Laptop display comparison awards top marks to Lenovo
By Donald Melanson 
posted January 28th 2009 5:06PM
posted January 28th 2009 5:06PM
It's not exactly the most extensive round-up, but photographers looking for suggestions on a laptop to pair up with their DSLR would do well to check out Rob Galgraith's latest comparison, which takes a look at the late-2008 MacBook Pro, the Dell Mini 9, and a pair of Lenovos (the W700 and T60). Not so surprisingly, he didn't have too much positive to say about the MacBook's switch to a glossy-only display, but other than that, he found that it mostly held up against its predecessor. It apparently wasn't able to match up against the two Lenovo offerings, however, which came in at number one and two in both color accuracy and viewing angle tests. The W700, in particular, proved to have color accuracy "on par with a fine desktop display," a feat enabled in no small part by its built-in calibrator. He was also especially impressed by the Dell Mini 9, which actually beat out the MacBook in terms of color accuracy, but fell a bit short in viewing angle tests. The fact that it also fits nicely in a DSLR bag certainly doesn't hurt things either. Hit up the link below for the complete breakdown.
[Via thegadgetsite]
[Via thegadgetsite]
wow, why are they comparing a mini dell inspiron that's 500 dollars to the 1600 dollar macbook?
Because they're looking only at the screens- and the colour accuracy of the mini 9 being better than the MBP suggests the comparison was not the foregone conclusion the prices suggest
For shits and giggles; the reason to do anything. It is LOL-worthy considering some promo shots show the Macbook with Aperture open and a lowly netbook beats it in that regard.
Looks like that extra $1,100 gets you a shittier screen.
They're actually comparing the screen from a $300 machine. The screen quality doesn't change by adding SSD and 2GB ram.
The point being: if you're a field photographer, not only is the Mini9 a more portable and affordable option, it actually produces better color. So why would you lug your big MBP out to the field just to do image-quality checks?
to be cool Brad, to be cool...
I'm sure that Dell would be fun to play around in Aperture at full speed. Oh, wait…
Could the Dell Mini 9 or any netbook handle such high resolution photos?
The first question anyone should ask is Who sponsored the test ? ... not why... we all know why ...
so according to this self proclaimed "expert" a T60 is better than a MBP despite the fact that T60s used to have kind of washed out colors and are practically unusable under direct sunlight. Oh and T60 were discontinued more than an year ago. That really makes me wonder exactly how did they compare the color accuracy of the notebooks. From what I've seen so far, even the glossy screens that Apple uses have quite good color accuracy and are comparable to any desktop monitor under $1000. But you're free to believe whoever you want. I have yet to see a mass adoption of lenovo laptops among photographers though.
@cg0def
"so according to this self proclaimed "expert" a T60 is better than a MBP despite the fact that T60s used to have kind of washed out colors and are practically unusable under direct sunlight."
So how's the glossy MBP under direct sunlight? =) You can't even use that thing in a lit room without excessive glare.
Read the article, the T60 is the only laptop with IPS technology. That presents numerous advantages and disadvantages that are outlined in the article.
@cg0def
SIGH!!! Read the article please...not everything is as terse and superficial as a mac advert.
The T60 was used in this comparo because it was the last Thinkpad to be customizable with a Flexview S-IPS display. Flexview was one of the best laptop displays ever (in terms of color), and quite well known to photographers who are actually serious about their gear. Note that Flexview was an OPTION, and not all T60s had this display. In fact, depending on the resolution you chose and the manufacturer of that display, the monitor might have been crappy. But it probably wasn't the Flexview.
Even these results won't stop people trying to color-grade on a MBP for whatever reason they do it... Sad...
wow,after reading this, im gonna go out n trash my sony 17" sony vaio 1080p laptop w/bluray. NOT!!!!!!!!!what a dumb ass selection,i have yet to see a laptop with better color/resolution/contrast than a sony vaio 17" 1080p laptop.,this mofo is smoking crack or those leenovo manufacturers gave him a free laptop.,btw i only paid $1050 for sony 17 " 1080p laptop w/bluray.4gb ram 350 gb etc.
The color is a little bit worse, but a screen should be considered holistically - the MBP has better viewing angles, better reponse time, better brightness and of course more resolution and size.
Also, saying Leonovo is the best has distortion - the T60 they used with the IPS panel isn't on the market anymore, and the W700 is great, but one model can't say too much about the brand as a whole, especially given that the W700 is a high-end premium / specialized product.
@YpoCaramel
I can clearly see you're an Apple fanboy, so this may not work... you folks aren't the best with logic (side note: I own a MacBook Pro). Still, I must try:
They *did* compare all those things, and mentioned the benefits and shortcomings of each display. They never even suggested that somehow one of the Lenovo laptops having a good display would make the entire line of Lenovos the best photography PCs ever built.
