New computer????

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Joe

Joe

Member
Member's gallery
I have a new camera, D780 and it is time to update the computer. New Nikon software won't run on my old Windows program. I'm curious as to whether you all prefer a laptop or a desktop for your work. I'm leaning towards a laptop since I can take it on the road and I spend a lot of time in Glacier and Yellowstone. I hate having to wait until I get home to work on my photos. I worry that a laptop may not have the screen resolution I need. Would love to hear what everyone else is using, thanks.
 
Member's gallery
I use a laptop however I do all of my photo editing on a iMac 27" 5K that is high specked. I use to do everything on a laptop which is convenient however the larger screen and the improved speed make editing and doing Topaz software adjustments a breeze.
 
Member's gallery
I have a Mac 27" desktop machine and a Mac laptop for on the road. If I do any processing of images on the road with the laptop, using LrC, I then export the metadata for the processed images to the desktop catalog when I get home, after downloading the images to the desktop from my cards or external drive.
 
Member's gallery
Joe said:
I have a new camera, D780 and it is time to update the computer. New Nikon software won't run on my old Windows program. I'm curious as to whether you all prefer a laptop or a desktop for your work. I'm leaning towards a laptop since I can take it on the road and I spend a lot of time in Glacier and Yellowstone. I hate having to wait until I get home to work on my photos. I worry that a laptop may not have the screen resolution I need. Would love to hear what everyone else is using, thanks.
Click to expand...

Problem with a laptop is that most will only give you 60% of sRGB at best so in my book, not suitable for editing. I've got an HP Elitebook with a great spec, but I will never use it for anything to do with imaging as the screen is USELESS! When I got it (not intending it for editing), the blue cast was massive and I've been unable to correct it. My Azus is a bit better than the HP but has a lower spec and can only manage 58% of sRGB so that is not used for editing either.

Unless you get a laptop designed for imaging that, for instance a design studio would use, like The HP Zbook Studio G5 or an equivalent, making sure it has the best screen (they can ship with displays that are not to the best imaging specs) that gives as close to 100% of Adobe RGB like this one - HP DreamColor Display 39.62 cm (15.6 in) diagonal UHD IPS eDP with Panel Self Refresh (PSR), anti-glare, RG phosphors and LED backlit, 600 nits 100% Adobe RGB with 10-bit color (3840 x 2160) screen - you won't be doing yourself any favours. When I last looked at the machines that were suitable there were about half a dozen that fitted the requirement but I was not considering dumping my desktop that has an Eizo monitor which is calibrated regularly, and is the only machine I edit with.

I don't travel much though so in your shoes I might consider a laptop that is capable of producing accurate colours. Just remember that most wpn't.
 
Member's gallery
dabhand16 said:
Problem with a laptop is that most will only give you 60% of sRGB at best so in my book, not suitable for editing. I've got an HP Elitebook with a great spec, but I will never use it for anything to do with imaging as the screen is USELESS! When I got it (not intending it for editing), the blue cast was massive and I've been unable to correct it. My Azus is a bit better than the HP but has a lower spec and can only manage 58% of sRGB so that is not used for editing either.

Unless you get a laptop designed for imaging that, for instance a design studio would use, like The HP Zbook Studio G5 or an equivalent, making sure it has the best screen (they can ship with displays that are not to the best imaging specs) that gives as close to 100% of Adobe RGB like this one - HP DreamColor Display 39.62 cm (15.6 in) diagonal UHD IPS eDP with Panel Self Refresh (PSR), anti-glare, RG phosphors and LED backlit, 600 nits 100% Adobe RGB with 10-bit color (3840 x 2160) screen - you won't be doing yourself any favours. When I last looked at the machines that were suitable there were about half a dozen that fitted the requirement but I was not considering dumping my desktop that has an Eizo monitor which is calibrated regularly, and is the only machine I edit with.

I don't travel much though so in your shoes I might consider a laptop that is capable of producing accurate colours. Just remember that most wpn't.
Click to expand...
This is why you buy Mac.
 
Member's gallery
I use both a win 10 laptop and a desktop. My laptop is a high end Lenovo ThinkPad X1 fully loaded with a high res screen. It is OK for initial image culling and some processing. I prefer to do most of my processing on a 32 inch monitor attached to my windows desktop. Many who have one laptop for processing have a second monitor they attach to it for detailed processing. If you go the laptop only route, I would get one that will allow a second monitor to be installed to the laptop.
 
Member's gallery
joe43 said:
I use both a win 10 laptop and a desktop. My laptop is a high end Lenovo ThinkPad X1 fully loaded with a high res screen. It is OK for initial image culling and some processing. I prefer to do most of my processing on a 32 inch monitor attached to my windows desktop. Many who have one laptop for processing have a second monitor they attach to it for detailed processing. If you go the laptop only route, I would get one that will allow a second monitor to be installed to the laptop.
Click to expand...
Wow, that's the best idea I have seen yet. I would love to get two new computers but budget says no. This may be the best option.
 
