Best photography laptop

Hi Luke,
I just got one of the new HP touchscreen laptops was about 800quid from john lewis with 2 years warranty, love it!
it has a pen with a touch screen and is awesome in tablet mode for editing!
who needs a mac! or a separate tablet!

cheers
marcus
 
Luke,

Go for a mac, you will never look back.

They handle high res images and larger files much more effectively and no virus issues unlike PC's

Chris Gill
:thumbs:
 
daugirdas said:
Macbook pros are great, but you will still need a separate screen. The mirror won't be very helpful.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean about the mirror, am I missing something?

Chris GIll:shrug:
 
I don't really know how you decide what is "best" - with a £1000 budget there is a vast choice of top notch laptops to chose from, most of which will be perfectly capable of meeting your stated needs. Here are a few things I take into account when choosing this type of equipment :

1. Screen size - unless ultra portability is an issue, then the bigger the better
2. Glossy vs Matt screen - glossy screens tend to look more contrasty, but if where you are using it is likely to cause reflections, then a glossy screen is a nightmare. They are also problematic if you want to use the laptop outside.
3. Battery life - if you will be using it away from the mains a lot. I believe 6 cell batteries give better life, but you should check the specified life for your candidate machines
4. The mouse pad. If using Photoshop a lot I would recommend a separate mouse, but if this is not feasible, then make sure the mouse pad is comfortable to use.
5. For photoshop the more memory the better - it is a real memory hog.
6. The more cpu cores the better. Although not all Photoshop actions can use multiple cores, most can, and therefore a Quad core will be faster than a dual core which will be faster than a single core.
6. Avoid celeron processors and the AMD equivalent. If buying Intel, Core 2 Duo rather than Dual core.

Hope that helps....
 
If you can find one of the last generation Macbook Pros, ideally a 2.5Ghz Intel Core2 Duo with the 15 or 17 matte screen running OSX 10.5, do it. The newer MBP's have a reflective screen, making for deeper blacks but less true colour. As a result, many people are hanging onto their last-gen stuff longer than usual, and the resale price hasn't been hit as hard as it should have been.

BTW, that laptop spec has just been used to type this message...
 
Have a look at either Dell, HP or Sony, they are your best bet for, with a good quality Dell with cutom spec being my recommendation. If you have more than 4GB though, make sure you have Vista 64x. :)
 
mac for me, best bet is to go use some in the flesh and see what you think.
 
All this business about glossy screens is rubbish. I have an iMac 24" with glossy screen which sits opposite a bright window. I also have a MacBook Air which has a glossy screen and I can use it fine outdoors, even in bright sunlight.

Don't buy a PC, buy a Mac, they are a bit more pricey, but sooooo worth the extra, especially for photo editing.
 
As I understand it, the issue about the reflective screens isn't so much about the 'mirror' effect as the loss of perfect colour rendition; the gloss screens are designed for impact and higher contrast, which could misinform for critical work.

Of course, I'm no pro, so I have no 'critical work'. Not photographic, anyway. The other reason for the older gen MBP was the OP's budget of £1000, which rules out the newest versions.
 
going to cast a note for the macbook too, not just in its ability to handle photo editing and such but also for the general ease of use of the entire system. there's just no looking back once you've started on the mac... :thumbs:
 
A vote here against the Macbook - as you won't be only using it for image editing, your choice of software compared to Vista, et al, is very limited in comparison, and expensive also. The Mac may look sexy, but you do pay for it... the HP touchscreen with tablet sounds the business to me.
 
8utters said:
All this business about glossy screens is rubbish. I have an iMac 24" with glossy screen which sits opposite a bright window. I also have a MacBook Air which has a glossy screen and I can use it fine outdoors, even in bright sunlight.

Don't buy a PC, buy a Mac, they are a bit more pricey, but sooooo worth the extra, especially for photo editing.
Click to expand...

It's not, they are a pain in the a***, and it's not just mac's that have this problem, a lot of windows laptops are now sold with them as standard too. It's 50% marketing gimmick and 50% useful IMO. Look at two screens and the glossy one will make content jump out at you, while the matt (and more accurate) screen will just look dull in comparison, which one would you buy? As for the second 50% that is where it helps the general population, it makes darks darker (higher contrast) and colours more vibrant, brilliant for watching films etc. but a pain when editing photos (and film) as your "vibrant and contrasty" image will just look flat when you look at it on a properly calibrated matt screen.

