Advise wanted on Canon Lenses and Macbook pro. :-)

[OGDaniel]

Get the lens for sure. And if things work out later on you can get a Mac, but focus on the important actual camera items first. Good luck =)

 

[Prometheus]

I worked for apple for several years as a Campus Rep at a university I went to. I have owned two mac laptops and currently use the Macbook right before the pro came out, the 13'' aluminum. It's amazing!

That said, i've been building and overclocking PC's for years and I build computers that will smoke any mac alive. So it's a trade off. Do I want peak performance, with A LOT of instability and chaos, and downsides, and ugliness and....well yea whatever comes with Windows OS.

I would never ever want to OWN a PC laptop. I mean, I would only ever invest in a mac laptop because there is just a world of difference. If you go desktop, might consider PC.

The laptop will do, but if it's your only resource I would at least get a 15''. I edited for months on my 13'' macbook until the HD filled up and now use my OCed PC.

Just because you have a PC doesn't mean you automatically use windows.
Just because you have a Mac doesn't mean you automatically use MacOS.

I get that you know how to overclock a PC, but the truth is if you knew enough about computers to recommend anything then you wouldn't be able to justify paying for an apple laptop unless you ABSOLUTELY need a legit copy of Mac OS. They're the EXACT SAME COMPONENTS. With an Apple you're paying for the NAME.

When comparing Windows to Mac OS X, MacOS wins hands down. It's built off of BSD. Which means it's one of the most stable and secure operating systems for use as a viable home-user OS, aside from the Ubuntu family of operating systems. I don't consider other Linux OSes a viable home-user OS (even the one I use) because they're a royal PITA to get running properly..

To reiterate for everybody: They're the SAME THING. Go for a PC and install an illegal copy of Mac OS X (yes, you can do that) if you want the best "bang for your buck". Or hit up Psystar for one of their computers before Apple sues them into the ground for "daring" to offer MacOS installed on the PCs they sell.

Ten years ago this would have been a different story. You have no idea how bad I wish Apple would switch back to their old PPC processors and ditch intel. If they do that, I'll say Apple computers in any situation. But until they do that, they've lost any hardware advantage they've had over PCs.

 

[Village Idiot]

Here's my $0.02 as far as computers go ... coming from a long-time computer geek.

There is absolutely no difference between "Mac" and "PC" now aside from what operating system is associated with what product. Ten years ago when Apple was using PPC processors, Apple was lightyears ahead of Intel. But now they've adopted Intel and eliminated that advantage. You're paying for the OS and the name when you buy a Mac. You solve that by putting Mac OS X on a PC.

Yup...some one need's to take this guy's shrooms away.

Apple ditched the PPC because of the advantage that intel had. Their G5 notebook design was a monster because of the room needed for the chip. If they were lightyears ahead, it would have been stupid to ditch a superior design for a lesser technology.

 

[johnj2803]

i would get the lens period!

what computer are you using for editing now? cant you use it for the meantime instead?

skills + good lens = good photo ; but skills>equipment for good photo!

 

[Dao]

From what I read, Apple turn to Intel simply because the X86 platform has a stronger road map. It maybe good back then, but the direction where Intel processor heading is a lot stronger than the PPC.

 

[yoballer914]

Here's my $0.02 as far as computers go ... coming from a long-time computer geek.

There is absolutely no difference between "Mac" and "PC" now aside from what operating system is associated with what product. Ten years ago when Apple was using PPC processors, Apple was lightyears ahead of Intel. But now they've adopted Intel and eliminated that advantage. You're paying for the OS and the name when you buy a Mac. You solve that by putting Mac OS X on a PC.

Photoshop is available for Windows, too.

If you're REALLY on a budget, can't afford photoshop, etc. Buy a $500 desktop PC with a decent video card. Put Ubuntu Studio on it and be done with it. You'll have GIMP (similar to Photoshop), Inkscape (similar to Illustrator), Blender, etc on a Linux-based operating system which matches the stability of Mac OS X. All the software I just mentioned is FREE. The thing is the learning curve associated with switching to a new platform. Actually, I just remembered. Dell sells PCs with Ubuntu already installed - the original, not the Studio release. The only difference is you'd just need to download the (free) software yourself.

I use GIMP with the UFRAW plugin to process raw images. On a laptop from 2006 that matches speed with today's netbooks. I don't use windows, I use Arch Linux. It's not for beginners to Linux, but it's fine. Most of your "need" for a top of the line computer isn't real unless you're doing high-end video editing, 3D modeling, massive calculations, CAD, or if you just like playing the newest video games.

Remember, I'm a computer geek. Not someone that listens to whatever the salesman at the Apple store says.

ONE DOWNSIDE TO GIMP: No native CMYK support yet. You'll need to find a plugin for it.

I'm not trying to be all preachy about Linux, not at all. I'm just trying to say you don't need a $2000 Macbook Pro to edit photos.

+1
I agree, but i definatly see the whole Mac status symbol playout every day. Tons of mac users primarly use their 2000$ mac to run MS Office, surf the web, and listen to music. no one needs to spend 2000$ for that.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I am always amazed by the kind of arguments I read pro-con Mac/Windows. Reading some of the posts makes me wonder if people have money to throw out the window.

