A search of the FAQs didn't turn up anything on my topic so I have to make a new post:
I'm tired of lugging my heavy MacBookPro on photo trips; an iPad doesn't have enough capacity for the thousands of RAW images I shoot on such trips. I lust after a lightweight MacBookAir for this work but have two questions:
1. Past readings have hinted that MBAs can dramatically slow down the processing speed of Aperture 3.4. Is that so ? Since one can't upgrade a MBA post-purchase, what is the most powerful MBA one should buy initially to give both greatest storage capacity and fastest processing speed ?
2. My lusts also include a MBA with a Retina display but I don't think it's offered yet. Any insights as to “whether or when” such might be offered ? Although Retina does look better than “standard”, is it really that necessary for on-trip work, esp. when my late 2011 MBP for at-home use doesn't have it either ? Is Retina just a pretty thing or does it actually improve one's in-field photographic abilities (by showing better the results of your settings judgements in the field) or by improving one's editing work in post-processing ?
Thank you
Bob
Whitney
Thanks not only for your reply but also for the detail and the reasoning which informed your response. The aspects of the MBA you mention are important to me as a photographer so I’ll just have to keep my “lust” for a retina-enabled MBA on hold for a while longer.
If anyone else would like to put their nickel’s worth on the posting that would be appreciated as well.
Thank you
Bob
Bob S.
Bob
“We need defenses against the seductions of Elegance” Bertrand Russell
I think he was speaking solely of Apple
Cheers David
davidbmoore@mac.com
Twitter= @davidbmoore
Scottsdale AZ
Bob,
I have a MBA, 13”, 2 Ghz, i7 with 8 gb RAM, similar to Whitney’s. I wasn’t aware of the color issues until I tried calibrating it using Apple’s calibrator. I noticed that the screen angle plays a large role in accuracy. just a slight angle adjustment can change the settings dramatically. I also compared the Air’s color space to Adobe RGB, sRGB, and my printing paper. Whitney is right… much of the gamut is missing on the Air. However, the resolution is pretty darn good for a non-retina display.
I run Aperture and CS6, along with plugins by Photomatix, NIK, On ONE. I have had no issues with performance. In fact, these programs run faster than on my iMac i7. This is partly due to the SSD (256Gb). I take the Air on all my trips. I’m now in Mexico, and have uploaded several gigs of RAW images and movies into Aperture. It is wonderful to at least review my images and organize them into projects and albums. Once I get home, I export the library to my iMac, and transfer the images/movies since my library is referenced. There I do my final cull, adjustments, and printing.
I just love this setup. Sure, the retina display would be wonderful, but I couldn’t justify the extra expense and weight of the retina MBP. This Air is so nice, light, compact, and fast. And the battery life is more than adequate for my purposes. I just don’t feel I’ve compromised that much.
Phil in Midland
Bob, I purchased a MacBook Air to replace a 2008 MacBook Pro, then returned it for a retina MacBook Pro (rmbp) because the display wasn’t good enough, so let me give you my perspective.
From a performance point of view the MacBook Air was more than sufficient. I got the top end model: 2ghz processor with 8gb ram. Compared to my 2008 MacBook Pro, it flew. Geek bench number’s give you some insight: my 2008 MacBook Pro was about 3500; the Air about 7,500; and the rmbp about 12,000. The Air felt more than twice as fast as the old Pro, but the rmbp does not feel 50% faster than the Air. While its faster in raw computation, it’s equal if not a bit more sluggish in interface and responsiveness. You can tell the rmbp is pushing a lot of pixels and today’s graphics technology to its limit, if not beyond.
If the display was good enough, I would have kept the Air; it’s a great computer. The problem with the display isn’t the lack of retina, it’s the poor color reproduction and viewing angles. The Air can display only about 44% of the Adobe RGB color space. Your Pro and the rmbp can show around 70%. For photography, the difference is huge. The Air display was just not good enough to judge color, tonal response, or especially how highlights were rendering. We’re they all washed out with little tonal separation, or was that just the display? It was hard to say. By contrast, my 2008 Pro had a noticeably better display. The rmbp makes them both look like junk, but that’s down more to the IPS panel than the additional pixels. At least that’s how I see it.
The bottom line, the rmbp display is excellent, the 2008 Pro’s is acceptable, and the current Air’s falls just short of that.
Apple’s transitioning all of their products to retina displays. The limiting factor for when the Air gets it is battery tech and power consumption, not the display itself. If Apple can produce a retina Air this year with acceptable battery life, then we’ll likely see it this summer. If not, next year.