13" 2013 Macbook Pro screen resolution

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by masciam, Oct 30, 2013.

  1. masciam macrumors member

    Sep 15, 2011
    Hi everyone,
    I currently have a 2012 Macbook Air (256gb SSD/4gb RAM) and it's the perfect portable device for my needs (pretty much haven't used my iPad after getting the MBA), but I really enjoy photography and I find myself constantly wanting something more powerful for when I'm away from my desktop.

    When the new macbooks pro were announced I decided it was time to buy one and finally get the retina display. I was almost completing my order on the 13" one when I decided to read a little bit more about it and I noticed that even though it has really high pixel density, the resolution is equivalent to 1280x800 on a regular screen.

    This means I'd be getting even less area to work than I'm getting right now on my MBA which runs at 1440x900.

    So my question goes to retina MBP owners:

    Do you think running it at native resolution makes it too crowded when using lightroom/photoshop?
    I'm aware that you can change the display so it looks like 1440 x 900 or 1680 x 1050. Do things(graphics/fonts) still look sharp when scaled?

    I'm also considering getting the 15" now. Even though it's not as portable as the 13" it seems it might be best suited for me.

  2. jmthigpen macrumors regular

    Apr 18, 2011
    Charleston, SC
    The text is still razor sharp scaled on the 13". I usually run at 1680x1050 when doing something that requires the extra real estate (lightroom, video editing), and then when I just want to browse the web or watch a movie I change it back to 1280x800.
  3. KashmirGR macrumors newbie

    Jan 22, 2008
    Running at 1920x1200

    Using retina display manager, I played around with various settings. My preferred is in the title. If your eyes can stand the x1600 resolution, go for it.
  4. masciam thread starter macrumors member

    Sep 15, 2011
    Thank you for the replies!
    Don't the menus get too small @1680x1050? Do you think it's ok for lightroom?

    I tried to look for pictures of a 13" MBP running at that resolution but couldn't find any, and unfortunately I don't have an apple store near me to test it in person.
  5. Idarzoid macrumors 6502

    Mar 15, 2013
    If your MBA is the 13" model, you can download something like SwitchResX and set it to 1650x1050 (everything gets a bit fuzzy though) to get an idea of how it will look.
  6. Scott6666 macrumors 65816


    Feb 2, 2008
    From the Apple website tech specs say:

    Native resolution: 2560 by 1600 pixels (Retina);

    Why do you think it's running less? I've heard some stuff about pixel doubling. Is that what you are referencing?
  7. Raibyn macrumors regular


    Sep 24, 2013
    South Carolina
    It does not actually display at 2560 x 1600. The default resolution is 1280 x 800. If the screen resolution was set to 2560 x 1600 the icons and menus would be minuscule. What the higher pixel density does is make 1280 x 800, or 1440 x 900 look much more crisp and clear without reducing the size of icons and menus.
  8. skallal macrumors member

    Aug 24, 2012
    I am retiring my MBP 13 Pro because of too low resolution. 1280x800 just doesn't cut it. However I also don't want the retina display, not because of the resolution, but because I don't like non upgradeable systems. So I just found an MBP 15 Pro with the Hi-Res 168x1050 screen. Just got it on Craig's List still under Apple Care. You still find them on close out or as Apple refurbished. I maxed mine out at 16 GB RAM and I can still upgrade to an SSD later on.

    Just an option to consider...
  9. jmthigpen macrumors regular

    Apr 18, 2011
    Charleston, SC
    I used it for lightroom last night at 1680x1050, it's great, very responsive and the text is easily legible. Now I wouldn't keep it on 1680x1050 all the time since text is simply easier to read at native 1280x800. You just need to decide if you need Quad core, dGPU, 2" of extra screen real estate, and the ability to scale 1920x1200. The 13" is fast enough for photo editing, the only real slow downs come when you edit/convert video or play newer games.

Share This Page