Unless you have all the money in the world, when you buy a computer, you are buying into a system. Would you buy $3000 worth of Nikon lenses today and buy a Canon body tomorrow? Probably not and it is the same with computers. Buy a Mac laptop top today and a Windows desktop tomorrow, and you have to buy the same software twice as most of it does not come for either/or platform in the same box.

That said, I totally agree with the idea not to get a laptop unless you actually need it. Most laptops never leave the desktop (kinda like most 4x4s never leave the paved roads, lol) or, at the very least, never need to so what's the point? The only advantage of the laptop is the portability which, by the way, is also their worse quality as they tend to get in all kind of mishaps with clumsy owners... Not to mention they are most expensive with fewer possibilities in the long run.

Some people have mentioned the great idea of getting a Windows machine and run the Mac OS on it. Beautiful! First, they forget to mention that not all Windows machines can do it and those that do need mods. From what I understand so does the OS and, that brings me to second: I guess they don't follow the news. Psystar lost its suit and is out of business. No to get into too much details, but the ruling was that the Mac OS has to be used on Mac machines because it cannot be modified by anyone.

So good luck to you finding help with your Mac OS running on a Windows machine if you run into any kind of problem.

I run Macs myself for different reasons that don't really matter frankly. You need to do your research and make up your own mind and, unfortunately, this is one of your steps in that direction. But I'm surprised at how most people don't even know the systems they run.

Yes, I'm surprised not one Mac person told you that the newest iMacs use IPS technology which is actually very important for photo work. Now, price a windows desktop with an IPS monitor and let me know which is cheaper.


As for the lenses vs computer purchase, yes, you need good glass but you also need a good darkroom which is all a computer is. So unless you intend to pay someone to do your darkroom work, which could get expensive if you get someone who knows what they are doing, then yes you need a computer. And if you are not making a bunch of money from your photography you probably want to do your own PP work.

 

[Village Idiot]

I am always amazed by the kind of arguments I read pro-con Mac/Windows. Reading some of the posts makes me wonder if people have money to throw out the window.

Unless you have all the money in the world, when you buy a computer, you are buying into a system. Would you buy $3000 worth of Nikon lenses today and buy a Canon body tomorrow? Probably not and it is the same with computers. Buy a Mac laptop top today and a Windows desktop tomorrow, and you have to buy the same software twice as most of it does not come for either/or platform in the same box.

Really? Because last time I checked, I have Windows 7 on my MBP which sits on a stand and is connected to my 30" monitor along with my gaming rig. So I can run anything that requires Windows on it if I have to. But then again I also have PCs in the house running Windows Home Server, XP, Vista, and flavors o' Linux. Kind of makes your camera comparison moot.

 

[inTempus]

I agree with VI, the best thing that ever happened to Mac was their adoption of the Intel chips.

There is some truth to the comment that Mac's at one time used a superior RISC based processor (reduced instruction set computing) vs. the x86 CISC (complex instruction set computing) processor. The RISC processors were faster and more efficient than their x86 counterparts. RISC based processors had several architectural improvements like pipelining, scalar execution and out of order execution which enabled the processors to perform significantly better than any CISC processors of the era.

Then a company called NextGen came along (in th 1990's) and introduced a processor that incorporated a translator that allowed x86 instructions to be run with a RISC core. This revolutionized processors and to this day all Intel chips incorporate similar technology. This effectively took away the only real technological lead RISC processors had over CISC processors.

PPC/RISC died as IBM and Motorola simply couldn't keep up with the advances Intel was making in their processors. Mac's were being held back by the fact they weren't running Intel chips. So, their decision to make a deal with Intel was brilliant as it pumped new life into the company. Now you see Mac sales actually beating out PC sales in a a few market segments... something they haven't done for many-many years.

 

[o hey tyler]

Macbook Pro? More like MACBOOKS BLOW! AMIRITE?

Don't get the Mac. Lenovo laptops have good screens and they're not as lame looking as a Mac. Just never use Vista. Ever. Focus on lenses, you can post process on a budget. Trust me.

 

[inTempus]

Macbook Pro? More like MACBOOKS BLOW! AMIRITE?

It's these types of highly intellectual comments we could do without in threads.

 

[Mtalicarox]

You can get a high end PC.. the only advantage a mac has over a PC in image editing(Or so i was told by a professor back in college) is that a mac stores a little more of the camera data used to take picture.. and can then help make adjustments because it knows more of the parameters that were made to shoot it. you can do the same with a PC that you can with a MAC.. and for cheaper too. with better components and easier upgrades. there's a reason PC hold's 93% market share of computers out there.. MAC only has a measly 6%.... there's a reason for that.

ps - you can get the same computer power of a macbook pro - but for much cheaper from a PC.

