Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Hi Res photography-13" fast enough?
- Thread starter JPizzzle
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It will be able to do the trick. The question is whether it'll do it fast enough, which is up to you to decide.
I use a 2015 with Lightroom and it's fantastic. I do split my library so I keep some files locally to edit them and then when done move them to the NAS. Doing the edits of the files on the NAS is certainly possible, but it's obviously slower than if they're local.
I would be more concerned with storage space. For 80MB files I'd be going larger on the SSD to ensure that you're able to keep working with a higher number of files while local. I'm using 10MP RAW files which are far smaller than yours, so the performance degradation that I see while working off the NAS (connected via 802.11ac) will be far worse for you, all other things being equal (i.e., if you're pulling those 80MB files off a similarly connected NAS). If you're using an external HDD or have NAS with a faster connection (Gig E, TB3) then that issue will also be reduced.
I use a 2015 with Lightroom and it's fantastic. I do split my library so I keep some files locally to edit them and then when done move them to the NAS. Doing the edits of the files on the NAS is certainly possible, but it's obviously slower than if they're local.
I would be more concerned with storage space. For 80MB files I'd be going larger on the SSD to ensure that you're able to keep working with a higher number of files while local. I'm using 10MP RAW files which are far smaller than yours, so the performance degradation that I see while working off the NAS (connected via 802.11ac) will be far worse for you, all other things being equal (i.e., if you're pulling those 80MB files off a similarly connected NAS). If you're using an external HDD or have NAS with a faster connection (Gig E, TB3) then that issue will also be reduced.
Honestly, I use a 2015 base 13' 128gb as my workstation at home and have a 2016 non touch bar as my mobile setup; They work great! I used to use a 2015 MacBook with the m5 as my daily work driver until it had problems, so I had to take it back. I use a 7D Mark ii so my raw files are maybe around 30mb-40mb. I know its almost half the size of yours, but I experience no bogging or lags while in Lightroom, and from what photoshop I've used I didn't any major issues. Hope this helps! Let me know how you like that rx1r ii when you get it!
According to this test multiple cpus are not necessarily better for lightroom. when exporting files or creating previews you might benefit from a quadcore. In the develop module you might be better off having a high frequency on a single core. make sure to save the catalog on the internal drive and you should be good
Thanks everyone-I'm wondering if at these file sizes it's even worth getting the 1tb since it seems like it will fill quickly (im not a pro though). My local store has the max model but with the 512gb. I'm tempted to order the 1tb, but it's getting awfully close to 3k and about $500 away from the max 15" with 1tb.
I think this is honestly a job for real-world testing, just because Lightroom is such a finnicky program with performance. In my mind I'm thinking, of course those 13" will scream fast in Lr, but then I'm remembering all these beachball moments in my life in Lr, ha ha. I mean Photoshop proper? absolutely no problem, even for the lowest base model 13". But lightroom is a wacky resource hog sometimes.
Maybe buy one with conservative specs with the door open to returning it for a more costly machine if it chugs.
Maybe buy one with conservative specs with the door open to returning it for a more costly machine if it chugs.
My fans usually kick in when I'm viewing a bunch of RAW files off my SD card on Adobe Bridge and Camera Raw. Performance is not an issue, but I have discreet graphics and the files from my 24MP Sony camera are half the size. I don't think the 13" models will be ideal for editing those large image files, but they should have enough power to get the job done.
I would get the 512 and store your photos externally. This seems like the best portable 3.1 SSD for now. The 1TB price is still a little high compared to price of the 500GB drive. Others can probably help you with the best adapted 3.0 drives for the new MacBooks, which gives you more options.
The more space you have available on your main drive, the smoother your performance will be in the long run.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
i have a mid mid 2015 2.5GHZ 15" MacBook and it does fine with my D610 files. Some of the files i work with in CC 2017 are 1GB each, and i will have multiple files open at a time - however i am unsure how a 13" would perform. I am sure an SSD will help tremendously.
render smart previews and 1:1 previews and never wait for any pictures to load. I have stored all my fotos on an external hd with the catalog and all previews on my main drive. with lightroom you don't need to have the original files available in order to view them if you have the previews. storage space is a personal thing. I couldn't possibly get by with less than 1TB, others can. up to you
I would get 1TB on board. I have 1Tb in my 5k iMac, and around 20,000 photos, and it is half full. Once you start using external storage and you take your laptop somewhere, it's a pain. I would get an external hard drive for time machine backups though, and I recommend Backblaze to have a backup in the cloud.
I have the same camera i use on my 2013 13 MBP (maxed out config). I would rate performance at about 5/10. Its ok and it works, but there is a noticable time with any adjustment and you need to be patient (i use DXO optics 10 for edits). This is with compressed raw. You mention 80mb so i assume you are using uncompressed raw. Performance will be even worse
I dont expect the skylake chip to be a huge improvement. Maybe it goes up to 6/10. Its ok i guess, but nowhere near instant or fast.
Based on the performance im seeing, i will not settle for less than a quad core chip in my next MBP.
Just my 2c
p.s on the 24megapixel rx1r version 1 which i also owned before, its was great. So the megapixel inflation as time goes on does increase cpu load greatly.better to futureproof if you can.
P.p.s the rx1r mk ii is a superb camera (editing woes aside)
I dont expect the skylake chip to be a huge improvement. Maybe it goes up to 6/10. Its ok i guess, but nowhere near instant or fast.
Based on the performance im seeing, i will not settle for less than a quad core chip in my next MBP.
Just my 2c
p.s on the 24megapixel rx1r version 1 which i also owned before, its was great. So the megapixel inflation as time goes on does increase cpu load greatly.better to futureproof if you can.
P.p.s the rx1r mk ii is a superb camera (editing woes aside)
Since you have the same camera and a similar setup, this is probably the most helpful post for the OP. I occasionally use some HDR software that lags a bit when making adjustments. If Photoshop or Lightroom performed this way it would drive me nuts.
@jpizzle1127 it sounds like you should spring for a 15" model. You'll probably appreciate the extra screen real estate when editing, too.