Also, for photo editing there really is little difference between the two, both use the same software and both handle photos just as well.
 
DekHog said:
A vote here against the Macbook - as you won't be only using it for image editing, your choice of software compared to Vista, et al, is very limited in comparison, and expensive also. The Mac may look sexy, but you do pay for it... the HP touchscreen with tablet sounds the business to me.
Click to expand...

Choice of software? Like what? Everything you can get on the PC you can get on the Mac...Vista is the worst operating system I have ever used. It's awful.

HP make terrible computers.
 
danbroad said:
Of course, I'm no pro, so I have no 'critical work'. Not photographic, anyway. The other reason for the older gen MBP was the OP's budget of £1000, which rules out the newest versions.
Click to expand...

One pro I've talked to says he loves the new screens. Guess it's all down to preference really.

DekHog said:
A vote here against the Macbook - as you won't be only using it for image editing, your choice of software compared to Vista, et al, is very limited in comparison, and expensive also. The Mac may look sexy, but you do pay for it... the HP touchscreen with tablet sounds the business to me.
Click to expand...

Lightroom 2/Aperture 2 + Photoshop is all you need to be honest. And there's always bootcamp if you want to run windows.
 
DekHog said:
A vote here against the Macbook - as you won't be only using it for image editing, your choice of software compared to Vista, et al, is very limited in comparison, and expensive also. The Mac may look sexy, but you do pay for it... the HP touchscreen with tablet sounds the business to me.
Click to expand...

A voter here for the mac, the choice of Software is limited but there is more than enough software out there. For example, iPhoto is pretty good in itself for pics, but Aperture is good, plus you have Lightroom and all other adobe stuff... why would you need more choice?

I went to Mac a couple of years back and would never buy a PC again. My dad went to Mac on my say so a few months ago and has said the same.

Most if not all designers use Macs, so for creative stuff they are better than PCs at least, otherwise the pros would all use PCs.
 
FruitFlakes said:
Lightroom 2/Aperture 2 + Photoshop is all you need to be honest. And there's always bootcamp if you want to run windows.
Click to expand...

Also consider Parallels if you need to run Windows Software, I have Windows 7 installed under Parallels on my Macbook, and it's running a dream.

This allows access to all the PC software you could need (alongside your Mac software), but all inside OS X.

As an aside, why do we never hear anyone knocking Windows XP/Vista/7 because it can't run software designed for OS X?!?
 
What the hell are you lot on about, all the software you can get on Windows you can get on OSX (or an OSX equivilent). You don't need to install Windows for anything, I have never needed to use it for anything other than gaming (which is funny, becuase using XP, my iMac runs games better than my old PC which was far more powerful). I've never not been able to do anything becuase of 'limited software', and I do tons of stuff besides photo editing on my iMac.

Plus there's so much stuff you can't get on Windows, like all the OSX apps made by Apple. Best video app there is is Final Cut Pro. Can you get it on a PC? No. How about Sountrack Pro? No. Motion? No. Logic Pro? No. Aperture? Nope. The whole poor software argument isn't really an argument, becuase it's completely untrue.
 
I think a lot of you missed what he was saying, he said
as you won't be only using it for image editing
Click to expand...

i.e. you need software for things other than photo editing. In that sense, it's pointless talking about PS and lightroom. However I would be inclined to disagree with him mostly, as most/all of the major windows software is available on OSX in some shape or form.

8utters said:
(which is funny, becuase using XP, my iMac runs games better than my old PC which was far more powerful).
Click to expand...

That makes no sense at all, macs and windows systems use exactly the same hardware as each other, so a system running XP natively will perform exactly the same on the same hardware, and better on better hardware. The only difference between a mac and windows PC is the OS. The only thing I can assume is you either had a dud computer before your iMac, or you only compared the main components (expecially important if it was a cheap pc world type PC).
 
Nope it was a Dell XPS. Had a quad core processor, better graphics card and the same memory but the iMac runs games better.
 
