Macbook Air 13" vs Macbook Pro Retina 13"

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm in the market for a new laptop and was considering the MBA 13 but then along came the MBPr 13 and now I'm not sure any longer (btw I am certain I don't want bigger or smaller than 13").

 

In addition to ordinary computer tasks (reading, writing, surfing, watching movies), I'd be using it for editing in Photoshop.

 

If anyone else is in a similar situation it would be helpful to me to know how you have reasoned in choosing one over the other?

 

Thanks in advance

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[iedei]

I'm in the market for a new laptop and was considering the MBA 13 but then along came the MBPr 13 and now I'm not sure any longer (btw I am certain I don't want bigger or smaller than 13").

 

In addition to ordinary computer tasks (reading, writing, surfing, watching movies), I'd be using it for editing in Photoshop.

 

If anyone else is in a similar situation it would be helpful to me to know how you have reasoned in choosing one over the other?

 

Thanks in advance

 

i have a Macbook Air 11" and a Macbook Pro 13" (non-retina). I find that my small Macbook air is, in general, much quicker than my Macbook Pro 13". I think the Air is THE best laptop package around these days.

 

That being said, the Air has limited hard drive space----so an external HD would be required if you are going to save lots of files. One should keep an external drive anyways. For reading, writing, surfing, watching films....the Macbook Air is perfect. Light, fast, and VERY nice to travel with.

 

I kept a Macbook Pro for studio purposes as when i was recording with my band----i needed the extra RAM and heavy application speed. The Air isn't good for things like that....

[pico]

I use the MacBook Air 13" (model: MacBookAir3,2) with 4gb RAM and it is just fine for Photoshop (CS 5.1) on any file I get from the M9, even when many layers are used.

 

If you use an extended CS 6 and use its special features, then look to Adobe's site for recommendations - Adobe is moving some functions to the video processor so that part becomes an important consideration.

[jaapv]

The only real limitations of the Air ( I have the 11") are the limited storage and average battery endurance of about 4 hours. So I use a small external 1/2 Tb external disk and a recharging battery for three to four charges.

[JanaStein]

I have Macbook Air 13" that I use all the time, run many Adobe software on it usually without any problem. If you plan to run large Photoshop files with many layers on it ( over 100 mb), that could be an issue. But for the rest it is fine. I take it everywhere with me, watch movies on it etc. I also have a Macbook Pro 15" that I found too heavy to carry with me on flights or anywhere, so it sits at home, and gets used less often. My son has a new Macbook Pro 15" with retina display, it is much thinner and lighter, and bloody fast for anything, you can get it really loaded, so I would possibly consider that one. Anyway, all 3 are good and good luck to you.

Jana

[sps]

I found my MBA to be a little slow compared to the bigger machines. It is definitely faster than the non-retina MBP 13", but this is due to the flash memory, not the processor, which is actually slower. The non-retina 13" also has a screen inferior to the MBA.

 

Now the retina MBP- I changed my MBA for a 15" Retina MBP recently. It was a major upgrade in computing power, and being all-flash also is much speedier than the MBA (although Apple has done a great job making the computing experience similar across all current models). The display is significantly improved, with better off-axis color fidelity, higher resolution, etc.

 

I haven't used the 13" retina display (I doubt many have), but you can upgrade it to be most of what the 15" is (albeit with a dual core processor), 750MB of flash hard drive, and a larger cache. Of course if the retina display in it is anywhere near the 15" display, it will be superb.

 

The only downside is that it weighs 1/2 pound more than the MBA. But in perspective, 3.5 pounds for that power doesn't seem bad.

 

If you can find an Apple store, you can try them side-by-side and see which you prefer. For my money, I'd take the 13" RMBP.

 

Hope this helps.

[lanetomlane]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I bought a 15" MacBook Pro Retina on Sunday and am highly delighted with it. I've loaded Photoshop 5 and Lightroom 4 and whilst the programs open up really fast I haven't yet had chance to use it for any heavy editing.

 

My original MacBook Pro developed a 'flickering' screen problem in mid September and I paid £411 to have a new graphics board fitted. On return I noticed the screen flicked ever so slightly and so Apple said it needed a new screen costing over £300. In view of the previous repair they gave me a big discount on any laptop I wanted which I thought was very good customer service.

 

I was undecided whether to go 13" or 15" (the 13" is a lovely size) but as I wanted it for photo editing decided on the larger one.

_________________________

Regards, Tom

[colonel]

My macbook pro might be my last apple laptop

 

The macbook retinas (13" and 15") are in fact macbook airs

i.e. all the components are soldered and nothing can be upgraded

since the max RAM is 8gb, no thank you for editing photos

 

Apple want you to throw away and replace your laptop every 1 or 2 years, I'm not playing that game, not that I even could for a device with such a high screen resolution but less then 16gb RAM

 

back to Samsung, Asus or Dell next time ...

