Sorry, I think I mis-read your post, mis-interpreted it. And I love your source haha! So true. I think KGI Securities are the best source as they get it right the majority of the time, and I don't believe they have mentioned the MacBook Pro for a while?
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.
The next MacBook Pro redesign (merged)
- Thread starter nope7308
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Sorry, I think I mis-read your post, mis-interpreted it. And I love your source haha! So true. I think KGI Securities are the best source as they get it right the majority of the time, and I don't believe they have mentioned the MacBook Pro for a while?
Shed the Leica's you paid double for the name, get a Sony A7RII 42+ MP and has in camera stabilization, it is roughly same size as the Leica's and will do 4k video. if you mount a low profile lens, will slip right into a jacket pocket. It also can take other lenses. I think your Leica's or one of them is a fixed lens, I did not bother to check. However your 12" MB won't have the HP to deal with the files. And neither will the 13/14 rMBP (after a couple of yrs) assuming you really are doing some serious PP. If you aren't you don't need a camera with all that HP anyway. Just get a nice little point and shoot and Photoshop Elements.
I bought the D810 over a Sony around early 2014 as I have an arsenal of lenses for Nikon. X2 has fixed lens. It's not a very technical camera when it comes to sharpness vs movement. The picture quality is great though. Hair and skin shines on both Leicas. Nikon D810 is nice for action and movement, but won't beat the D4 in sports. I don't do much post, except for Nik package and colours, and if you are serious about post processing, get a dedicated operator. Norwegian law doesn't accept manipulated pictures in journalism. I have done work, both video and still, for NRK (state broadcaster of Norway) and all post is done by dedicated staff. The same goes for the publications I have submitted images to. Of course I can highlight colour space and the feel of the picture, but editors and desk have the final call.
During this year, I have owned a 2015 rMBP 15", 2014 rMBP 13" and a now I use my rMB 12". A computer I will hold unto until at least the rMBP gets updated. It may not have the horse power I want, but it has the horse power I need.
I have done blind testing with anything from phone cameras to 10k cameras. I am always surprised how people form a belief that a picture is good because of the camera and not the actual philosophy that goes into a frame by forming a superstition that a phone picture is taken with a more expensive camera. I don't care about the hardware as long as it gets the job done. Understanding available light is more important than technical mojo. I, like many others, have tantrums and obsessions with hardware, but I believe a drive and interest in people helps more than spending money on the latest and greatest of equipment. At least in photography.
MDull, what is your hardware, background and experience? I would really appreciate it if you asked me for my details rather than trying to force your "impressions" upon me. I have used Photoshop since version 4.0. Did a few years with Aperture, but then went back to PS as the application got pulled.
I also have a confession. I have used a Canon point and shoot camera in a campaign for a national event for a major client. Again, it was more about the production than the technical status. Good enough is often more important than perfect.
Last edited:
I think a main differentiating factor of the pro should continue to be a longer list of ports. Apple has been moving towards thinness and lightness so it's hard to guarantee that the '16 revision will retain all of the current ports.
I continue to see requests for USB-C and not Thunderbolt 3. Its unsettling to me because Thunderbolt 3's probably going to arrive in time for the MacBook Pro with Retina Display's update in which is would make no sense to mix Thunderbolt 3 and USB-C. It's like mixing USB 2 and USB 3 ports, its just confusing. Thunderbolt 3 is natively backwards-compatible with USB-C given they share the same port. Please stop asking for "2 USB-C ports and 2 Thunderbolt 3 ports," ask for 4 Thunderbolt 3 ports because any of them will accept USB-C or Thunderbolt 3 cables.
Which is pretty much what every PC maker and MOBO producer has been doing since USB 3 came out.