Bootcamp has certainly made the macbook a more promising prospect now, plus at the top end there's very little difference in cost between comparable macbook pros and windows based laptops (though you can get more powerful graphics cards in the very top Windows based laptops). For non-techie users the OSX interface is far easier to use and far prettier, but it's also some what blingy and if you are a techie at heart you'll get frustrated with it, as you will with the need to bootcamp out every time you want to do some thing else.

At a lower end, the base macbooks are expensive in comparison, and the low end one is best described as 'cheap' - has come in for a lot of criticisms from people who thought they were buying the old case with newer hardware.

Much of it is really down to what your personal preferences are. Mine was some thing light that could travel, so I ended up with an Acer Ferrari M1005 as the Macbook was too heavy and the Airbook really is style over substances and is far too large (which is why netbooks have become so popular).

On a side note - who ever said you got no virii for OSX - you are oh so wrong. The hardcore virus writers (as opposed to the script kiddies who just convert the email/advert launched trojans) are now specifically targeting the Mac as most users have no security software in the mistaken belief they are safe.
 
if your thinking mac go and play with a mac for a bit as the os is laid out differently

I would say windows as you want flexibility - some networks don't get on well with macs my school network didn't though I believe the halls network here is fine with them.

Could we have a little more detail on what you want from your laptop, do you game, do you need specific work programs ect

also does £1000 include software?
 
8utters said:
What the hell are you lot on about, all the software you can get on Windows you can get on OSX (or an OSX equivilent). You don't need to install Windows for anything, I have never needed to use it for anything other than gaming (which is funny, becuase using XP, my iMac runs games better than my old PC which was far more powerful). I've never not been able to do anything becuase of 'limited software', and I do tons of stuff besides photo editing on my iMac.

Plus there's so much stuff you can't get on Windows, like all the OSX apps made by Apple. Best video app there is is Final Cut Pro. Can you get it on a PC? No. How about Sountrack Pro? No. Motion? No. Logic Pro? No. Aperture? Nope. The whole poor software argument isn't really an argument, becuase it's completely untrue.
Click to expand...

You sound like a mac fan boy.
 
I used to use a Dell XPS, which is one of the best laptops i've ever used. It did everything practically and I had no problems at all with the software (CS3) running on Windows XP. The machine itself was built like a tank. On the Dell I ran the full CS3 suite.

I'm using a macbook pro now, but the only reason I switched is because the work is all Mac based and so I could get software relatively cheaply for my mac book. On the Macbook i use Lightroom 2, iPhoto and CS4 and Bootcamp for when I need to own noobs on Counterstrike Source.

The mac vs. PC argument is tiring and quite embarrassing to watch / read.
 
dapprman said:
For non-techie users the OSX interface is far easier to use and far prettier, but it's also some what blingy and if you are a techie at heart you'll get frustrated with it, as you will with the need to bootcamp out every time you want to do some thing else.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that is a 100% accurate statement. I consider myself a 'techie user' and don't get frustrated with OS X. I think it all comes down to personal preference.

dapprman said:
On a side note - who ever said you got no virii for OSX - you are oh so wrong. The hardcore virus writers (as opposed to the script kiddies who just convert the email/advert launched trojans) are now specifically targeting the Mac as most users have no security software in the mistaken belief they are safe.
Click to expand...

Have you any references to OS X viruses that are in the wild? I've read about a couple of trojans, but have never seen any evidence of an OS X virus. I will have a lot of trouble believing this unless you can provide some proof?
 
Never say never. Assuming a piece of hardware or software is virus proof is stupid and completely irresponsible. Selling a piece of hardware or software on the premise that it won't fall to virus infection is equally stupid. If you're an idiot that doesn't take personal security seriously regardless of what platform you're on then your asking for trouble.
 
ChrisGill said:
Luke,

Go for a mac, you will never look back.

They handle high res images and larger files much more effectively and no virus issues unlike PC's
Click to expand...

Please explain to me how they handle high res/larger files more effectively when, for instance, you can't 64-bit Photshop on the Mac?
 
We use for our photographer laptops Dell Latitude D420/430s and are starting the upgrade to E4300s.

The E4300 is one of the best laptops ever made; very fast, very bright/clear screen, built-in 3G and very small/light too.
 