[sps]

Colonel-

 

The hard drives are upgradable (OWC makes kits), but the RAM isn't. 8MB was sufficient on my last gen MBA to run any photo editing software with large DNG photo's. I never tried the 4MB version.

 

On the 15" RMBP I have 16MB of RAM, which should suit me just fine. I am right now running Lightroom with a large catalog open, transferring large video files on a thunderbolt port, and have two external 27" monitors running. The computer hasn't slowed down a bit.

 

I think this little laptop could last me for at least 5 years. No Dell or Thinkpad ever did that for me; and they certainly weren't as low maintenance.

 

Oh well.... different strokes.

[colonel]

Colonel-

 

The hard drives are upgradable (OWC makes kits), but the RAM isn't. 8MB was sufficient on my last gen MBA to run any photo editing software with large DNG photo's. I never tried the 4MB version.

 

On the 15" RMBP I have 16MB of RAM, which should suit me just fine. I am right now running Lightroom with a large catalog open, transferring large video files on a thunderbolt port, and have two external 27" monitors running. The computer hasn't slowed down a bit.

 

I think this little laptop could last me for at least 5 years. No Dell or Thinkpad ever did that for me; and they certainly weren't as low maintenance.

 

Oh well.... different strokes.

 

You have a lovely laptop

However it the most expensive laptop in the world (well perhaps ...) and apart from the display has a terribly low spec for the price, eg no blu ray, no 32gb memory, mid intel CPU, no 4tb hard disk, etc

 

I hope you do get 5 years out of it. At that price you should ...

[wattsy]

has a terribly low spec for the price, eg no blu ray, no 32gb memory, mid intel CPU, no 4tb hard disk, etc

 

Blah blah. You make it sound like it's all about the spec rather than what you can do with it.

[philipus]

Blah blah. You make it sound like it's all about the spec rather than what you can do with it.

 

I'm sure you didn't intend that to sound as it does

 

I read Harold's comment and could relate a bit. I used to have several Dell Inspiron many years ago. I still have one of them and use it whenever I need to access certain software. It was incredibly powerful for its day, with an amazing screen that also had very high resolution, 1600x1200. This is over ten years ago and it is pretty crazy it has taken so long for Apple to offer high resolutions. But now they do, and then some.

 

Still, and as much as I know that there are PC manufacturers out there that offer more for the money, I am inclined to stick with Mac. It fits with my other equipment and I am by now very used to it. When I used to be a gamer (as amazing as that may sound) things were different, that is certain However, now I'm happy if the computer will run Photoshop well.

 

And that is where it will be very interesting to see how the 13" MBPR stacks up against the 13" MBA. I haven't seen any Geekbench scores yet. As flawed as they are they do give an indication.

 

I have considered the 11" MBA and have played with my wife's but I find the screen too small. In a way I think I'd be happy with either the 13" MBA or the 13" MBPR. I used to run Lion and CS4 on a Macbook late 2008 (you know, the first aluminium unibody) with 4GB RAM and that worked quite well, though I did have an SSD in it. So chances are I'd be fine with either. But I'm not sure.

[jaapv]

You have a lovely laptop

However it the most expensive laptop in the world (well perhaps ...) and apart from the display has a terribly low spec for the price, eg no blu ray, no 32gb memory, mid intel CPU, no 4tb hard disk, etc

 

I hope you do get 5 years out of it. At that price you should ...

You make it sound like Nikon fans describing a Leica M....

[colonel]

You make it sound like Nikon fans describing a Leica M....

 

thank you

 

the analogy between computers and cameras I'm afraid does not stand

 

for computers you want as much memory, storage and speed as you can get.

there is no connection to cameras

 

for computers it is all about spec., sorry. and it always will be

 

the Leica is preferable to a Nikon for many reasons

one computer, otherwise identical to another with more memory is preferable

 

I invested in Apple. I have a iMac, macbook, ipads, iphones, etc.

now I feel like Apple is going in the wrong direction

the new iMac is all soldered, so is the mac mini and the retina laptops are just a trojan horse to slip in non-upgradeability

 

the only apple left that is upgradeable is the Mac Pro, which is hopelessly out of date. you cant even attach a thunderbolt screen

 

Windows 7 (and 8) are just as good as OsX. In some respects better, and the applications available are much much more extensive then apple

 

Apple's refusal to allow things such as bluray show the beginning of the arrogance which will eventually damage the company

 

Sorry, Apple is overpriced and selling on style alone now, and it won't last forever

[wattsy]

I haven't seen any Geekbench scores yet. As flawed as they are they do give an indication.

 

Maybe but it's called geekbench for a reason.

 

My genuine advice is not to get hung up on the numbers. Any Mac (and, I'd imagine, PC) sold in the last few years can be used for serious work. For years I have done all my graphic design and photography work on a variety of MacBooks, MacBook Pros, Mac Minis and, more recently, the MacBook Air. I just connect them up to a decent monitor and start working.

