• Did you order new AirTags? We've opened a dedicated AirTags forum.

peterb69

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 14, 2008
46
0
I'm buying from Best Buy as there is a sale going on now, thus I can not build it myself. I would love to get the 512GB retina, but it is too expensive.

So, these 2 models are the same price. The non retina has a 2.6GHz processer and 750 GB hard drive. The retina has only a 2.3GHz processor and only a 256GB drive, but it is SSD. Plus the retina display. Other then that, I believe the specs are pretty much the same.

I use Photoshop CS5/6, Lightroom 4, and Microsoft Office for Mac. I do also have NIK pluggins.

So for same price, I'm I better getting the non retina or retina 15" Macbook Pro.

ps. I do not have an external monitor and do all my work flow presently on a 2009 calibrated 15" macbook pro. Hobbyist photographer
 

squeeks

macrumors 68040
Jun 19, 2007
3,392
15
Florida
if you're going to pay that price either way, and you think you will be happy with only 256gb of HD space get the retnia, that however was the reason i DIDNT get the retina, as i'd like to upgrade my HD before the entire machine.

BTW dont let the 2.3 or 2.6 CPU be a deciding factor, you will not notice the difference.
 
Comment

leman

macrumors G5
Oct 14, 2008
13,164
8,705
The faster CPU will save you 2-3% (at most) on filter application in photoshop. I don't know if its such a big factor. Bigger disk is a good thing of course, but the retina's SSD is extremely fast. Overall, the retina will 'feel' much quicker because of the SSD.

In addition, retina has a brilliant display (you'll have to wait for Photoshop updates though) and is significantly lighter.

I'd take the retina. But then again, I am not a photographer ;)
 
Comment

mohsy90

macrumors 65816
Feb 4, 2011
1,332
1
New York
Yeah, go for the retina. Newer product, better display, thinner and lighter.

SSD will compensate for the slower processor speed, though you probably wouldn't even notice it. And you can always use a external HD if you need the extra space.
 
Comment

peterb69

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 14, 2008
46
0
Yes, I am leaning towards the 2.3GHz as I will store my images on external drives.
 
Comment

Tibits

macrumors 6502
Feb 23, 2011
326
140
Yes, I am leaning towards the 2.3GHz as I will store my images on external drives.

Good choice. Even with the 512 you would need an external drive before long. RAW takes up a lot of space.
 
Comment

ecnal

macrumors newbie
Jun 13, 2012
12
0
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if you went the 256 ssd, and it filled up a bit from storage etc- your scratch disks in photoshop would suffer and you may need to keep attached a larger hdd and nominate them as your scratch disks.
 
Comment

msdarkroom

macrumors member
Jul 5, 2012
40
0
For photography the SSD will be a big speed factor. SSD speeds crush the old spinning drives. An SSD with an external drive to archive your work is a great idea.


That being said, I believe that none of the programs you list are currently compatible with or upgraded for the retina display. From what I've seen on other sites, PS and LR are essentially unusable for image editing on a retina MBP.

Hopefully I'm wrong and somebody corrects me.


-MS
 
Comment

keviikev

macrumors member
Jul 13, 2010
74
0
Retina all the way!!!!

Color is accurate on retina and 1900 by 1200 is great for pictures. Extra screen space and color accuracy make me a happy customer. Calibrated the Retina with Spyder Pro and Color LCD is similar to calibrated color.


Recent picture taken

7377582790_81726135bb_b.jpg
 
Comment

Greg M

macrumors 6502
Jul 13, 2008
341
35
if you're going to pay that price either way, and you think you will be happy with only 256gb of HD space get the retnia, that however was the reason i DIDNT get the retina, as i'd like to upgrade my HD before the entire machine.

BTW dont let the 2.3 or 2.6 CPU be a deciding factor, you will not notice the difference.

The SSD in the Retina is upgradeable. In the not too distance future you'll be able to upgrade it. Will be expensive at first but the price will come down.
 
Comment

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,920
3,227
Retina all the way!!!!

Color is accurate on retina and 1900 by 1200 is great for pictures. Extra screen space and color accuracy make me a happy customer. Calibrated the Retina with Spyder Pro and Color LCD is similar to calibrated color.


Recent picture taken

I still have yet to see anyone do in depth testing on this. It's more like ran third party software with mass produced puck under whatever conditions. Things look pretty and shiny. That isn't a real test:p. If it's accomplishing work, it's still fine though.



I just want to mention that while they can be plugged in, expect it to be an expensive solution. OWC had them last time. Opinions on them vary, but having to develop something specific to people who want to update a single machine or machine line means that they may be expensive given the need to absorb R&D costs on limited volume.
 
Comment

keviikev

macrumors member
Jul 13, 2010
74
0
^^^^^^^

Prints like it looks on retina screen which all I want;) No scientific test needed I want color accuracy and I have gotten it with Retina.
 
Comment

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,920
3,227
^^^^^^^

Prints like it looks on retina screen which all I want
;) No scientific test needed I want color accuracy and I have gotten it with Retina.

That is what is important, and it's something no one else has mentioned. You had another point of reference. We could all talk about the potential for metamerism based on lighting conditions, but for the most part I was just looking for something beyond the software says it's good, as displays can look good while still being misleading.
 
Comment

ntrigue

macrumors 68040
Jul 30, 2007
3,805
2
No photographer/designer should make a purchase outside of the Retina MBPro at this time.
 
Comment

Fortimir

macrumors 6502a
Sep 5, 2007
629
332
Indianapolis, IN
I still have yet to see anyone do in depth testing on this. It's more like ran third party software with mass produced puck under whatever conditions.

