Thoughts on new laptop / desktop

Hi team,

Just wondering what the general consesus is out there as to what the best laptops and desktops are for editing photos.

As most of you know I have just recently purchased my first dslr (7d) with 15-85 and I have just ordered a 70-200 2.8 IS.

But now comes the next part - either a laptop or desktop.

My better half has a brand new 13' Mac book pro that I have basically stolen off her over the past two months whilst I researched cameras / lenses / discussions on this forum etc etc.

So 'we' already have a laptop so to speak.

I know how you guys love to spend other people's money - so I am looking at spending about 2k to fix myself up with a new piece of equipment. Considering we have a laptop should I look at say the 27' iMac or get my own laptop say the 2.4gz 15' Mac book pro $2200 or from looking on the net it seems the Dell xps is also highly rated.

Just wondering what you guys use / think / suggest??????

Thanks

Tony

Depends on what you prefer as far as desktop vs laptop. Strictly for photo work I prefer my desktop, its just easier and faster for me to work on. Plus a much better monitor than what a laptop provides is worth it in itself. But if you need portability then you need a laptop.

Desktops are also way cheaper, I just built a new desktop that works amazingly for running Photoshop CS5 and it only cost $700 (I already had the software and monitor though). So if you dont need the laptop then you can stay way under budget and get a really great machine.

Macs are great but in my opinion to expensive compared to what pc laptop costs, Ive seen some really great laptops out there for closer to 1k. check out ASUS they make really great laptops at good prices


Is photo editing all you really need the computer for or are you going to do other things with it that will demand a good computer?



Nick

The guts of the PC doesn't matter so much, these days there's fast, blazing fast, extremely fast, insanely fast, etc, but in general they're all just "fast enough".
Monitor matters a lot, if the colours don't look right then you'll be disappointed with anything you print. And even if you go with a laptop, i'd get the monitor as external too. I read somewhere that Macbooks only use 6- or 8-bit colour in their displays (i'll try confirm that), my Dell uses 12-bit internal processing.
And because I'm lazy i'm just going to copy advice I wrote to someone on CR.

I've got a Dell Ultrasharp U2711 2560*1440 and I love it, currently $800 in Aus.
I was contemplating the U2410 1920*1200 24", but for only $100 price-difference, I took the extra pixel real-estate.
The 21", 23", and 24"LED only have an 82% Colour Gamut and aren't as well factory-calibrated (although you can get three 21" for the price of the 27" and calibrate them yourself).
And the 30" costs double the 27" for only 160 more pixels along the top/bottom, and 99% instead of 96% AdobeRGB coverage (which I don't use anyway).

There's not much else comparable in this quality/price bracket, Asus have an IPS-something that I looked at, but the reviews weren't too good, and I didn't have money for Eizo.

A few people have complained about the build-quality of the Dell, but I tend to look at the image on the screen, not the frame. Get your own VESA-mount stand if it matters that much.

Other than that, I can't fault it, except that it absolutely chews power, I can feel it radiating heat from a distance, even with brightness at 10. But I can live with that (most other comparable monitors do the same). 3-year next-day on-site 1-dead-pixel-and-you-can-replace-the-whole-thing warranty I hope to never use, but it's definite peace of mind.

Just a tip, don't buy it now. I originally saw mine for $700 in June, then in July it was up to $800. Randomly I saw it one day on a '3-day-sale' for $530, hit the buy button immediately. Turns out these '3-day-sales' aren't too uncommon, especially with this model because they don't move too fast otherwise. So unless you want it tomorrow, keep checking and save a packet...


OK, with that copy-paste out of the way, how adept do you feel at building your own system? I've done that for the last 10 years with my PCs, but then, i'm an Electrical Engineer, kinda comes with the territory.

I've got an AMD Phenom 6-core 2.8GHz with 4GB of DDR3-1600 RAM, 60GB SSD primary and 1TB data, Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 motherboard.

If I were building again tomorrow, I'd definitely put in 8GB of ram, maybe even 12-16gb, now that i've started doing panoramae and HDRs, they chew a *lot* of ram. But then I use linux, I'll presume you'll be on Winbloat in which case 6-8GB is absolute minimum, 12 or 16gb highly-recommended (depending on what system you get, the better intel Cores use triple-channel so you'd get either 6, 12 or 24gb. 24 might be a bit of overkill). I had 30GB of my SSD set aside to play with other OSes, instead i'm using it as virtual-ram.