Please READ the article before sounding stupid: The ONLY thing thats better in the minis display... "Overall hue accuracy, in fact, is better than the late-2008 MacBook Pro 15 inch." But Overall the reason why people buy macbook pros for photo editing is because they do in fact have some of the best screens on the market until recently the Lenovo beat it.
"For the longest time, Apple laptop displays ruled the roost around here. With very few exceptions, going back to the days of the PowerBook G4, portable Macs were considerably more colour accurate than any of the dozens and dozens of PC laptops we'd profiled during workshops and on-site training. The difference between Apple gear and everybody else's was stark. Thanks to Lenovo, however, and Apple's decision to standardize on the glossiest of glossy screens (only the soon-to-be-shipping MacBook Pro 17 inch will be available in what Apple calls an "antiglare" version), Macs are no longer at the top of the laptop display heap in our minds."
cool.
not
Shouldn't this guy have considered the HP laptops with DreamColor displays?
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/feature_stories/2008/08elite.html
remember the glossy part and how much the guy hates glossy? Plus HP's miracle display is about the same as what MBP 15" uses. The active adjustment is mostly a gimmick so that they can better fit the NTFS gamut. I'd personally like to have manual control over the display settings when color accuracy is an issue. Otherwise is run the risk of being tricked by the monitor and that's never a good thing ... but apparently HP doesn't think so. The auto adjust allows them to use a lower quality panel and supposedly still get great results. Only in reality this never works. At least apple doesn't lie about only being about to cover 99% of sRGB/Adobe RGB. Oh and using NTFS as a color accuracy standard is lame. A product that does that is most likely intended for tv watching and light video editing and NOT image manipulation.
@cg0def
What a spectacularly ignorant comment. You clearly understand nothing about the issue at hand. NTFS gamut? What's that? Manual control? You mean a hardware calibrator like the W700 has?
The best notebook displays were not included in the test. Those include the HP DreamColor and the Dell workstation and Sony RGBLED displays. By saying the Lenovo was the best of the lot, Galbraith wasn't claiming Lenovo is the best available although he fell short of pointing that out.
BTW cg0def, stooge, if you don't know the difference between sRGB, AdobeRGB, NTSC and the NTFS filesystem, perhaps you should keep your mouth shut. Supporting an NTCS gamut is beneficial to video editors, not just online TV viewers.
@craig - are any of those laptops designed specifically around photography/image manipulation? No. The Thinkpad W700(ds) is and a hell of a lot of design went into it, from the awesome display to the color calibration to the WACOM tablet to the RAID to the second display for toolbars in Photoshop to the standardly awesome Thinkpad build quality. Photographers love that baby for a reason even if they can't afford it.
So unless you're going to call up the price or some review that shows the screen quality to be crap, I'm going to look at the numbers and the feature lists and saying that whoever calls anything other than the W700ds to be the best laptop for image manipulation is a fanboy tool.
Good day.
My Sony FW290 Full-HD display looks gorgeous.
congratulations.
OMG! Full-HD! Makes my Sony EmptyHD screen look like piss.
Sony wouldn't have to specify "Full HD" if they hadn't been selling 720p screens as "HD"
I think we all agree that using the phrase FullHD makes you sound like a complete tool.
Who. In the world. Gives a shit?
for real color accuracy the Sony VAIO AW series is the top performer.... Sony haters say what you like.
The AW line isn't meant to compete in a 500-1500 price range, and it is more a portable desktop replacement then an ultraportable... but it is tailored specifically for use by professional photogs and graphics peeps.
and to those that harp on the Full HD badging on some VAIO models this is because the screen resolution fits the requirements in terms of both aspect ratio and pixel count to be labeled as full hd 1920x1080 displays. This in comparison to a lot of the oddball resolutions out there found on the average (read: most) notebooks in the market.
@Sony Guy
I bought a Sony AW intending to travel with it for photography work. In other words, I bought it for what you say it was optimized. Here are the problems.
First, the machine gives the impression of cheapness and undesirability. After keeping it a month, it only sold for 2/3 it's original value.
Second, it lacks any processor option over 35W. Apple is the same but comparable PCs offer much greater processor power.
Third, it is capable of 2 or even 3 hard drives but they are factory build options only. If you buy only one drive you cannot upgrade to multiple drives later as Sony deliberately omits key parts and refused to sell them later as a kit.
Fourth, the 18.4" display is lower resolution than competing 17" displays including the Apple. The extra size doesn't help with photo editing yet it makes the machine too big to travel in any standard backpack or computer bag.
Sorry, the AW series isn't optimized for photography use. It's a massive HD movie viewing luggable machine. Big difference.
Really Cal? Because as far as I know 1920 * 1080 is in fact Full-HD.
I love my T400.
Lenovo FTMFW!
OMGWTFBBQ?
My ThinkPad SL500, which is the second-worst laptop I've ever owned (the worst being the Acer that it replaced), has an awful screen. Its one saving grace is that it's matte, which is one reason why I went with the SL500 - not many laptops that offer that option anymore. Basically either a Dell Vostro or a ThinkPad, from what I found... or I guess the higher-end MacBook Pros. But the color accuracy and viewing angles are like a display from the early 1990's. Really not any better than my old IBM ThinkPad that I had back then.