Ok - I never said anything about your D810 but you said you wanted a smaller lighter camera that would do just about everything, so I gave you one. The problem here I think is that you tried to say your 12" MB handled 100Mb raw files on a regular basis and I called BS on you. then you admitted to maybe 75mb raw files which again is an exaggeration- more like 50-65 mb Tiff files are a completely different matter they can get huge in a hurry but in your posts you never said anything about Tiff files until the last post. My whole point is that a 12" MB can't get the job done with really large files in post and you were saying the opposite. what you didn't say is that you do a little bit in post with your MB then turn it over to some one else to do the rest for you. I will guarantee that person is not working with a 12" MB as to you using a Canon point and shoot some great photos can be taken with them. A great camera does not make a great photographer. As far as pushing my impressions on you the truth is you have made statements that would leave others less knowledgable with the wrong impression- like, you do your own PP which you admittedly don't. As to Norway's laws that has nothing to do with telling people a 12MB will be an adequate PP computer which it won't unless someone else you hire does the rest for you. As to my gear Pentax K3II and Pentax 645z, You are right a D4 is a better sports camera than a D810 it is also a better journalism camera than a D810.
Background I have 30 yrs behind the lens starting in 1979 with an Olympus OM1n both as an amateur and professional, I do all my own post Photoshop CC, mostly landscape and wildlife, portraiture, no journalism not my cup of tea.
Background I have 30 yrs behind the lens starting in 1979 with an Olympus OM1n both as an amateur and professional, I do all my own post Photoshop CC, mostly landscape and wildlife, portraiture, no journalism not my cup of tea.
Right. But the MacBook Pro profits have to be so high, that using all Thunderbolt 3 ports couldn't possibly hurt.
Would I be stupid to buy a current Macbook Pro Retina 256GB ahead of the rumored redesign? And what would you guys say the chances are of a redesign before March? I'm so tempted right now to pull the trigger on a refurbished Macbook Pro before Christmas but if the new comes out in January I would be kicking myself if I did buy it now.
TL;DR
Just wanted to inform people that files from D810 is manageable in Photoshop on a baseline MacBook 12 as long as you don't do really really really large files for panoramas or anything else that would usually require a desktop. Files from D810. The tiff size is static due to the size of the picture, not dynamic to content. RAWs mostly stay within 70-80MB.
Last edited:
And that's a good thing. Their is nothing wrong with the current design that was introduced with the Retina MacBook Pro. And any new design knowing Apple will result in a thinner machine with less features and lower specs yet cost the same if not more, pay more for less for their bottom line to swell even more.
I hope they don't do this of course, but they did remove one of the best things about Mac laptops from the new MacBook Retina, the Mag Safe.
Last edited:
I agree completely, but a redesign not to make it thinner rather to accommodate USB3 would be ok. A redesign just for sake of thinner and lighter would pretty much assure a lower spec situation that Apolloa outlines and would be unacceptable. Some on this forum still think a smaller thinner lighter rMBP which has less HP is ok. To them I say get a MB Air, the pro is about power not looks. If you can get both great, but you do not sacrifice function for form.
The retina MacBook Pro got thinner and didn't sacrifice any performance. Is there any reason to think this update would be different?
Its not the simple. You need PCI-E channels and host controller support for both USB 3 and Thunderbolt. PC OEM's only had some USB3 ports as they didnt want multiple controllers, though newer Intel chipsets support 8 natively now so its not an issue. Apple probably only has one Thunderbolt port because they only have so many PCI-E lanes to feed it with. Intel didnt double the number of lanes its chipset supports.
Interesting. They must give each 4x lanes?
There's still a hardware limit to how many they can out in there.
Yes, I want a discrete GPU and I'm not sure the thermals of an even thinner laptop would allow this? It needs to cool itself properly to avoid throttling and perform properly, something the Surface Pro 3 and the first gen iMac 5K don't do, they throttle a lot when pushed due to poor thermal design.
I'm so glad you said this! I've been trying to argue this point for a while now. It seems that a vast majority of people in here want to turn the Macbook Pro into an Air but that will almost guarantee that the internal specs will be lowered. IMO the current thickness is already pretty good but I can see Apple possibly moving to a tapered design where the bottom is thinner than the top. This would leave room for better cooling and a nice selection of ports.
- Status