KayJay said:
Never say never. Assuming a piece of hardware or software is virus proof is stupid and completely irresponsible. Selling a piece of hardware or software on the premise that it won't fall to virus infection is equally stupid. If you're an idiot that doesn't take personal security seriously regardless of what platform you're on then your asking for trouble.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, I think my windows machine is as secure as a mac, I have never yet had a virus on it, but then I think the best security is that above your shoulders, think before you click.

Some more
Quote
1. Do I really need Mac antivirus software?
If you never connect your Mac to the Internet, the answer is no. But if you do use the Internet, the answer is yes. And since most everyone is online these days, that means that the majority of Mac users need to consider installing Macintosh compatible antivirus software.

5. What's this downstream protection I keep hearing about?
Some vendors of Mac antivirus software focus more on what is known as "downstream protection". Briefly, that's designed to protect Windows users from Windows-based malware that is sent from a Mac user. As an example, Sally uses Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard). She receives an email with an infected attachment. That particular attachment can't infect her Mac, but if she sends it on to Bob, a Windows user, and Bob opens the attachment, his system could be protected. Downstream protection means that the Macintosh antivirus scanner is scanning for Windows-based malware.

http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/tp/macvirusfaqs.htm
 
Ignoring the tired old argument (please see my signature) for one second.

I was in the same position as you. I bought a Mac. I am happy.

Cheers,
James
 
8utters said:
Nope it was a Dell XPS. Had a quad core processor, better graphics card and the same memory but the iMac runs games better.
Click to expand...

It still makes no sense, unless there was something wrong with your windows machine. If anything bootcamp (if it is a piece of software) would make your mac run slower than a dedicated windows PC as it is an extra layer of software between the hardware and software.

KayJay said:
I used to use a Dell XPS, which is one of the best laptops i've ever used. It did everything practically and I had no problems at all with the software (CS3) running on Windows XP. The machine itself was built like a tank. On the Dell I ran the full CS3 suite.

I'm using a macbook pro now, but the only reason I switched is because the work is all Mac based and so I could get software relatively cheaply for my mac book. On the Macbook i use Lightroom 2, iPhoto and CS4 and Bootcamp for when I need to own noobs on Counterstrike Source.

The mac vs. PC argument is tiring and quite embarrassing to watch / read.
Click to expand...

One of my machines is an XPS 1330, a superb machine, and doesn't look cheap and nasty like a lot of other laptops. It runs CS3 almost as well as my desktop.

inkiboo said:
Please explain to me how they handle high res/larger files more effectively when, for instance, you can't 64-bit Photshop on the Mac?
Click to expand...

I was going to agree, but it will start another argument, and there are already enough mac vs PC threads in the computer section.
 
bigbigblue said:
a Quad core will be faster than a dual core which will be faster than a single core.
6. Avoid celeron processors and the AMD equivalent. If buying Intel, Core 2 Duo rather than Dual core.

Hope that helps....
Click to expand...
I think you need to had 64bit to gain frome a Quad as well so make sure you have the right OS
And yes say away from AMD and celeron
 
Try windows and apple in the flesh and buy the one your happiest with, ignore everything else. Both have equal compatibility on the majority of software titles etc.
 
Amp34 said:
It still makes no sense, unless there was something wrong with your windows machine. If anything bootcamp (if it is a piece of software) would make your mac run slower than a dedicated windows PC as it is an extra layer of software between the hardware and software.
Click to expand...

Not technically true. Parallels is an emulator. Bootcamp however is not and so there is nothing between Windows and the hardware. It'll run just as fast as if it were installed on a Dell, perhaps slower perhaps faster depending on the hardware.
 
I think the mac/windows squabble going on here is getting rather unhelpful for the OP :lol: no system is perfect but fwiw we with the macs love them :clap:

Probably the best advice you'd get:

Tim Sainsbury said:
Try windows and apple in the flesh and buy the one your happiest with, ignore everything else. Both have equal compatibility on the majority of software titles etc.
Click to expand...
 
KayJay said:
Not technically true. Parallels is an emulator. Bootcamp however is not and so there is nothing between Windows and the hardware. It'll run just as fast as if it were installed on a Dell, perhaps slower perhaps faster depending on the hardware.
Click to expand...

I assumed it was, but put that cravet in there just to cover my back. I still can't see how there would be a performance increase with a hardware decrease...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top