Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I'm pretty happy with both, and I think you get what you pay for in each respect. Dell display is certainly geared more towards general-purpose, and I prefer it for all-round use. It's more flexible too. But then I'm not a professional print user.

Not so much clearing up misconceptions perhaps, rather an exercise in extreme nerding :p
 
Lovely post thanks, and helped clear up a few things for me. Good to see a detailed explanation of which things each monitor is best for.

Clarifications:

Response time 14ms.........16ms
Might be better to say "16ms for 2405 and 8ms for 2407"

so they could lower the response time (ms) from 12ms to 6ms

Is that supposed to be 12ms or 16ms?

xoxo T
 
You get what you pay for and Apple's professional LCD-panel is what gives it the higher price; professionals should look beyond the price difference and.......[/b][/i]

........get themselves an Eizo, Lacie, Samsung or even a LG.

Here we go again...

After a lot of research looking for a pro graphics monitor with a fair price, I got in contact with a serious reviewer from a specialized photography magazine, and here's what he had to say:

"My experience with both the Samsung 244T and the Eizo CE210W, as well as just recently with a LaCie 320 has been to find they produce a more desirable screen quality and the advantage of a full range of adjustments to fit them to every environment and use, and therefor I would chose any one of them over the Apple Cinema display. In fact I recently purchased an LG Electronics L2000C 20.1 inch display that equals the Apple displays in performance quality, was less costly and provides a full range of adjustment controls."
(more calibrating adjustments than ACDs)

I also asked him if the Samsung 214T was everything the 244T is, just smaller, and what would I be loosing by choosing the 214T over the 244T. He said:
"From all I could tell from all the documentation and talking with the Samsung representative the performance factors of the Syncmaster 214T should be the same as the 244T in a size that has 3 inches chopped off the sides - its not as wide as the 244T but just as tall."

More on the LG:
"One insider claims LGE makes the screens for Apple, and I would not dispute the evidence he gives for his claim, but I have no independent evidence to point to that would prove the point one way or another.
The LCD display business is very competitive and there only a very few prime manufacturers involved, so it is really a matter of choosing one that is specifically designed for pro graphics use and then you get pretty much the quality you pay for, the pricier the better the performance."

Dell is not even considered. Here are some helpfull links to understand their differences.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=2662

http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=3041

http://shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/software_computers/1006ezio/

Hope this helps.:)
 
Exactly, I even opened with the statement that others have talked about this before me. But as you know, most monitor discussions here are misinformed and think it's correct to only compare three things: looks, brightness and contrast. This thread is meant to be a reference for any further discussions. Next time someone asks about the difference, I hope someone will point them here so they can make an informed decision. Comparing the 24" Dell to the 23" Apple seems to be the most common monitor discussion and most threads compare the above 3 aspects and are ignorant to the difference in LCD technologies and target market.

I appreciate all of the time and work you put into this! Very nice job.
 
Lovely post thanks, and helped clear up a few things for me. Good to see a detailed explanation of which things each monitor is best for.

Thanks for the praise. You caught a typo in the millisecond specifications at the bottom, I'll update them. Sorry for the confusion. ;)

I'm pretty happy with both, and I think you get what you pay for in each respect. Dell display is certainly geared more towards general-purpose, and I prefer it for all-round use. It's more flexible too. But then I'm not a professional print user.

Not so much clearing up misconceptions perhaps, rather an exercise in extreme nerding :p

Wow, calling professionals "extreme nerds" is pretty offensive... wait, yeah that's true. :p As for (not?) clearing up the misconceptions, what planet do you live on? This article goes way beyond just clearing up the misconceptions, it explains why you need each monitor. ;)
 
So does this apply to the Dell 30" too?

I plan on getting a 30" as soon as I can, and I definitely like the Apple display more, but as of this day, the dell is $500 less...
But really, price isn't so much the dealbreaker as is support. Dell comes with 3 years standard, vs 90 days for the ACD. And the zero dead pixels policy is certainly inviting...
 
So does this apply to the Dell 30" too?

