The Age Old Dilemma... Photographer Laptop: Macbook Pro vs Other

Hey everyone, first time here.


If you feel daunted by my enormous wall of text, I made you a little summary at the bottom. If not, read on!


I also hope this post is in the right category.


I'm a Uni student and working under one of my country's most acclaimed professionals as a colleague/student of his. I'm also reading a degree in Communications (Media) and IT.


My query is as follows:

• I'm investing in a laptop for my work (Publication and photography), should I go with an <span style="font-size: medium;"]<span style="color: #999999;"]Apple Macbook Pro or<span style="font-size: large;"]<span style="color: #ff6600;"] something else?
  

Everyone says the same things: MBP's are limited, they don't last long, you're restricted with what you do with them, they're a glorious waste of money and apply only to hipsters and kids with money... you know, the whole Apple-conspiracy thing and Steve Jobs wanting to control the world..
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]However, when it comes to watching tutorial dvds (and believe me, I've invested in a lot of them) I always see those professionals working on Macs, be it thethered shooting on an MBP or editing on an Mac pro and what have you.


I've been working on Windows my whole life, and have gotten by just fine with it so far, but I've met industrials who tell me that Apple, in the design industry, is the only answer.


I know that my question is probably as old as the Black Forest, and I've tried looking for it in the forums, but to no avail. Also, I'd like to point out that I've trawled a large number of searches relating to this but haven't found anything that resolves the dealbreaker.



<h3><span style="font-size: medium;"]In summary:</h3>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]<span style="color: #3366ff;"]Uni student in Media &amp; IT, part-time trainee photographer by profession, in need of a portable computer, wanting to make the right choice.
<p style="padding-left: 60px;"]<span style="color: #ff00ff;"]Have seen a large number of high-level pros, like Karl Taylor and Scott Kelby using Apple machinery
<p style="padding-left: 60px;"]<span style="color: #ff00ff;"]Have been told that Apple is 'simply for Media-oriented work' and the right tool for the job
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]<span style="color: #ff6600;"]Majority of internet society paints Apple computers as being a waste of money, nothing more than a brand name and being able to get a many-times better PC for the price of a MBP
<p style="padding-left: 60px;"]<span style="color: #ff6600;"]Majority of places I went to were not places frequented by professional photographers.
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]<span style="color: #000000;"]Dilemma: What is it that entices high-level pros into using Apple equipment?
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]<span style="color: #000000;"]Thanks for listening.


<span style="color: #000000;"]Jean

Not that I am a high level pro but I use both


Windows for office and work and video games (unless the game has a Mac version which isn

Hi, and welcome to the TDP forums!


The Mac vs. PC debate is a common one, and sure to bring out heated disucssion. Allow me to fire the <s>first</s>second shot from the Apple side of the DMZ (which in this case, might be Linux?).


The Mac OS just works. You plug in hardware, it works. You install software, it works. I don't want to fiddle. I don't have time. Once you learn the UI, you know the UI. If could be Photoshop, or MS Word, or Safari. The UI is the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeanmarc87

MBP's ... don't last long

---

That's a new one on me. The usual argument is one you stated later, that you can get an identically-spec'd PC for a lot less money. I guess that depends on how you define identical. I've yet to find a PC laptop with the same feature set as my 17" MBP that is only 2.5 cm thick. There are a lot of little innovations on Macs that people ignore when comparing machines. Have you ever tripped over the charging cord of a laptop and almost yanked the computer off a table or desk? That won't happen with Apple's MagSafe power connector. Ever snapped off the tray on a CD/DVD drive? Macs use slot-loaders. Etc.


Longevity? My company provides PC laptops to employees. I bought my previous MBP in 2006 (I replaced it this year), and in the 5 years that I used that machine, I went through six company-provided PCs - one managed to make it to the 2.5-year end of life, the others failed for one reason or another. It was only the last one of the 6 that could outperform my 5-year old MBP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeanmarc87

What is it that entices high-level pros into using Apple equipment?

---

I can't speak for those high-level pros, but I'm sure there are lots of reasons. FireWire completely trumps USB2 for real-world data transfer speeds (USB data flow is managed by the CPU, so it never achieves it's theoretical speed ratings, whereas FW does), and FW is also better for sustained data transfer (no dropped frames for video). USB3 is better, but is in turn trumped by Thunderbolt. Apple's laptop displays tend to be better than those in most PC laptops (there are exceptions, of course).


