X2d recommended laptop

[Plancton06]

I only work with photography, no intention to work with video editing / 3d. Also no games.
Only PS 2024, Lightroom, Phocus and occasionally AI enlargement such as Gigapixel. In short, pure photography workflow.

After recently getting the X2D, my I5 IMAC 5k (with SSD) is showing slow down when doing basic things with the large raw and 16 bit tiff files. It is the first time the computer feels slow.

Is there really any benefit to upgrading to a MacBook Pro with M2 or M3 pro or Max for a photography only workflow? It seems a fully loaded MacBook Air M2 will be more than enough, I would really like to have a light laptop + a good large external screen. It is possible to get both for the price of a loaded MacBook Pro (which is also a heavier laptop)

I don't plan to upgrade to a different camera / workflow in many years, therefore I am not so concerned in future proofing.
Is the screen in the air accurate enough? or perhaps the screen quality in the pro could br the main reason to use it for photography?
Thanks

 

[Dragon]

I only work with photography, no intention to work with video editing / 3d. Also no games.
Only PS 2024, Lightroom, Phocus and occasionally AI enlargement such as Gigapixel. In short, pure photography workflow.

After recently getting the X2D, my I5 IMAC 5k (with SSD) is showing slow down when doing basic things with the large raw and 16 bit tiff files. It is the first time the computer feels slow.

Is there really any benefit to upgrading to a MacBook Pro with M2 or M3 pro or Max for a photography only workflow? It seems a fully loaded MacBook Air M2 will be more than enough, I would really like to have a light laptop + a good large external screen. It is possible to get both for the price of a loaded MacBook Pro (which is also a heavier laptop)

I don't plan to upgrade to a different camera / workflow in many years, therefore I am not so concerned in future proofing.
Is the screen in the air accurate enough? or perhaps the screen quality in the pro could br the main reason to use it for photography?
Thanks

You left out some details such as how much RAM your I5 iMac 5k has and how much space you left on storage. If you plan to do GigaPixel, I don't think 8GB of RAM is enough. I would at least double the RAM or even better at a minimum 32GB. My current machine is 14" MacBook Pro M2 Max, 96GB of RAM and Phocus still show the beach ball sometimes (I think this is because Phocus code base is old some stuff are still done in a single process rather than using the multicores available).

[Whitten]

I have 16GB. No issues with raw files or Phocus, although I am processing X1DII raw files, not X2D.

[Plancton06]

The old Imac has 24gb of ram. Gigapixel won't be much needed any longer with the large files from the X2D. I will add that I am not just processing the files; my work in Photoshop can be quite heavy, making collages, often many layers and working at the same time in Indesign or Illustrator. The MacBook air can now be configured with 24gb ram

[tenmangu81]

For such processing, I would recommend a MacBook Pro rather than a MacBook Air. But, yes, the Pro's are heavier than the Air's. I have 32 GB of RAM in my MacBook Pro (M1).

[flash]

I'm still running my mostly maxxed out M1 max MBP and I expect it will last a few more years. I notice little to no difference between X1D, X2D and Some small format cameras I own. So, I still have some headroom. I'm on a 14" M1 Max with 64GB ram. I decided that I'd go the top chip and max ram (for the M1). Storage just depends on whether you're happy to hook up an external SSD or not. Even on my now 2 year old M1 MacBook Pro I can run two 32" 4K monitors, including a Wacom Cintiq and have zero slow downs. My M1 MacBook Pro has been all over the world with me and it's the best decision I've ever made for my processing.

LR and Photoshop are making more use of the graphics cores and ram as time goes on an I expect that to increase as newer tech like the blur tool and AI noise reduction are expanded on. You can't have too much of each, especially if you're using layers in Photoshop or the AI noise reduction in LR or DXO Pure RAW.

Macbook Pros are stupidly expensive, especially when you add ram and storage. But while I prefer Windows, I've yet to see any Windows laptop with the performance to battery life ratio of the MBP and the processing power doesn't fall off a cliff when you unplug them. How they don't have a touch screen in 2023 is mind boggling and the screens, although OK can't be hardware calibrated easily with current tools. I'd kill for a Surface Laptop Studio with the M3 chip.

If you can afford it, max the machine out as far as possible and then enjoy it for years.

Gordon

[Plancton06]

thanks, I understand the reasons to max out a MacBook Pro, it used to be the way to go for catching up with desktops, however, after doing hi end photo work with an almost 10 year old I5 iMac, it seems there is really no need any longer to max out laptops  for photo work. The point about AI in current and future versions of photoshop and LR might be the key exemption (but some of this is moving to be processed externally). Even an airM1 is already much faster than the I5. Tested today and convinced there is no need extra benefit with the pro/max to handle the x2d files, even working with layers. Maxed out air will be half the cost of the pro, by the time it feels slow with a new version of PS (unlikely) its possible to upgrade again.
What about screen quality ? there is a lot online but not a comparison useful for photography. pro motion and HDR aside, those not so important for photo work. I can not see much difference other than brightness in a quick test, while the iMac 5k screen seemed easier to calibrate

[Andy Miller Photo UK]