I am a PC fan boy - but I don't hate on it. I'm just letting you know that budget wise theres a more viable budget friendly device than a mac book pro. PC with the right components will destroy a mac book pro any day.. i built my own PC beast for less than 1200 bucks. PC vista - have had 0 problems with it. if you know what you're doing with a PC you can avoid all the security issues.. and the only reason Mac's dont have security issues is because no one bothers to wriet virus's for something that would affect so little amount of people. there are plenty of issues you don't hear about with MAC's because so few peopel own them - that its not worth publicizing... if there werent issues forums such as mac-help.com wouldn't exist. don't believe all the hype about mac's. they are good.. and they are way over priced.. a PC is a mroe budget friendly just as powerful (if not more)option. also - you can upgrade a PC to a better component then a mac.. for example - for my friend to upgrade to a quad core processor for a mac (himself installing it too - just the quad cores) was $1200. When I did the same on my PC - 650.. i think 700 after shipping + extra warranty.

 

[inTempus]

You can get a high end PC.. the only advantage a mac has over a PC in image editing(Or so i was told by a professor back in college) is that a mac stores a little more of the camera data used to take picture.. and can then help make adjustments because it knows more of the parameters that were made to shoot it.

I don't believe this is true. A RAW file is a RAW file. The only thing that changes is the software that interprets the data, and I'm not talking about the OS. Things like Lightroom, Photoshop, DPP, etc.

and the only reason Mac's dont have security issues is because no one bothers to wriet virus's for something that would affect so little amount of people.

It's one reason, certainly. However, OSX runs on a form of UNIX which is inherently more secure. That's not to say it doesn't have it's own issues, because it does.

there are plenty of issues you don't hear about with MAC's because so few peopel own them - that its not worth publicizing...

Bologna. 9 out of 10 dollars spent on computers costing more than $1k went towards someone buying a Mac in 2009. That means people buying something more than a budget PC often times opt for a Mac instead. Yes, if you want cheap (less than $1k), buy a PC as most people do simply because Apple doesn't offer products at this price point by choice. They have positioned themselves as a highend computer manufacturer that targets a higher end consumer. Much like Lamborghini doesn't compete with Ford in the budget car market, right? It's all about market positioning.

Yes, if you build your own computers the only real option is to go PC. When I was younger I built my own computers because it was fun... and I was focused on gaming which required constant upgrades. Now that I'm a busy adult and my primary focus on computing isn't game playing, I would rather have a completed system delivered to my doorstep when I decide to upgrade. It's all a matter of preference.

I've been using home computers since my 1980's era Tandy TRS-80 (which is sitting here in my office). I used PC's and DOS/Windows for two decades. About 4 years ago I switched to Mac after they went with Intel chips. Speaking from personal experience, and decades of heavy personal computer use - I discovered OSX is vastly superior to Windows on so many fronts (for me of course).

It wasn't an easy switch for me, but once I took the time to learn what Mac's were all about, their technical elegance became apparent to me... after I spent years bashing them out of ignorance.

 

[Prometheus]

Here's my $0.02 as far as computers go ... coming from a long-time computer geek.

There is absolutely no difference between "Mac" and "PC" now aside from what operating system is associated with what product. Ten years ago when Apple was using PPC processors, Apple was lightyears ahead of Intel. But now they've adopted Intel and eliminated that advantage. You're paying for the OS and the name when you buy a Mac. You solve that by putting Mac OS X on a PC.

Yup...some one need's to take this guy's shrooms away.

Apple ditched the PPC because of the advantage that intel had. Their G5 notebook design was a monster because of the room needed for the chip. If they were lightyears ahead, it would have been stupid to ditch a superior design for a lesser technology.

ad hominem

You obviously don't understand the advantages of the RISC architecture versus the CISC architecture.

"OH! Apple switched to intel!"
That makes it less of a "scary different computer" and makes it sound a little bit friendlier for all the uneducated computer consumers. But it's still marketed as 'better than a PC'. Apple switched to a technologically inferior product for marketing purposes. And look at it - their popularity has exploded.

 

[Village Idiot]

Here's my $0.02 as far as computers go ... coming from a long-time computer geek.

There is absolutely no difference between "Mac" and "PC" now aside from what operating system is associated with what product. Ten years ago when Apple was using PPC processors, Apple was lightyears ahead of Intel. But now they've adopted Intel and eliminated that advantage. You're paying for the OS and the name when you buy a Mac. You solve that by putting Mac OS X on a PC.

Yup...some one need's to take this guy's shrooms away.

Apple ditched the PPC because of the advantage that intel had. Their G5 notebook design was a monster because of the room needed for the chip. If they were lightyears ahead, it would have been stupid to ditch a superior design for a lesser technology.

ad hominem

You obviously don't understand the advantages of the RISC architecture versus the CISC architecture.

"OH! Apple switched to intel!"
That makes it less of a "scary different computer" and makes it sound a little bit friendlier for all the uneducated computer consumers. But it's still marketed as 'better than a PC'. Apple switched to a technologically inferior product for marketing purposes. And look at it - their popularity has exploded.

Just one benchmark out of quite a few from Google listings. This is a quad core Mac Pro vs a Quad core Power mac.

Geek Patrol | Mac Pro Benchmarks

Plus with the heat that they put off, they couldn't very well stuff a G5 into a notebook.