For anyone working with audio, I don't know of many PC laptops with optical ports. Those standard-looking headphone and mic ports on an MBP are actually combined analog/digital ports - you can connect standard headphones and a mic, or mini-toslink plugs for a digital/optical I/O (another example of when 'identically-spec'd' isn't).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeanmarc87

haven't found anything that resolves the dealbreaker

---

I doubt you will. But go find a few people who were long time PC users and switched to Mac. The general consensus among them seems to be, "I'll never go back, and I regret waiting so long to switch."


Either way, good luck with your decision!


--John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeanmarc87

should I go with an Apple Macbook Pro or something else?

---

Something else, IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeanmarc87

I've tried looking for it in the forums, but to no avail.

---

Here's one of the big threads we had on Mac-vs-PC:



<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />
http://community.the-digital-picture.com/general_discussion1/f/24/t/5089.aspx



<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeanmarc87

<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />
What is it that entices high-level pros into using Apple equipment?

---

Because it's easy. Apple's top priority is to make the easy things easy. The software, hardware, everything is easy. There's fewer compatibility problems because there is no one else to be compatible with. There's no viruses, because it can't run any Windows software (or if it can, it is vulnerable to the degree with which it can). There's fewer crashes from cheap hardware drivers because everyone is forced to buy the same (expensive) hardware.


Easy has a cost. You pay big bucks, and you lose some control. For example, it makes buying hardware easy, because there is only one vendor, so you don't have to worry about choosing the best hardware vendor. Nor do you have to spend any time deciding which hardware components from that vendor are the best, because they only sell one type of each component. You need a different video card? Too bad. Still waiting for a blu-ray optical drive, after 5 years? Don't hold your breath. Apple provides only the absolute minimum amount of choice, such as extremely overpriced ram/hdd upgrades.


Same with the software. A lot of what makes it easy is the same thing that removes your ability to control what it does. Just look at the difference in control panels. Windows presents you with a dizzying array of options, all alike. You will likely be eaten by a grue. There are at least a half-dozen different software vendors that provide wireless configuration dialogs, in addition to Microsoft's own. OS X configuration dialogs tend to have far fewer options. Less choices mean easier decisions. But what if what you want isn't an option? There's a billion little $15 shareware apps for OS X to make it do what you want (hopefully still "easy"). Or, if you're technically inclined, and lucky, there's a few configuration files that can bend it to your will.


It's basically a matter of priorities. For high-level pros, paying between 30% - 100% more is well worth it to make it easier. But since you are a student who is getting a degree in IT and has a lifetime of experience with Windows, I would think price and control are more important to you than easy.

I have never owned a PC. I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeanmarc87

If you feel daunted by my enormous wall of text,

---

Most of the initial responses seem to fall into this category. So, in the spirit of:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeanmarc87

I made you a little summary at the bottom

---

I'll just say: Join the Cult of Mac. Drink the Kool-Aid. It's all Good.


[;)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeanmarc87

If you feel daunted by my enormous wall of text,

---

Most of the initial responses seem to fall into this category. So, in the spirit of:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeanmarc87

I made you a little summary at the bottom

---

I'll just say: Join the Cult of Mac. Drink the Kool-Aid. It's all Good.


[;)]

Jean,


Welcome to the forum.


In the art of photography we use tools. Cameras, computers, etc.... Each brand has pluses and minuses. Know your tools, be comfortable with them and use them to develop your art. If you are comfortable with a PC then go with a PC. If you are comfortable with a Mac then go with a Mac.


Look forward to seeing some of your work here.


Mark

Hello Jean...


I

I don

I do all my editing on a Mac, but I have my main work camera tethered to a PC. Why? I don

Re reading the title of the thread. Then reading what everyone posts. The age old Dilemma seems to be a Dilemma for people who have never owned a MAC. While there are a few that tried a MAC that would rather use a PC, it seems that most that start using a MAC prefer it.