I only work with photography, no intention to work with video editing / 3d. Also no games.
Only PS 2024, Lightroom, Phocus and occasionally AI enlargement such as Gigapixel. In short, pure photography workflow.
After recently getting the X2D, my I5 IMAC 5k (with SSD) is showing slow down when doing basic things with the large raw and 16 bit tiff files. It is the first time the computer feels slow.
Is there really any benefit to upgrading to a MacBook Pro with M2 or M3 pro or Max for a photography only workflow? It seems a fully loaded MacBook Air M2 will be more than enough, I would really like to have a light laptop + a good large external screen. It is possible to get both for the price of a loaded MacBook Pro (which is also a heavier laptop)
I don't plan to upgrade to a different camera / workflow in many years, therefore I am not so concerned in future proofing.
Is the screen in the air accurate enough? or perhaps the screen quality in the pro could br the main reason to use it for photography? Thanks

Mobility -vs- desktop -- first and biggest choice -- I use a 16" MBP with the M2 Max chip in the field and it is ridiculous for ultra-high res VID let alone files from the X2D. I expect the M3 chip will be even better. My guidance for Apple "stuff" is to buy the Max unified RAM and the largest SSD. It is up to you if you want more cores/GPU you will not need them for stills, but will see a benefit when rendering videos in DVR18.

I also use a Mac Studio Ultra with M1 chip and while this is simply STUPID - I am irked that within 12 months Apple released an M2 version for the same price. That said this is by far the most powerful computer I have owned. The Ultra has 6 Thunderbolt ports and that is essential for me and my vast array of peripherals and storage. Whereas the M3 MBP 16" has only 3 (ok T4 ports) but this is a we bit restricting.

"Apple in October 2023 unveiled a refreshed 24-inch M3 iMac, an overhaul of the colorful desktop machine that first came out in 2021." This is a viable option for those who want to stay in this form factor. But again buy it fully loaded if you can -- the cost and inconveniience of upgrading later is a huge issue for me.

[tenmangu81]

What about screen quality ? there is a lot online but not a comparison useful for photography. pro motion and HDR aside, those not so important for photo work. I can not see much difference other than brightness in a quick test, while the iMac 5k screen seemed easier to calibrate

It depends upon what you intend to do with your images. If you want to print with some accuracy, you'll need to calibrate your screen, and the MacBook displays are a little bit reluctant to go to 5000-5500 K and 80-90 cd/m2. Otherwise, the colour space is DCI-P3, rather close and as large as Adobe RGB 1998.

[Plancton06]

yes, the workflow is Phocus - Photoshop - Large high-end prints up to 2m wide.

[flash]

thanks, I understand the reasons to max out a MacBook Pro, it used to be the way to go for catching up with desktops, however, after doing hi end photo work with an almost 10 year old I5 iMac, it seems there is really no need any longer to max out laptops  for photo work. The point about AI in current and future versions of photoshop and LR might be the key exemption (but some of this is moving to be processed externally). Even an airM1 is already much faster than the I5. Tested today and convinced there is no need extra benefit with the pro/max to handle the x2d files, even working with layers. Maxed out air will be half the cost of the pro, by the time it feels slow with a new version of PS (unlikely) its possible to upgrade again.
What about screen quality ? there is a lot online but not a comparison useful for photography. pro motion and HDR aside, those not so important for photo work. I can not see much difference other than brightness in a quick test, while the iMac 5k screen seemed easier to calibrate

The screens are OK but not sensational. They're actually pretty good out of the box. The real issue is they're nearly impossible to calibrate properly with hardware humans can afford. Most current consumer colorimeters don't work with mini-led. That kind of hardware is in the 15-20K range. You can either use the presets Apple provides or find a work around. They exist but they're all a PITA.

Having said that the screen is *good enough*. In the field you're not in a controlled environment any way so it doesn't matter. Back home I use a dock and much larger and better screens before I hit the print button. My workstation has a 32" Wacom Cintique and my printer has an Asus 32"Pro Art with a light shield. I really rate the Pro Art. It arrived with a hand calibration test chart and a delta of 1.3. After decades of paying too much for Eizos and NEC's the Pro Art is a joy. I only need to soft proof for exotic papers other wise the Asus is the best match I've ever had to my Epson 7900.

Since the M1 Mac I no longer have a separate desktop machine. I just use a Thunderbolt dock for the laptop. Again this made it easier to upgrade the laptop to a higher spec.

Gordon

[Franka]

Gordon. which Asus monitor are you using?  Thanks for your help. 

[flash]

Gordon. which Asus monitor are you using?  Thanks for your help.

https://www.asus.com/au/displays-desktops/monitors/proart/proart-display-pa329c/

Gordon

[Plancton06]

after days testing heavy PSD files in PS decided to go for refurb M1 air. 16gb ram. 1tb. Not even an m2.
In the field, there is nothing this light and cheaper laptop won't do. Phocus sliders are not super smooth to implement changes, but the same I see in an m2pro. As someone said before, it might be Phocus' old or inefficient code. It is fine, just not as immediate as Lightroom.
For me, working only with photography, the lighter weight objectively makes it a better laptop than the pro, as I get same the same speed and plan to use the x2d for many years. The price difference pays for a lens or a good monitor for print work. After m1, the light Macs have same performance of top of the line, at least in photography work.
Not needing too may ports, frankly getting something more powerful and heavier feels like wasting money

[Alex]

I look forward to hear how you get on with it within the field.