I plan on getting a 30" as soon as I can, and I definitely like the Apple display more, but as of this day, the dell is $500 less...
But really, price isn't so much the dealbreaker as is support. Dell comes with 3 years standard, vs 90 days for the ACD. And the zero dead pixels policy is certainly inviting...

This only applies to the monitors involved (the 24" Dell and 23" ACD). The 30" monitors use a different, (obviously) larger LCD Panel which means it uses a different manufacturing process. In fact, there are so few 30" OEM LCD manufacturers that both Dell and Apple uses the same 30" LG-Philips panel for their respective 30" models.

They both use the LG.Philips LM300W01, which is a professional S-IPS panel. All specifications match as it is the same panel, except that Dell lies a bit about viewing angle and response time, Dell specifies a 178* viewing angle and 14ms response time while Apple and LG-Philips themselves specify 170* viewing angle and 16ms response time. It's customary for Dell to exaggerate or lie, I've seen this on all of their LCD monitors and this discrepancy between listed and actual values has been picked up on in many reviews.

Here are the specifications of the LG.Philips LM300W01:

Aspect ratio: 16:10
Size: 30"
Power usage: 3-150W
Viewing Angle: 170*
Contrast: 700:1
Brightness: 400 cd/m2
Resolution: 2560x1600
Panel type: S-IPS
Pixel pitch: .250mm
Response time: 16ms
Bit depth: 8-bits per subpixel

So there's no reason not to pick the Dell monitor and save a few hundred bucks. Good luck! ;)
 
This is a great and very informative post, that you obviously put a lot of time and energy into. I personally learned a lot, and would like to commend you for your work. We should have more posts like this, well done!
 
Great post --at least, from what I can gather. But who in the world has time to read through the whole thing? I hate to be reductionist, but knock it all down to one or two points in fine print. Time is precious!

That's just lazy. It isn't THAT much text, really. It's a great, informative post, and if he posted less info, then I'd learn less info.

This is coming from someone who's not interested in buying an external LCD of any sort, and has never owned an LCD that didn't come with his laptop.

On that note, my MacBook must surely use the TN+Film type LCD described in the Wikipedia article, right? Colour reproduction is horrible. I can only tell because the colours change if you view the screen at an angle. :eek: Also, there is a tonal gradient if you look at the middle and move your eye towards the top and bottom of the screen. Why? I think it's because of the viewing angle. The relative angle between my eyes and any point along the vertical axis changes as I move my eye from the screen's centre, to the top or bottom, and coupling a poor viewing angle to an angle that changes depending on where you look on the display means this screen just isn't so hot for editing in photography. :eek:

On the other hand, I hardly print, and when I do, I don't need it to be incredibly accurate. It's almost always good. :)
 
Do you know if it's even possible to dim the backlight on the Dell? That feature is immensely important to me.

Surprised no one cleared this up yet.

Of course it's possible to turn down the backlight. I run my Dell 2405 at about 40% brightness and it's still plenty bright.

If brightness bothers you (no matter what monitor you get), put a light behind the monitor to illuminate the surrounding wall. I have a 60w bulb back there and it significantly reduces the headaches in a dimly lit room.
 
You may remember the opening sentence of my post, well here it is:

Product Description ..... Part Number ..... Product Quantity
APP FOR DISPLAY-COL/AE-ZML ..... S2516ZM/A ..... 1
APPLE CIN HD DISPLAY 23" FLAT PANEL-ZML ..... M9178ZM/A ..... 1

Estimated Delivery Date 22 Nov 2006 (Subject to change)

Current Delivery Status In Transit to Customer - Shipment on Schedule

I'm very excited now. :eek: (The first item is 3 years of extended AppleCare.)
 
Very well written, kudos!

I use the Dell myself. I require those extra ports, though I would certainly use an ACD otherwise. If only they produced one to match iMacs :D
 
Why do we do this like three times a week?

If you want a plastic cheap monitor with better specifications that most people will likely not notice, get a Dell.

If you care about aesthetics and don't care about .0000004555676 difference in <insert spec here> get an Apple.