Annoyingly for my purposes, Hugin (image-stitcher) and Luminance (HDR) both only use 1-core, so tone-mapping a full-size image takes 20 minutes, which would be 3-4 minutes if it used all 6 cores (I haven't tried tone-mapping a huge stitch yet, not sure if i want to). Your mileage may vary depending on what programs you use, I'm pretty sure that Photoshop is fully threaded these days (anyone confirm?).

So as long as it's "good enough", you can't really go wrong with the system. SSD is almost a must, a huge secondary data-drive is definitely a must (never put your OS and programs on the same disk as your data). Lots of big usb external-hdds are essential for backups, i've got 2x 500gb ones, both nearly full, i'm getting my mum to bring back a few 1 or 2 TB drives when she's in Hong Kong soon. Video-card doesn't matter so much (except for gamers), although if you like more than 2 monitors then an ATI brand card with 'eyefinity' and Display-ports means you can hook up as many as you want (not sure if nvidia has anything similar yet).

Nick / Doc

I wont be using it for anything else except processing and editing my photos (that is once I start taking half decent pics!), and the mandatory surfing on th net, reviewing ebay for cheap lenses and I dont
think that I will be editing videos until I have kids and thats a few years off yet and no doubt by then the laptop or desktop that I buy shortly will be well and truely out dated. I also have no intention
whatsoever of playing games on it - I have an xbox 360 for that (which I have turned on once in the past 12 months)

I am really only a 'newby' to photography and computers and by that I mean the following;

I have never previously had a dlsr before nor have I edited a single photo nor have I ever used a single photoshop program!

As for the computer side of things, I know the basics, I understand all the terms and know the difference between speeds, memory, hard drives etc etc but that's about it. To give you a good analogy,
I love cars, I know where the steering wheel is, I know how to drive a manual, where the oil and petrol goes but ask me how it all works and I really have no idea. I put the key in the ignition and that's it.

Same with my laptop / desktop purchase - I just want to turn the computer on and know that it's going to do what I want it to do!!!!!!

I wouldnt feel confident in building my own system - but if I know exactly what to put in it, I am sure that I could go about facilitating it.

Doc - I have heard good things about the Dell, but as you say, I have also heard that if you have your laptop in the lounge room you would swear that a volcano just erupted in there if you leave it on
too long because thats how much heat it generates.

A mate of mine just purchased the 15' mac book pro with the better screen - however, he doesnt edit photos on it.

I was really only considering the 27' imac as it doesn't take up much space (no tower) and I have only ever heard good things about them. Thus the reason for this post, to try and work out the best
laptop and desktop which would suit my needs. If I could get a good laptop that will do just as good a job as a large desktop then I think I would lean towards that - purely for the portability attribute
but as I mentioned earlier - it doesnt really worry me as although laptops are great, I cant see myself editing photos whilst travelling overseas etc.

I got a Dell XPS17 this week on a ridiculous special offer. Down from £1800 to £720 using a few money-off codes and a UK cashback site.

i7-2670QM processor 2.20 GHz with Turbo Boost up to 3.10 GHz
6GB (1x2GB and 1x4GB) of 1333MHz DDR3 Dual Channel SDRAM
3GB NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 555M Graphics Card
1TB (7,200rpm) Serial ATA Dual HDD - (2x500GB)
17.3 FHD WLED AG (1920x1080)

annoyingly it also comes with Elements installed, when I bought Elements only 1 month ago

Not used the screen for processing yet, but can tell already that it's going to make a huge difference, pictures which previously looked good now don't, but some that previously looked awful actually look decent. I'm waiting until I get it calibrated before I actually use it in anger, but the colours are delicious.

Another alternative is one of HP's Elitebook series with the dream color display (IPS). Gets you up to three hard drives (I'm thinking ssd for OS/apps, and a 1tb drive for storage.) Also, workstation graphics in either the AMD or nvidia flavors.
I am capable of building my own PC. Have several spreadsheets made with different configurations. Ultimately, portability was what made me decide on the HP.

http://www.graysonline.com/lot/0001-...ized-aluminium

I think these go for a good price on grays....thoughts?

