Camera Labs

Same difference between any 1650x1050 and 1440x900 screen. Personally I think 1650x1050 is the sweet spot for a 15.4" but I have an older MacBook Pro with a 1440x900 and with the way OSX manages windows, I'd want a bigger screen and not necessarily just a resolution bump. Keep in mind that if you want the matte option, you only get to pick the higher resolution so maybe that's an advantage for you?

_________________
Graham
Flickr

What a discussion, I like it.
But actually I'm already convinced to buy a macbook pro and not a windows PC.

I do not only want a mac for the processing of pictures, I also choose it for video-rendering and of course it's usability. I used someones mac and I was directly convinced! Everything went so smooth and fine..

So about buying a mac, I'm sure! Now I'm just doubting about the macbook pro 15" 2.4GHz (i5) non high-rez (1592€ at university) or the 17" 2.53GHz (i5) (2000€ at university).

Now, I'm just thinking what I want to spend on it.. I just really need a notebook for university next year so we'll see I guess.


Thanks for the comments!


Joren

_________________
D90

I haven't taken in consideration the cost of the softwares or the free ones already present in the Mac.
Next question then...I've been on some Mac forums & the conclusion was the same : if you have a good enough video card & lots of RAM,the Mac will run well. Still,that means a lot of money paid for a top MacBook Pro,when you can run video editing softwares on Win7 for half or a third of the cost. Most softwares support Win7 & Mac,so why should the Mac perform better in editing of any kind? That's a question that no Mac user answered to me until now.

One more thing! Editing of any kind is not done on a laptop's small & faulty screen,you do it on a IPS or S-IPS LCD panel. That is if you want the best color rendation,black & white levels accuracy,180 degrees angle of view without colors washing away & more.

_________________
Gear: Nikon D80, 18-105mm, 35mm F/1.8, 85mm F/1.8, SB-600
Visit my work here

I don't think anybody claimed that the Mac is better at editing when it comes to cross-platform software like Adobe's Creative suite. People generally buy Macs for editing if they want Apple specific software like Aperture or Final Cut. Personally, I liked the way OSX works and I while I prefer the value of raw power of PC hardware, I am for now, unwilling to go back to Windows to get it. I got a Mac because I prefer OSX and in this case, any editing software I got followed that decision.

There is your answer Razvan.

_________________
Graham
Flickr

so it's all about the software. thank you for explaining

_________________
Gear: Nikon D80, 18-105mm, 35mm F/1.8, 85mm F/1.8, SB-600
Visit my work here

well I've tried Aperture though

my thoughts:
It looks nice and simple to use.
but the thing that I dont like is that its really laggy to use ^^

_________________
http://www.AnderssonPhoto.com
Cameras: Leica M8, Nikon FE-2, Canon EOS 1D Mark IV, 5D Mark II, 40D
Lenses: Voigtländer Nokton Classic 35mm 1.4, Ultra Wide Heliar 12mm 5.6 ASPH II, Nikkor AI-S 28mm 2.8, Canon 24-70 2.8L, 85mm 1.2L II, 300mm 2.8L IS, TS-E 45mm 2.8, Sigma 105mm 2.8 Macro
Canon 1.4x/2X TC II, Canon 580EX II X2, Gitzo + Manfrotto.
Wishlist: Leica Monochrom, Summilux 50 ASPH, Voigtlander 35mm 1.2 ASPH II

@Maj.Homer, Exactly that's why i swicthed from Aperture 3 til Lightrom 3 yesterday. It's a lot faster than Aperture!

_________________
Victor
Nikon D300 - Nikkor 16-85 VR - Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR I
www.victorhoffmann.com

About the software? For me, yes but I am sure the logo is very persuasive to some other people.

I don't like Aperture either. I find it quite difficult to use compared to LR which is very unlike Apple.

_________________
Graham
Flickr