Geebus.
 
Why do we do this like three times a week?

If you want a plastic cheap monitor with better specifications that most people will likely not notice, get a Dell.

If you care about aesthetics and don't care about .0000004555676 difference in <insert spec here> get an Apple.

Geebus.

Posts like yours may be the reason why. You are trying to minimize the differences that the OP went to great lengths to describe, so that people do understand the differences.

Typical consumers might not care, as he points out, but professionals surely will.
 
Posts like yours may be the reason why. You are trying to minimize the differences that the OP went to great lengths to describe, so that people do understand the differences.

Typical consumers might not care, as he points out, but professionals surely will.

I'm a professional (I hate that term, really), have used both and the difference is neglible, even with a calibrated ICC profile.

Sure it's educational, but yes, we do this all the fracking time. Just tired of seeing the Dell versus ACD discussion, I guess.

Just my worthless .02, :)
 
Wow, calling professionals "extreme nerds" is pretty offensive... wait, yeah that's true. :p As for (not?) clearing up the misconceptions, what planet do you live on? This article goes way beyond just clearing up the misconceptions, it explains why you need each monitor. ;)

I live on a planet where I own both monitors and I'm not staring at specs :rolleyes:
 
iGary, how should I put this? Let me just say that misinformed people like you are the reason I made the original article, this misconception that the only differences between the monitors are looks, contrast and brightness has to stop. You just propagated that misconception yourself, due to not knowing any better. In the end it just hurts the other would-be buyers; a designer might buy a Dell thinking that he will get perfect results AND save money, and he's in for a surprise when his graphics come out looking different elsewhere (where the color representation is accurate, such as a print studio). If you can't see the difference between 262,144 colors (Dell 24") and 16,777,216 colors (ACD 23"), and the more accurate and stable (no shifting) color reproduction of the professional S-IPS type of LCD panel that Apple chose for their displays (Anything less than S-IPS is unsuitable for professional graphics work), then you are NOT, I repeat, NOT a professional as you claim you are, and indeed a Dell will be perfect for you and all the other people that don't need accurate colors and would rather save some money. And when faced with information that you didn't like, you shrugged it off with a comment like "If you care about aesthetics and don't care about .0000004555676 difference in <insert spec here> get an Apple.", which suggests that you believe that the Dell monitor has better specifications simply from having (solely) read the brightness and contrast values, ignoring what the actual display is made of, and that's exactly the misconception that I'm fighting. The Dell monitor has better contrast and brightness due to using a consumer-grade S-PVA panel, a panel type which provides higher contrast and brightness at the cost of having terrible color accuracy. I never would have thought I'd see anyone propagating the misconceptions in this thread, so I highly suspect that you did not read the original article, and that you're in la-la land thinking that this is just another run-of-the-mill ACD vs Dell thread. It's not, as you'd have known if you had read the original article.

Why do we do this like three times a week?

If you want a plastic, cheap monitor with better specifications (that most people will likely not notice [anyway]), get a Dell.

If you care about aesthetics and don't care about .0000004555676 difference in <insert spec here> get an Apple.

Geebus.

Posts like yours may be the reason why. You are trying to minimize the differences that the OP went to great lengths to describe, so that people do understand the differences.

Typical consumers might not care, as he points out, but professionals surely will.

I'm a professional (I hate that term, really), have used both and the difference is neglible, even with a calibrated ICC profile.

Sure it's educational, but yes, we do this all the fracking time. Just tired of seeing the Dell versus ACD discussion, I guess.

Just my worthless .02, :)

As for your observation "Why do we do this like three times a week?"; this thread is meant to clear things up and put an end to the discussion once and for all. I'm as tired as you are of seeing endless threads pop up, where most of them lack the input from someone knowledgeable who knows the real differences and cares to share them. Even though threads do exist where someone has come along and explained that there's a huge difference between the displays, and that the difference is not in the contrast or brightness, their posts go to waste after a few days when those threads have been buried and new ones pop up. Therefore, I decided that it was time for a central post that clears up the misconceptions and explains the differences in-depth, so that it can be referenced next time there's a "Which display should I pick, ACD 23" or Dell 24?" thread. -- Which I suspect will be in about 5 minutes from now. ;)

(I have to respectfully agree with the several users who have commented in favor of stickying this thread. The discussion of ACD 23" vs Dell 24" is so common that stickying this thread would make their search easier, and clear up the boards.)
 