Depends on if you both need a laptop. If not, I'd go with a desktop (27" iMac would get my vote). But we've got three Mac laptops in the house - my wife's 13" MacBook Pro, my 17" MacBook Pro, and a 13" Macbook Air (the 'Air is for work and travel). I do my photo editing on the 17" MacBook Pro, which is the previous generation with core i5 and 8 GB RAM, and it's plenty fast enough. The 'Air would do fine, too, with Core i7 and an SSD, connected to my 24" monitor. Personally, I like Macs for the ergonomics, form factor, and things like the multitouch trackpad which makes manipulating images easy (provided the software takes advantage of the feature).

I would definitely vote for a desktop machine with a 27" 2560x1440 resolution panel. Much nicer to work on vs a laptop (even with 15/17" 1920x1080 res screen) and you can get a more powerful machine for the same price.

If you aren't comfortable building your own system (and already have a macbook) I would go with the 27" iMac. I don't know if you can configure one with a SSD though but if it's possible I highly recommend it as it just makes the whole system that much more responsive. 64GB should be enough for OS and programs but 128 is always better. And also 16GB of RAM is preferable since it is quite cheap (at least if you build your own PC). If you can configure the iMac with SSD then you would need an external HDD for storing the photos as I don't think the iMac has an option for two HDDs (if i'm wrong just configure one with SSD + 1/2TB HDD), preferably one with the new fast Thunderbolt connection.

The iMac option will be quite a lot more expensive vs. building yourself a PC from components you select (as I have done) but in your case it might be a good choice. The display is great (I have a Hazro HZ27WC which uses the same panel, and the Dell U2711 also uses the same one) and overall it is a nice package.

EDIT: Added a list of my PC components and prices of those I could remember

• CPU: Intel Core i7 2600K (highly overclockable, 309€)
• Motherboard: Asus P8P67-M PRO (127€)
• HDD: 2 x 1.5 TB (from my old machine)
• SSD: 120GB Intel X25-M (181€)
• RAM: 16GB, TeamGroup Elite 4x4GB DDR3-1333 (130€)
• Case: SilverStone Grandia SST-GD05B Micro-ATX (84€)
• Video Card: Asus Radeon 6850, 1GB, 2xDVI, HDMI, DisplayPort (164€)
• Power Supply: Nexus Value 430W 80+ (62€)
• Monitor: Hazro HZ27WC 27" 2560x1440 (430€) also I have a 20" Dell 2005FPW as a second monitor
• Webcam: Logitech from old machine

Total cost 1050€ for the machine itself (got the HDDs, heatsink, webcam and KB+Mouse and OS from the old machine and sold the other parts) and 430€ for the monitor. So in the end the cost is somewhere around 1700-1800€ if you have to buy the peripherals and parts I reused from my old machine. Not that big of a saving compared to a 2000€ 27" iMac but you get a lot more performance from my setup (Better CPU & GPU, more RAM, SSD etc.) especially since I have overclocked it a bit. For your usage many of my components might not be needed (the GPU for example) and you can probably build a bit cheaper machine. And as an added bonus you learn a lot by building your own PC and some people might even think it's fun ;)

The prices are from last spring when I upgraded (except the monitor which I got this fall) and won't compare for US very well. I suspect you can get a much better deal on components on your side of the world.

Hi Tony,

I built a new PC over the summer. Some of the discussion didn't survive the recent software conversion TDP forum website just went through, but maybe you might find something useful: http://community.the-digital-picture...light=computer

I ended up with the following (prices were as of Aug 2011):

• CPU: AMD Athlon II x4 3.0 Ghz ($100)
• Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990XA-UD3 (AM3+, expandable to 32 GB RAM; $140)
• HDD: 2 x 1.5 TB Western Digital Caviar Black, 7200rpm,SATA III (got on a shell shocker deal--$160 for both)
• SSD: 120 GB OCZ Agility 3 ($190)
• RAM: GSKILL Ripjaws 8 GB (2 x 4GB), 1600, ($60)
• Case: Cooler Master HAF 912 ($50)
• Video Card: EVGA 01G-P3-1431, 1GB, 128 bit, 2x DVI ports ($55)
• Power Supply: Antec 500W Green, 80+ Bronze ($59)
• Optical Drive: ASUS DVD/CD Burner ($21)
• OS: Win 7-64 bit ($100)
• Monitor: Asus VS248H-P ($210)--I did look at the higher end monitors many of you mentioned. Someday maybe I'll get one, but not today. And this should be better than what I currently have.
• Webcam: Logitech C910 ($80)