[philipus]

Maybe but it's called geekbench for a reason.

 

My genuine advice is not to get hung up on the numbers.

 

I agree Ian. Numbers tell only part of the story. Though for computers numbers matter more than they do for cameras (though I know we're now in a situation of "differences in degree" rather than "differences in kind").

 

Anyway, what is interesting with Geekbench - and I say this knowing that there are heaps of other software suites to test computer performance - is that it is usually a "good enough" comparison. Moreover, the fact that there is also a lot of information in Primate Labs's database on how various computer models perform helps when comparing models.

 

Still it is but one benchmark, of course.

 

To me it is a bit relevant though. As noted, I used to have a Macbook (late 2008) and I have a Mac Pro early 2008. I'm very familiar with how these perform during post-processing. If I get a number from Geekbench about another model I can therefore form a pretty good opinion about that model's performance.

 

I did closer comparison of specs on Apple's site. Below are the models I am considering. I should add that I know 128GB storage is not big but I have many TB of storage on my Mac Pro so the laptop won't be the primary storage, far from it. In addition I have external drives I can also bring if necessary.

 

Have a look (I'm ignoring ports because that matters less to me):

 

Macbook Air 13" - €1372 (with 8GB)

1440x900

128GB

1.8GHz i5 with boost to 2.8GHz

3MB L3 cache

8 GB 1600-MHz DDR3L

Intel HD Graphics 4000

Ability to run one external screen at 2560x1600

7h battery

 

Macbook Pro Retina 13" - 1779€ (base model includes 8GB)

2560 x 1600

128GB

2,5-GHz i5 with boost to 3.1 GHz

3 MB L3 cache

8 GB 1600-MHz DDR3L

Intel HD Graphics 4000

Ability to run two external screens at 2560x1600

7h battery

 

For 400€ I get higher resolution and a stronger dual-core i5 plus the ability to run two externals.

 

I only have one external - a 23" ACD - currently hooked to my Mac Pro so I don't need the ability to run two screens.

 

It comes down to the extra weight of the Retina vis-a-vis the processor's performance vis-a-vis the extra 400€.

 

Photoshop is processor-intensive for certain tasks, like applying filters. For many tasks the RAM is what counts. And using SSDs.

 

Here Geekbench becomes a bit relevant (to me). The 1.8 i5 processor is the I5-3427U and a 13" MBA with this processor scores just over 6600 on Geekbench.

 

My 8-core 2.8 Xeon Mac Pro scores around 10700.

 

Seems like a big difference. But then one should consider that my old Macbook only hit just over 3600. With the SSD I had on that computer I was quite satisfied.

 

Now for the interesting bit. The 13" Retina scores around 7200.

 

That is not a big difference to the 13" MBA and I doubt I would see much difference in Photoshop. So, because I don't need the extra monitor capacity, and since I am quite content with 1920x1600 on my 23" ACD, I feel certain I will be happy with the 13" MBA. And I'll get the lightest computer possible for the performance and save 400€.

 

Again, big thanks for all your comments and assistance in helping me come to this decision.

 

Cheers

[Piewacket]

I have an older MBP with a matt display which I had to special order. I recently talked to an Apple guy and understand that matt displays are no longer an option. Since most of what I edit is for publication I am very concerned about that. As pretty as the retna display is, I am concerned that it (or the glossy screen on a MBA) does not offer an accurate representation of how the image will look when it is printed... ?

 

I have the iphone 5with retna and there is a big difference from phone to my current MBP, which is very accurate. If you are only editing for web use, I guess it does not matter.

 

I am just praying my MBP holds out forever...

[jaapv]

That is of course a problem. Glossy displays are basically very useful to graphic designers, but for photographic work I must agree with you that matte seems to be more suitable.

It makes sense, unless you need to carry your workplace with you, to use a Mac Mini or Macpro with a screen or screens of your choice for serious work and reserve the Macbook for quick edits on the run.

I find my (little) Macbook Air makes the images look more punchy than they are on my Eizos.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeffry Abt]

I use a "Macbook Air 11", when I travel doing college sports. It is a nifty little computer- all I need when I'm on the go. I use a MacPro when I'm at home. The "MacPro" is now in need of up grading.The "Air" is faster on all fronts, it just does not have the storage capabilities.

 

If I were to be confined to just one computer...... Macbook Pro Retina 13" is what I would buy. Get all the "Flash Storage" you can afford!

[philipus]

I simply don't understand why Apple doesn't offer more BTO options with matte screens.

 

I had the possibility of comparing my old Macbook, which had a very glossy screen, with the screen on my wife's 11" MBA and there is a striking difference in glare between them. The MBA, though glossy, is perfectly useful also in bright indoors situations.

 

As for calibration, unless I am totally mistaken, it is perfectly possible to calibrate also glossy(ier) screens.

 

For any serious editing, however, I will use my (matte) ACD which is a wonderful screen.