So does this apply to the Dell 30" too?

I plan on getting a 30" as soon as I can, and I definitely like the Apple display more, but as of this day, the dell is $500 less...
But really, price isn't so much the dealbreaker as is support. Dell comes with 3 years standard, vs 90 days for the ACD. And the zero dead pixels policy is certainly inviting...

Dead center calibration tests on the ACD 30" are excellent however the calibration tests done at different parts of the monitor start falling off, the 23" holds a more uniform calibration overall. I have seen some tests on a Dell 30" on other parts of the monitor and it's god awful, not something anyone who wants a color accurate monitor should even consider. If you don't care about the color accuracy then go with the Dell. If you do, try looking at two 23" ACDs, you will get more screen real estate and better color accuracy than either 30".


 
rather an exercise in extreme nerding :p

Really? 9 years ago when I took a my last full time position, I came into an art department had all types of monitors, some ok and some that were god awful. A lot of time and money was being wasted on going back and forth with vendors with expensive color proofs trying to get the color right. I talked the VPs into buying Barcos monitors (still the best) for all the computers in the art department. Once the vendors understood the our color profiles the proofs started coming back dead on. If fact the proofs were so predicable we stopped using them all together. We saved a great deal of time with each and every ad that we did as well as 10s of thousands of dollars a year in color proofs. You call it exercise in extreme nerding, I call it smart.

 
So does this apply to the Dell 30" too?

I plan on getting a 30" as soon as I can, and I definitely like the Apple display more, but as of this day, the dell is $500 less...
But really, price isn't so much the dealbreaker as is support. Dell comes with 3 years standard, vs 90 days for the ACD. And the zero dead pixels policy is certainly inviting...

I'd like to append to my original answer. You can easily get of 3 years extended AppleCare for any of their displays. During checkout, grab a:

AppleCare Protection Plan for Apple Display - Auto-enroll

AppleCare Protection Plan extends your Apple display's 90 days of complimentary support and one-year warranty to up to three years of world-class support.

Price: $99.00

It usually comes up right after you add a display to the cart, in the "Other recommendations for you..." section.

And secondly, a manufacturer that ships monitors with a 100% guarantee against defects is known as a Class I manufacturer, and it's very expensive for them to keep replacing monitors which gives them a premium price. Dell is certainly not Class I or they would have bragged about it; if they had been Class I then their price would be on par with Apple's from the ever increasing costs of having to replace monitors (as more and more people hear about and take advantage of their policy). So beware that they are not going to blindly replace your monitor if it has defects (and what about stuck, constantly lit pixels? seems like it only covers dead pixels, and a bright green/red/blue dot is more annoying than dead pixels to me), although their policy certainly seems good and quite protective. Speaking of that, Apple will replace your monitor if you are dissatisfied (see original article, towards the middle).

The difference is $600 if you add 3 years of extended AppleCare, and since both displays use the LG.Philips LM300W01 LCD-panel, then I think the no-brainer between the 30" monitors would be the Dell, unless you want Apple's aluminum look and can afford it.

And lastly, I'm really glad that ATD came along and helped me out, it's an upstream struggle to be the only maintainer to answer questions and guide people. By the way, follow his suggestions. Get two 23" ACD's side by side if color accuracy matters to you. Or one Dell 30" if it doesn't matter.
 
Good! Thanks for doing this!:D

I'm now completely sure I won't be cheated when paying more for an Apple.

Thanks a million. Also thanks for the link to the wikipedia article. Very helpful;)
 
Wow! That's a great post. I'd heard that contrast ratio and brightness numbers aren't eveything when choosing an LCD panel, but I never know why, or what to look at instead. Thanks for the info.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.