Member's gallery
There is really no need to get two computers, as a fully tricked-out new laptop will perform just as well as all but the most high-end desktop units. As has been stated, though, you will go crazy trying to do serious post work on any laptop, as few, if any, allow critical color calibration, and the display is simply too small. You will be constantly enlarging and reducing the image, and never get a meaningful overall look at the complete image. A 27-inch monitor is, for most folks, and ideal size for editing. The enormous monitors produce the opposite problem of a laptop, causing you to constantly lean back to take in the "whole picture." Just about all high-end laptops will easily drive an external monitor, but check to make sure. The new MacBooks with M1 chips have, in testing, been shown to blow away just about any other computer currently on the market. While I admit to being an Apple snob, and they do cost an arm and two legs, there is a reason Macs have dominated the graphics industry for the past 35+ years.
 
I have a i7 Lenovo laptop with a good graphics card, plenty of ram, a half terabyte ssd and a 1 terabyte drive. When I run displaycal with my spyderx it says I have 93% of srgb and about 70% of adobe rgb, so it is a good basic computer for running Lightroom and Photoshop. Adding an external graphics monitor capable of adobe rgb completes the package, but such a monitor is another $600-$800+. So at that point a tower with a graphics monitor might be similar cost. Do you need to be portable? I thought I did, but by the time I add the Wacom, a mouse, an external drive, and the colorimeter it doesn't feel that portable.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I have both a 13" MacBook Pro (2019) and a 2015 27" iMac (well spec'd) along with another BenQ SW 271 monitor. If you never travel, arguably the laptop is not needed. Conversely, a current laptop alone can do a great job of driving an external monitor. The bulk of my editing and photo work is done on my desktop and I love it. One thing to ponder: if you have or want to maintain both, consider staggering the purchases of your laptop and desktop which will always keep your feet wet in some newer tech without necessarily chasing the bleeding edge. When I committed to my iMac five years ago, I did so expecting it to serve me for six-eight years. With RAM upgrades I've given it, It runs faster today than when new. When time comes for its replacement, my laptop will still be quite current.
 
Member's gallery
Mac Laptop on the road for culling and backup, iMac 27” 5k at home for edits. First thing I noticed by running improved calibration on both is that the pictures now look near indistinguishable between both devices.
 
Member's gallery
Quit lugging laptop around several years ago when traveling. Use a portable 1TB hard drive to off-load files from memory cards until back home.

Used iMac for 9 years but hard drive began failing. Out of 3 iMacs my wife and I have owned 2 had hard drives fail - one quite prematurely.

Replaced my iMac with a Dell XPS Windoz 10 desktop i7 16gb RAM, Nvidia GPU, SSD's, etc. and a ViewSonic 24 inch sRGB calibrated monitor to do image and video editing. Very pleased.
 
Member's gallery
I used to lug a 17” full spec’d mobile workstation with quadra card, 100% RGB screen, 4 internal drives etc with me, wasting my evenings while culling and editing pics.
Nowadays I enjoy my evenings talking with my family (if they’re in my company) and or locals, witnessing sunsets drinking a good glass of singlemalt aso and wait untill I get home to upload my Imagetank to my PC.
No contest, a PC will allways beat a laptop in price-performance.
 
Member's gallery
I offload my photos to an IPad which I use to review my images. You can edit raw files on the IPad very easily. Any significant changes are made on my Mac mini .
 
Member's gallery
I have a Macbook Pro which I use in the field and at home it becomes my desktop connected to 2 large monitors for editing. Images and data are stored on a network attached server.
 
iMac 27 or 16 Macbook Pro both are suitable with the 27 inch being better on my old eyes. I don't think I would want a larger screen than 27 inch and let's face it, Apple retina displays are kick ass.
 
dabhand16 said:
Are they the ones that you have to take in to get more RAM or a bigger drive? 😉
Click to expand...
I don't know why I would need to do that??? Order the way you want it in the first place and enjoy a rock stable machine with a killer display for years.
 
Member's gallery
Robin said:
Just to ask if it would make sense to buy a new 2020 27inch iMac at this time with the silicon on the horizon?
Click to expand...
that's the question a lot seem to be asking. My current iMac (late 2013) is limping along. I boot from an external USB SSD which is way faster than the internal hard drive. Every week I clone the external back to the internal as a backup plus TimeMachine running.

Back to the question Robin asked, my point of view is I'm going to hold out until the new Apple Silicon Macs come out to replace mine. If mine dies, I'll either go with the M1 Mac mini and 5K monitor or I'll get a 27" Intel based iMac so that I can buy additional memory and load it up myself.

As a retired IT person with 36 years in the industry, it doesn't pay to go chasing every latest innovation but the Apple Silicon is a pretty significant change in the architecture and the system on chip (SOC) seems to be the way of the future (like mirrorless cameras). Intel based will continue to be supported for several more years but all the innovation and app updates will be for the new architecture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top