24" quality general use display recommendations?

[macstatic]

I'm looking for a suitable LCD display for my wife's newly bought mid-2012 i5 2.5GHz Mac Mini which appears to have a native resolution of 1920x1200.

It's for "general use" (email, web, word-processing etc.) and we aim for long lasting quality.
I'm thinking some kind of IPS panel, LED backlight and around 24". As for lasting quality, brands like Eizo or NEC come to mind, but I'm not sure if they are overkill or money well spent for lasting quality, noticeable better image quality than the rest and ergonomic features (adjustable height, tilt etc.) or if she could do just as well with other "non-pro", but still quality brands (Fujitsu, Samsung, LG, Philips, HP)?

Decent colour accuracy is a plus (I have a Datacolor Spyder Capture Pro calibrator which I use for calibrating my own Eizo monitor (for photography purposes), and would use to calibrate hers as well, but no need to go overboard.

She's used to having decent audio with her 2008 iMac's built-in speakers, and although many monitors these days have speakers, my impression is that they're quite tinny and not suitable for anything beyond alert sounds (I don't know if any of the Apple Cinema display had (good) built-in speakers but in any case they're probably near their end-of-life if we come across a used one) so external speakers are probably the only real option here.

 

[kohlson]

I've worked in printing and do work in corporate videos and know my way around a Pantone deck. That said, I've always been happy with relatively low-cost LED monitors for general work. LG and Dell are two of the brands I am using at the moment.

 

[RootBeerMan]

My wife has a BenQ monitor she uses for everyday use and gaming. Not overly expensive and the quality is really nice.

 

[macstatic]

So what makes a more expensive monitor different?
Do they last longer?
More ergonomic adjustment options?
More accurate colour?

 

[flowsy]

I absolutely can recommend the Dell U2417H. Very good calibration out of the box. Color calibration with the Spyder 3 Pro made no difference.

The corners are a tiny bit darker with my model (never bothered me a second time...), I guess that goes with this slim-bezel design at that price. Still not the cheapest you could get, but one of the better options.

Had an EIZO CS240 before and what the Dell lacks in color gamut (sRGB vs. AdobeRGB), he makes up in design. It‘s my first 16:9 (1920x1080px), but I got over it and I'm very happy with it.

So what makes a more expensive monitor different?
Do they last longer?
More ergonomic adjustment options?
More accurate colour?

All of it - yes. But mostly the higher gamut panel, rgb-led's and built in hardware calibration. But why pay for it, if you have no use for it.

 

[macstatic]

I agree -no need for the built in hardware calibration or extra high gamut and that Eizo CS240 surely would be overkill for her, but something that basically works very well and lasts for more than 2 years and gives a decently accurate colour (i.e. yellow should be yellow and not light green etc. after calibration) ...

I'm a little confused about the resolution. The Dell U2417H has, according to specs, a resolution of 1920x1080 while the Mac Mini (late 2012) in question outputs 1920x1200, so not quite ideal.

I must plead ignorance as my impression was 1920x1200 being a pretty standard resolution (much like the 640x480 VGA standard back in the days), yet I see more and more displays with the 1920x1080. So what are they designed for? Do current computers use that standard as a native resolution?
According to this computer's specs on EveryMac.com it says both 1920x1200 and 2660x1600 but I believe the latter refers to just the 2nd display when you use a 2-display system (my wife will only use a single display).


Back to the Dell U2417H: is that the price range you'd recommend for something decent in terms of quality and general performance? We found an NEC Multisync E245WMi costing about the same. Opinions? For visuals a white/light grey frame would be nice IMHO, but all I've found with an IPS panel and in that price range is a Fujitsu P24T-7 and depending on where you look the specs say either 1920x1080 or 1920x1200.

 

[kohlson]

So what are they designed for? Do current computers use that standard as a native resolution?

1920 x 1200 is 16x10, while 1980 x 1080 is 16x9. The latter is the HDTV spec, and since panel makers produce zillions of them, they can be less expensive.

I have, and use, both. I've never known any computer, laptop or otherwise, built in the last 10 years to care. The only thing different is you get 120 more vertical pixels on the former. This can make a (slight) difference in apps that are portrait oriented, such as browsers and office apps - because the menu bars are at the top, and therefore less space for content. But they work fine.

 

[macstatic]

Are you saying that in this particular case the general rule of sticking to the monitor's native resolution (to avoid rescaling and thus lower quality) isn't an issue, but the only side-effect of using a "1080p" display is that 120 pixels vertically get chopped off?

 

[MarkC426]

I had an Apple 23 Cinema Display (1920x1200 native).
When it died I got 2 Dell U2412M (1920x1200).
All of which are 'matte', I couldn't bring myself to get the updated Apple 24, which was glossy.

 

[macstatic]

Any opinions on that NEC E245WMi-BK which I'm considering?
I can get it for about the same as the Dell U2412M or Dell U2417H.

I've only found one review, but it, along with its specs, appears to be good. But I'd like to get a second opinion

 

[jerwin]

you can use a 1920x1080 display if you want to. You can even use a 2540x1600 or 2560x1440 display if you use the miniDisplayPort/Thunderbolt instead of the HDMI port.

There are no problems with scaling, artifacts, or a less than sharp picture, as whichever display you choose it will be driven at the display's native resolution. All you really get is more or less space depending on which monitor you choose.

Maybe look for a display with IPS, rather than TN technology-- if they still make TN displays these days.

 

[Fishrrman]

A good list to search through for displays:
Comprehensive List of S-IPS/H-IPS/e-IPS and other IPS Based LCD Monitors

 

[macstatic]

you can use a 1920x1080 display if you want to. You can even use a 2540x1600 or 2560x1440 display if you use the miniDisplayPort/Thunderbolt instead of the HDMI port.

There are no problems with scaling, artifacts, or a less than sharp picture, as whichever display you choose it will be driven at the display's native resolution. All you really get is more or less space depending on which monitor you choose.

Maybe look for a display with IPS, rather than TN technology-- if they still make TN displays these days.

Yes, I believe the cheapest displays use TN panels, but IPS is the way to go as far as I know (we won't be using it for gaming).
So, on the Mac Mini the native resolution of the graphic card isn't fixed at 1920x1200, so you're really free to choose a display with a resolution you like?
But I still think 1920x1200 is preferrable over 1920x1080 because of the additional desktop pixels.

The Dell U2415 appears to be a very good monitor (I've read several reviews) but I'm torn between it and the NEC E245WMi. Apart from its specs I don't know much about the NEC, but being a well known "high end brand" I expect long lasting quality, and overall a good display, but I really don't know much about it (apart from a very vague review I can't find any more user-feedback about it).
Would you go for the NEC or the Dell, and why?

 

[jerwin]

Would you go for the NEC or the Dell, and why?

oh, I don't know.

here are two fairly technical reviews that actually measure the color response instead of just quoting specs. Shame they aren't from the same source.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/nec-ea245wmi-24-inch-ips-monitor,review-33805.html

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2415.htm