Wow, looks like you guys prefer MAC-----Just to add a different perspective---I have been using a PC..well, since there were PC's (my first was a 4.77 megahertz processor with two floppy drives and a green monochrome monitor)


Anyway, I like the ability to choose my hardware, modify my software and pay a competitive price for upgrades and add ons. Since 1981, I have only had 1 harddrive failure and I had one monitor go out a few years ago. Usually, I spend money on machines because I outgrow them, not because they break or die. Name brand software is usually about the same price for both platforms, so thats not really a deciding factor for me.


Sometime last year I decided to buy a new system, and like you I struggled with the PC/Mac Question and even asked this forum the same thing you did-----I got about the same answers. Ultimately, I spent about $1500 on an I7 Quadcore 3.2 Ghz, 12 Gig of very fast ram, a mediocre Graphics card, a 256 Gig SDD and two 1TB hardrives, an onboard card reader and two multi-optical drives and enough power to add more goodies.----This system runs my adobe software like a champ---no conflicts---It does very well with video editing and simultaneously runs PS, lightroom and HDREFX pro extremely fast. I looked at the the MAC pro and for a comparably spec'd system it would cost me $4000---I chose the homebuilt PC and added a Canon 100mm Macro f2.8L, a Canon 50mm1.2 L to my lens collection for the price of that Mac Pro.


Like you, I had experience with and was comfortable with PC's. Yes, I had to shop and read alot to buy the right components, Yes I had to build it, Yes I had a couple of minor bugs to figure out, But....for a weekend of work, it was worth every penny I didn't have to spend on a Macpro and I got a couple of really nice lenses to boot.


Good luck on your decision.


Bob


PS, My boss is a diehard Macbook fan----he has had 3 harddrive failures in two years--But....They just work[:'(]

Hey everyone, thanks for the variety of perspectives. I very much appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts on the matter, and I hope this discussion can answer other people

The very best option for me is to get a mac and run bootcamp or parallels (what I do) with windows and never connect the windows side of things to the internet. I do this because there are a few programs that only work on windows.


For you this might not be the best option, get what you are comfortable with, but If you do decide PC, I was strongly recommend doing a clean install right out of the box with a version of windows directly from Microsoft, that way you can avoid all the junk the other manufacturers put on them.

I know people say thats what you should get if you

I'm a Windows guy. I was never comfortable with the Mac OS's interface, the high price tag, and the lack of ease when wanting to upgrade the system. And darnit, I like my standard two button mouse. :-)


At the end of the day, there are no inconveniences that I can readily identify that makes viewing and editing photos on my Windows 7 PC more difficult or time consuming than it needs to be. I liken my operating system to my hammer--both do their jobs effectively, and at the end of the day, the customer can't tell which tool I used to get the job done. As long as the tool works for me, there's no reason to change it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiveways

I'd recommend a Mac because a lot of what you're paying for in that initial purchase is the quality of the display you're getting.

---

That's a common misconception. Apple's MacBook Pro displays have always used the cheapest, junkiest type of displays possible: 6-bit TN. (At leastfor the 2006-2010 years that I've researched.) In 2010, they used aSamsung LTN154BT08 display panel.Anyone who has used a MBP and a *good* laptop displayside-by-sideknows just how inaccurate the Apple displays are. After that experience, you wouldn't dream of doing any color correction on one.I've compared my $2700 MacBook Pro's 6-bit TN with my $900 no-name laptop's 8-bit S-IPS, and it's night and day.



<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />




<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />



I threw my junky 6-bit displays on the trash heap 10 years ago, at the turn of the century. Yet Apple is still putting that cheap garbage on their high-end MBP. Why? It doesn't even make sense. Of all the places they can cut corners, why the display? People are already paying $2,000 for a $1,000 laptop -- why not make it $2,500 and put an 8-bit display on it? Apple customers are used to paying through the nose for everything, what's another $500? I don't know why Apple does it, but I'm embarrassed for them. I hope that Apple will someday upgrade to 8-bit displays, so their poor users can finally enjoy the benefits everyone else has had for the last decade. (Probably not before everyone else has moved to 10-bit.)