The "Bulldozer" CPUs have come out. Those will be the fastest, but the Athlon II that I bought is plenty fast. It processes RAW to JPG through DPP in ~9-10 seconds per image. I am not pushing you toward a PC as I think either PC or Mac will work well and that mostly gets down to personal preferences. Just letting you know what I did and that it works well.

A few key tips that I did learn when building my PC:
1) Read/write rates from SSDs is much faster than HDs. For example, my SSD is rated at ~500 MB/s (never tested it) and I've read tests of HDs that transfer at 100-140 MB/s. The tangible benefit is that there is a noticable difference in editing speed, so I process my RAW images on my SSD and then transfer over to the HD for long term storage.
2) My entire system (monitor/computer/etc) uses less than 200 Watts. The average ranges from 75 to 125 W during normal operation. So while large power supply units are out there, at least for my system, they weren't necessary.
3) Power supply units have efficiency ratings (http://www.plugloadsolutions.com/80P...rSupplies.aspx). I went with the 80+ Bronze PSU, but it surprised me how inefficient some "regular/not rated" PSUs can be.

Good luck,
Brant

EDIT: Looks like qwRad and I had similar posts.

Hi Team,
Thanks so much for the information. From the information contained above I have decided on getting a desktop, I have had a look at the 27' imac but with all those inclusions of what you guys suggest, it's going to cost upwards of 3800 with the 3.1ghz / 16gb / 1tb + 256gb SSD. With this in mind I think that I can definitely do a lot better building a system myself and just purchasing a 27' Dell monitor.

Can someone give me a basic rundown as to how you manage / transfer / store your your images because I am a little confused; (SSD / HDD / OS on a different disc)

I am guessing that you store your pics on a stand alone HDD - but what do you use to work on your images so that it's quicker!

Thanks again
Tony

Hi Tony,

I store my originals on my HD. I use 2 externals for back-up. I do not work off the externals as its too slow.
I don' use a card reader - I use the manufacturer-provided USB2 cable, connected from my camera to my computer, to transfer images to my HD. I then import the images into my editing program which is Lightroom 3.
As I edit the originals, I delete the rejects off the HD from LR3. When I am satisfied I have the originals wittled down, I back up to the 2 externals.

That's how I do it for now...until I get a RAID drive, that is, and work off of it, lol

Damian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weewillo

Hi Team,
Thanks so much for the information. From the information contained above I have decided on getting a desktop, I have had a look at the 27' imac but with all those inclusions of what you guys suggest, it's going to cost upwards of 3800 with the 3.1ghz / 16gb / 1tb + 256gb SSD. With this in mind I think that I can definitely do a lot better building a system myself and just purchasing a 27' Dell monitor.

Can someone give me a basic rundown as to how you manage / transfer / store your your images because I am a little confused; (SSD / HDD / OS on a different disc)

I am guessing that you store your pics on a stand alone HDD - but what do you use to work on your images so that it's quicker!

Thanks again
Tony

---

Here's what I do:

I use a card reader, and after a shoot (sometimes days later, if I'm feeling lazy), I pull the pictures off the card, buy I do not recycle the memory card yet. The pictures are copied to a work directory. Here I sort the good from the bad, and do any other postprocessing. Once this is done, I move the entire project folder to the archilve (include all raw files, any intermediate HDR of Gimp (I'm too cheap to get photoshop) to my archive, and burn a copy to DVD, and copy the archive to another machine.

Once this is done, then I reuse the memory card. I will reformat it when I insert it into the camera. This way, there is a clean filesystem and less chance for file fragmentation, in case I ever need to recover lost data.

Note that I am an amateur, and this is not foolproof, but it is good enough for my sense of comfort.

-joe