So don't go thinking every ThinkPad has a great screen; probably only the high-end models do. (Not that that should be a surprise, but I don't think screen quality is something a lot of people think about when they're choosing between models within the same brand.)
The SL500 is the worst notebook by Lenovo. They don't deserve the "Thinkpad" logo...
Throw that crap away and get a shiny W500 with Linux. You will experience pure awesomeness and you will never think about buying a notebook with a glowing fruit on the cover.
Actually, sometimes Thinkpads are ordered specifically with low viewing angle screens. Business set--don't want the person in the airplane seat next to you to be able to read what you're working on. My ThinkPad has an S-IPS screen with excellent viewing angles (it's a tablet) but was bundled with a 3M privacy screen, in case the user wants to restrict the viewing angle.
But I agree. The SL500 is a steaming heap. Doesn't deserve to share its name with such an awesome car, either.
You obviously have never seen my Vaio TT
Or Vaio Z. : )
hot damn,kilgore owns a $2200 11" inch laptop. no shit, that is hands down one of the best laptops of all times.
@ Shugg
Kilgore can detract from his income tax 80% of the price of his working instruments plus 100% of V.A.T.
Why on earth should he buy cheap shit?
Last november he had to choose if to spend the equivalent of 800 dollars within 1 and 1/2 weeks, or give the same amount to his country's equivalent of I.R.S.
What do you think he did?
How about comparing the 17" MBP screen... you know, the one AIMED at that market!
First of all, they are both marked as "Pro".
Second, the simple fact that the color reproduction of a laptop that is $300 beating a laptop, aimed at "Pro" users, and costs $1900, is kind of pathetic and sad.
It just shows you that Apple didn't give a shit about the color reproduction quality of the screen on a pro device, or else the Dell wouldn't stand a chance.
Since when does "Pro" equate to graphics designers?
There's a lot of other important factors to consider when putting together a display for users. As a web developer, I could really care less that the color reproduction isn't accurate. The screen looks great. It's bright, easy to see in sunlight, and the colors are vibrant (if not *gasp* accurate).
It's like people complaining about Bose speakers / headphones not being accurate. They're not necessarily attempting to be accurate, but rather pleasing to the majority in the reproduction.
@Ruben
Did Apple say its aimed at "professionals" that require a very exact color reproduction?
Did you expect any less from Apple?
Agreed. I would have preferred to have seen how the 17" version stacked up to the competition since it offers the matte screen option and specifically advertises a high colour gamut. That the 15" version with the glossy screen would not compare well was more or less a foregone conclusion, although why Apple would shoot themselves in the foot like this is still a mystery. Perhaps they couldn't get a 17" for review.
hmmm, nope... MacBook beats all of those laptops every which you think about it.... No, I'm not an Apple Fanboy and use Dell, IBM and Lenovo at our office but really, it's been said before and will be said again --- MacBook Pro's are just some of the best laptops money can buy. They're sleek, built solid, fast in every regard and while their OS might bother some die-hard Bill Gates fans, you can run your precious Windows XP, VIsta, Windows 7 in a virtualized environment. Try running OS X on a Dell... Not happening...
http://www.atomicsub.net
And I said it before on Engadget, but that Lenovo is FUGLY
objective statistical data vs subjective descriptions
I know which one I would choose. The data shows the overpriced Macbook in very poor light. It's funny that Apple touts it for Creative types.
And you can run OSX on the Dell perfectly file.
Did you even read the article?
This isn't some, douche-bag, argument about OSes. It's about LCD quality, and it's no secret that Apple's been putting crappy LCDs in their notebooks for years.
Running any OS in a virtual environment for more than one or two tasks is a mistake in itself. If I just run windows, I don't need to boot into OSX for anything, so why not just boot into it?
Also, if you want a sleek Lenovo, check out their u330.
Yes, you are a fanboy. Considering its NOT the fastest laptop, the Alienware Area 51 is equipped with a faster CPU and GPU at a lower price. Thinkpads have just as good build quality. Evidently, MBPs have only average screens. The only real thing the MBP has going for it is its aluminum case, looks, and the ability to run the Mac OS at a huge premium. And yes, we can run OS X on a Dell, Google it.
Don't even get me started on Apple's desktop hardware, its a joke. iMacs run mobile chips, and the Mac Pro is shamelessly overpriced. (My $2000 Nehalem setup runs quicker then Apple's $3000 Mac Pro)
Like every Apple fanboy; you don't look at the big picture. Windows is more cumbersome and sluggish then Apple's OS X is because its compatible with EVERYTHING, unlike OS X which is only certified to be compatible with Apple's very narrow line of hardware. When Apple makes a OS that runs as smooth, quick as Windows 7 and have it be able to run on ANYTHING, then you can compare. Its like comparing Apples to much less obnoxious Oranges.