Apple's low-end displays and false advertising have been the subject of many class-action lawsuits over the years, at least two of them involving my personal laptop. One of them was because Apple tried to pinch some more penniesby buying NVIDIA's reject video cards -- ones that weren't good enough for normal product standards, but could be put in the very lowest-end laptops. Dell, HP, and the rest bought the chips too and put them in their low-end bargain-bin models, but Apple put them in their $3,000 MacBook Pros. (Unlike other venors, Apple doens't let you choose a better video card, either.) NVIDIA promised Apple that they would last at least three years before they burned out, but it turned out most of them died much sooner (like mine).


But not only do the laptops have terrible display accuracy (due to "TN" LCD), 90's-era 6-bit color (why, Apple, why!?), and reject video cards, but the panels themselves are not even reliable. My MBP is not even four years old and just last month the display died (after months of slowly getting worse -- and it never sees any rough usage). Our excellent local Apple-authorized repair needs $500 to fix it, but even though I paid almost $3000 for it only 3 years ago, I can already get a much faster Windows laptop, brand new, for less than $500. I'm probably going to see if anyone on Craigslist wants to buy a dead MacBook Pro and fix it themselves. My HP laptop is 8 years old and still going strong. I never had to take it in for repair, whereas the MBP went in three times -- twice for repairs covered under the lawsuit, once for a bad power supply. I had hoped to get more than 3.5 years out of it.


Obviously, I've had a much worse experience than some of the other Mac users on this board. But ask yourself this: if Apple is putting all that money from their higher prices into higher quality hardware (e.g. displays), how is it they are able to maintain 2-3X higher margins than the industry average?



<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />

And Daniel throws down the gauntlet... :-)

I definitely agree with what you

maybe i should add in my 2c, seeing as i'm an "impartial" linux user. (translates, i hate windows and mac both with a passion).


something that noone's mentioned yet and i'm not sure how true it is:


Macs got their name as "the photoshop system" (and to a lesser extent "the pagemaker system") in the '90s. that was in the era of the Power Mac, when they bought (almost exclusively) the PowerPC chips from IBM. i've heard it said (this is the unconfirmed part) that apple specifically got IBM to tailor their cpu design to make for faster image manipulations in photoshop benchmarks (and some called it 'cheating', but as long as it works on real images and not just benchmarks, why not?)


and this is true (according to wikipedia, too lazy to check references).


firewire was developed in the 80s to compete with/replace parallel scsi external connectors.


firewire 400 was standardised in 1995.


firewire 800 was standardised in 2002.


(apparently there's 1600 and 3200 too)


USB 1 went to 1.5Mb/s in 1995.


USB 2 went to 480 (nominal, i don't care if it reaches it), in 2000, 5 years after firewire 400.


USB 3 is blazingly faster compared (i haven't heard of thunderbolt) and it's only a year(ish) old.


ok, thunderbolt is also freakishly fast. both it and USB3 are overkill for copying anything from a CF card to any kind of hard disk, nothing can read/write fast enough.Shooting tethered might make a difference, but if the image is on the PC by the time you turn from subject to screen, there's no point in going any faster imho.


The situation has changed a lot since the mid 90s, but brand-loyalties die hard in the PC business. Especially with the Pros, who buy their hardware to last, or always want the best and upgrade often, but can't afford the time to migrate to a different system. How many people here (anywhere) have used *both* PC *and* Mac, using (say) the photoshop version for each, doing the same kind of editing in a professional environment with the same time constraints? not zero, but not many i'm guessing.


Whatever you get, you'll get used to it. I've got through so many keyboard layouts in the last few years travelling, us, uk, qwerty, qwertz, azerty, after half an hour on a new type i can touch-type as fast as i could on any other. one button mouse? apple-key? you'll get used to it.


and a bit of rambling for my story:


first family PC was a 386-25. 4MB ram, 80MB hdd, windows 3.1 on dos5. upgraded a few years later to 2x speed cd drive, 8MB ram, extra 420MB hdd.


my first PC was a pentium2-350, 64MB ram, 6gb hdd, win98 (first and only software i've ever paid for). first 17" CRT in australia under $1000 (more like $500), 1600*1200 even. By the time i stopped using it, it was a pentium3 1100 overclocked until it blew up, 869MB ram, up to 5 hdds of ide/scsi up to nearly 100gb total (until the IDE controller died, good thing i got a motherboard with scsi controller too). running SuSE Linux 10 (after using suse 9 and redhat 7). still it sees a bit of use as the webserver i tried once (just didn't have anything to serve so i turned it off :( ).


my 2nd PC i spent ages researching, ended up with a very nice AM2 AthlonX2 system, upgraded the cpu, ram and video card after a year and a bit. i can still buy stuff to put in it to upgrade now (although now my mum's got it, and she's happy with it)


That's all i've ever used, spanning 1994ish to now.