The specs on the color gamut aren't a secret. It's marginally smaller than the previous MacBook Pro, but closer to sRGB. Accuracy out of the box is pretty good... a tad bit too much contrast though.

All my output is in sRGB, so that's all that matters to me. My apps work in ProPhoto and AdobeRGB... and that's great, but I don't need to *see* those spaces.
 
Comment

doug in albq

Suspended
Oct 12, 2007
1,449
244
Retina all the way!!!!

Color is accurate on retina and 1900 by 1200 is great for pictures. Extra screen space and color accuracy make me a happy customer. Calibrated the Retina with Spyder Pro and Color LCD is similar to calibrated color.


Recent picture taken

Image

Great shot!

Any post production on that image?
HDR?
Hand held or tripod?
 
Comment

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,920
3,227
The specs on the color gamut aren't a secret. It's marginally smaller than the previous MacBook Pro, but closer to sRGB. Accuracy out of the box is pretty good... a tad bit too much contrast though.

All my output is in sRGB, so that's all that matters to me. My apps work in ProPhoto and AdobeRGB... and that's great, but I don't need to *see* those spaces.

Small or large really doesn't matter as much as people think. Stable, warms up quickly, can be profiled/calibrated to consistent results, doesn't have noisy circuits that cause swimming, doesn't have "noticeable" dithering, etc. These are things that make a difference. Like I said, that the other guy could get a decent print match is a good sign. I still don't care whether they label it Adobe RGB or sRGB. If it holds it holds its profile well, that is much more valuable. You'd have to get pretty saturated before viewing would be problematic anyway. At that point if you're concerned about potential detail loss due to saturation, you can check individual channels. There's really nothing inherently unusable about an sRGB display by its nature. I've seen some very good ones built around this reference spec, and I've seen some bad ones. It's not how I'd set the goalposts. I'm just trying to say I don't go by raw specs when determining quality. They're too easy to manipulate. If it's providing you with predictable results, that is excellent. I was just cautioning against using the display as its own point of reference and assuming anything else to be invalid. All of you are making me want to try one out now.:mad: I don't so much need one. I just like testing things.
 
Comment

samh4life

macrumors newbie
Jul 5, 2012
16
0
if you're going to pay that price either way, and you think you will be happy with only 256gb of HD space get the retina, that however was the reason i DIDNT get the retina, as i'd like to upgrade my HD before the entire machine.

BTW dont let the 2.3 or 2.6 CPU be a deciding factor, you will not notice the difference.



Or you could've just bought a USB 3.0 or thunderbolt compatible external SSD which could potentially boost your storage up to limitless amounts.
 
Comment

ZacT94

macrumors regular
Jun 25, 2012
196
0
Retina all the way!!!!

Color is accurate on retina and 1900 by 1200 is great for pictures. Extra screen space and color accuracy make me a happy customer. Calibrated the Retina with Spyder Pro and Color LCD is similar to calibrated color.


Recent picture taken

Image
.
Woah the quality of that image is absolutely astounding. Now I'm even more certain about buying a Retina MBP.
 
Comment

Drag'nGT

macrumors 68000
Sep 20, 2008
1,754
28
I'm buying from Best Buy as there is a sale going on now, thus I can not build it myself. I would love to get the 512GB retina, but it is too expensive.

So, these 2 models are the same price. The non retina has a 2.6GHz processer and 750 GB hard drive. The retina has only a 2.3GHz processor and only a 256GB drive, but it is SSD. Plus the retina display. Other then that, I believe the specs are pretty much the same.

I use Photoshop CS5/6, Lightroom 4, and Microsoft Office for Mac. I do also have NIK pluggins.

So for same price, I'm I better getting the non retina or retina 15" Macbook Pro.

ps. I do not have an external monitor and do all my work flow presently on a 2009 calibrated 15" macbook pro. Hobbyist photographer

I'm in your boat. Have you considered the standard MBP with an ssd and the 750gb in the DVD drive? Or even two ssds in raid 0?

I really wish the retina was an option on the standard model. The rest of the time I plan to hook it to a 27" display.
 
Comment

maratus

macrumors 6502a
Jun 12, 2009
637
151
Canada
Here's my advice:

Once you go with SSD as an internal drive you'll never go back. It's as simple as that. That's why 750Gb HDD in cMBP shouldn't even be a decision factor. However a good 512Gb 2.5" SSD for less than 400$ is tempting. If you're not planning to do this upgrade for your cMBP straight, then go with 256Gb base rMBP.

Once you go with fast and huge external storage, you'll be tempted not to go back :D Regular internal drives today still top at 1TB for 9.5mm and 1.5TB for 12.5mm (though I've never seen the latter outside of HDD enclosure). Get a reliable 2x4Tb external RAID 1 enclosure (4Tb total) or something similar. You also can have aforementioned <400$ 512Gb SSD in a nice 2.5" USB 3.0 enclosure, very rugged portable setup.

Bottom line: I wouldn't store a big photo library on a single mechanical HDD that's mounted within a portable computer. So you must have an external drive regardless to fit them all, and here's the question - do you still need your entire library on your internal drive? Do you need a big part of it on your internal drive?
 
Comment

Panini

macrumors regular
Jun 12, 2012
204
0
Palo Alto, CA
The Retina model is primarily targeted at graphics and video designers. If it's not worth it for you, I don't know who it will be worth it for.

That being said, you don't want to have buyers remorse when CS6 with Retina support comes out and you're left out of the fun.

2.3 vs 2.6? No difference for you

256gb vs ____gb? The former is SSD. If you're getting an SSD in the legacy model (from apple) its price will end up being more than the retina, so why bother.

ODD? Do photographers even use these anymore?
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.