priced version for the Mac?

You can't use PC software made for PC on a Mac. You CAN use PC software made for Mac on a Mac. However, if you wanted to use PC software on a Mac, you could either run a $79 program called "parallels" which allows you to install Windows XP/Vista and any windows software. It's like using a PC and a Mac simultaneously, without owning an actual PC. However, I don't recommend using powerful software such as Adobe because you'd require more than 2GB on that PC alone and more powerful graphics which I believe Parallels won't support."

Not true. Adobe will let you switch platforms. You'll have to call them and you'll have to give up your PC licence, but it's possible.

The best current "laptop" is the Lenovo W700 series. This thing has a built in Wacom digitiser in the palm rest, built in calibration hardware (huey pro I believe) and there's a version with an extra 10" second screen. But if you need it on location it's a BIG machine to lug around.

Personally I use a smaller (12") machine and a a dock at the studio which is connected to a 24" Eizo monitor, which are the best monitors available anywhere. I have a Dell 24" and dock at home as well. So I can use the laptop on location and just drop it into a dock at home or in the studio. All screens (including the laptop screen) are calibrated. the laptops screens no where near as good as the big screens but I have come to be able to take its limitations into account and get very good results.

My current laptop has an AMD processor. It beats my business partners Macbook Pro (previous gen) with the same processor speed by a measurable margin. But I have more and faster ram and I manage my hdd space better. Personally the AMD/Intel thing is only a very small part of the performance difference between two systems. I'm looking at upgrading though as both CS4 and my new 5D2 both need a better graphics card than I have now. CS4 is the first PS version to use the capabilities of a better graphics card.

As far as internal HDD's go I don't worry about speed too much. 5400RPM sata is fine. The reality is that most photographers need external HDD's anyway. So make these as fast as you can. A 250GB internal drive doesn't last long with a 15MP camera. The Macs have an advantage here in that they can use external firewire drives which are much faster than external USB or network drives. I'm using 1TB USB2 external drives at the moment and they're OK. Would like more speed though as I've now got 100K images in my LR database and the drives are definately the speed bump in the system.

If you're only doing occasional field work a cheap laptop and a better desktop may be the better choice. If you're in the field a lot or have other needs just bite the bullet and get the best you can afford and an external drive. Most screens can be calibrated and you can add a decent monitor (the Dell is good value) later.

Gordon

We spend more time shooting then we do on the computer. Post production for a typical 1,200 final image wedding is about 2.5 hours.

-Zach

Thanks Flash (Gordon). The double entendre cracked me up. Great handle!

Anyway, thanks for all the info. That's a lot to consider. Definitely need ext HD's.


Zach, I'd love to see your PP work flow. Mine is snail pace.

Is that proofs or album ready? Wish I could do that. Nice work on your site.

Just did a 1000 shot wedding and pp took 10 hours in LR. We do a lot of colour work up front to save a lot of time later at the album build stage. Haven;t found a raw processor (including DPP) that gives acceptable skin colours without work.

Gordon

Brian Lingle wrote:

Zach, I'd love to see your PP work flow. Mine is snail pace.

+1! Takes me a good 12 hours or so to weed out and edit a 1200 image wedding

Brian Lingle wrote:
Thanks Flash (Gordon). The double entendre cracked me up. Great handle!


I've been called "flash" since I was 10, whether I liked it or not. So "Flash Gordon Photography" it was. It's great for marketing. At least I have a name that people don't forget.

Gordon