And the point of me saying all of that is:


Can you do that with a Mac?


Can you do that with a laptop even?


I bought my first laptop even when i was living in europe in april 2009, still using it now. got the only 1680*1050 in a 15" screen. added an extra 2gb to the 1gb ram it came with but haven't upgraded it since (can't, because it's a laptop). main reason i'd never bought a laptop until then, because i like upgrading. still, i bought lenovo because they give good hardware with linux support, wiped Vista after a week and been running gentoo ever since.


but at the end of all of that, i was getting to a point or two:


- Some people like PCs for the upgradeability. The FSM knows i do. that arguement doesn't pass with laptops, unless you pay more-than-macbook money for a custom Alienware or similar.


- Some people formed their opinions on mac vs pc in the 90s, or even in the 00s. so much has changed since then that you probably shouldn't listen to them either if they haven't used both systems within the last year or two.


- I'll definitely agree with the people who say that with a Mac you're buying into a system. Yes that system is more expensive. Yes you get more (not a complete) guarantee that things will work together.


- - They do some things that i consider nasty though. You used to be able to plug your ipod into a linux system. apple upgraded the firmware of ipods to block that (i even heard rumours of legal action to stop it, ie not using itunes, not sure if that's true).


- - and they make non-standard connectors for things, then charge royalties to copy them (but the reason is to make sure people don't make sub-quality connectors, which may break your ipod, then you send it to apple under warranty and not say you used a fake connector). i may not like it but i can at least see why.


- If i were you, my decision would be based on the screen. If it's true about MBP only having 6-bit screens, research that and decide accordingly. anything else: most software comes in both win and mac flavours, you'll get used to 1/2/3/17 button mice and whatever keyboard you use. if you want to learn how to admin your system properly, windows 7 was as confusing for me moving from win98 and 2000 as it would be to a mac. And i have heard things about OSX having auto-handling of ColourProfiles, windows can still do it but takes a bit of fiddling. i'd verify that but getting yelled at to come to dinner already, i'll investigate later...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Croubie

i have heard things about OSX having auto-handling of ColourProfiles, windows can still do it but takes a bit of fiddling. i'd verify that but getting yelled at to come to dinner already, i'll investigate later...

---

You may be thinking of the fact that Safari (Apple's OS X-native browser, which is also available for Windows) respects the embedded ICC profile of images. Previously color space and ICC profile didn't matter much for web display since most browsers ignored the tags and just used sRGB as the color space. Safari 5 respects the embedded ICC profile and adjust the color to match your display, the idea being to represent the 'true' color (which really only works if you're also using a calibrated monitor). ClickHEREfor an example of the effect of embedding a profile (if the image on the left changes as you mouse-over it, you havelearned that your browser ignores the profile;clicking changes the gamma to match Apple's default 1.8 vs. Windows default 2.2).

So who won?


Mac or Windows?

I just found this discussion, and I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

So who won?


Mac or Windows?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

OpenBSD


.


.


And yeah, Neuro, that's what i was thinking of, it was only the browser thing with the embedded Colour Profiles. I swear i read somewhere that it had something to do with the OS too though, just can't find the article i read it in...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Croubie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

So who won?


Mac or Windows?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

OpenBSD

---

I didn't find that on the list of photoshop's system requirements. Not sure I could play my video games on it either.


There has been alot of discussion about Mac's monitors and color calibration. Maybe I am missing somthing. I have 4 macs and 2 window machines at the house. I have a Dell laptop at work with a 36" monitior. At home if I process somthing on the Mac with DPS, print it on my canon printers it comes out looking exaclty like it is on my screen. So why would I calibrate the monitors on the Macs? Now if I do the same thing on the Windows machines, the pictures don't even look the same on each monitor. Real question is why should I waste my time calibrating the windows units when the Mac's are getting it right coming out of the box? The only answer I can come up with is if I like tinkering with computers.