Amazon Takes $299 Off Apple Studio Display, Available From $1,299.99

[citysnaps]

That's true, but how many people come to the market eager for all the strong points it offers? And willing to overlook the weaknesses?

As you say, the Apple Studio Display is a product with a unique combination of offerings, and that might be the best match for some. I could see it being pretty sweet for a Mac-only user in a dorm room or small apartment, or with a strongly minimalistic aesthetic.

And that would be people who are fussy about color. Photographers, graphic designers, etc, etc. IMO, it would be overkill in $$$$ buying it for its physical aesthetics. But that's just me, not caring about aesthetics.

I've had my ASD for almost two years. Before that I used a 27" iMac. Being a photographer who prints a *lot* of photos, after I post process an image file in Lightroom, I want my prints coming out of my printer to look like what I see on the display. With my 27" iMac I needed to use a color calibrator device on the display in order for that to happen. And even then, some times I needed to re-adjust my edits, varying color/brightness/etc and make additional prints to eventually get the print looking right, wasting printer paper and expensive ink in the process. I'm guessing that's due to display aging, and needing to recalibrate it once in awhile.

When I received my ASD (and Mac Studio computer), I simply selected a reference mode from a list in ASD preferences, tweaked it a little, and saved it as a preset. You can create and save multiple presets, if needed. I haven't needed to adjust it in the two years I've owned the display. - it has been extremely stable. Would it be better with a color calibrator? Possibly, maybe not. I'm super pleased with my results now.

Every print I make comes out of my printer looking like what I see on the display. I can make a print, let it dry for a day, and the next day mat and frame it.

 

[ralphthemagi]

Wow its about time. Example this person got two 27" 5k ASUS for the same price of a single Studio display before this price cut. I can see putting out the money for a single Apple Studio display as it can be almost like a iMac solution but if you wanted a few of them forget it. I personally can't go back to single screens anymore unless we are talking at 57" 8k Ultrawides(though i do stock trading on the side)

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1850479-REG/asus_pa27jcv_27_proart_5k_usb_c.html

Damn. TIL that ASUS makes a real 5K display. Dope.

I've been using dual LG 5Ks since they came out. I've had a hard time using anything else. $800 for the ASUS is an absolute steal, relatively speaking. Seems like it has some really solid features too.

I finally feel like I've found a suitable replacement for these LG's when they kick the bucket. Dope.

 

[Realityck]

Although, my first thought for a dorm user is "how will they plug in a streaming box or a game console"?

So ridiculous Apple won't even add a 2nd input

It’s only a Mac specific monitor, most use their 4K TVs like my LG supports 144 Hz gaming. You use your Macs streaming via browser. This isn’t a regular PC gaming display with different display connectivity?

 

[turbineseaplane]

It’s only a Mac specific monitor, most use their 4K TVs like my LG supports 144 Hz gaming. You use your Macs streaming via browser. This isn’t a regular PC gaming display with different display connectivity?

My comment was in the context of a dorm where presumably space might be limited and the appeal would be to have one thing do it all

I saw this first hand a bit helping move a relative into university dorms last Fall
There was simply no room for an external Mac monitor + a TV (in these particular dorms)

All this aside - why can't Apple just add a 2nd input?
It would make it a better Mac monitor also!

 

[Realityck]

My comment was in the context of a dorm where presumably space might be limited and the appeal would be to have one thing do it all

I saw this first hand a bit helping move a relative into university dorms last Fall
There was simply no room for an external Mac monitor + a TV (in these particular dorms)

All this aside - why can't Apple just add a 2nd input?
It would make it a better Mac monitor also!

I see lots just use 48” 4K OLED TVs.

 

[EugW]

And that would be people who are fussy about color. Photographers, graphic designers, etc, etc. IMO, it would be overkill in $$$$ buying it for its physical aesthetics. But that's just me, not caring about aesthetics.

I've had my ASD for almost two years. Before that I used a 27" iMac. Being a photographer who prints a *lot* of photos, after I post process an image file in Lightroom, I want my prints coming out of my printer to look like what I see on the display. With my 27" iMac I needed to use a color calibrator device on the display in order for that to happen. And even then, some times I needed to re-adjust my edits, varying color/brightness/etc and make additional prints to eventually get the print looking right, wasting printer paper and expensive ink in the process. I'm guessing that's due to display aging, and needing to recalibrate it once in awhile.

When I received my ASD (and Mac Studio computer), I simply selected a reference mode from a list in ASD preferences, tweaked it a little, and saved it as a preset. You can create and save multiple presets, if needed. I haven't needed to adjust it in the two years I've owned the display. - it has been extremely stable. Would it be better with a color calibrator? Possibly, maybe not. I'm super pleased with my results now.

Every print I make comes out of my printer looking like what I see on the display. I can make a print, let it dry for a day, and the next day mat and frame it.

I'm no expert, but other people have previously stated that the Apple Studio Display is not always completely colour accurate out of the box (although judging by reviews, it's generally much more accurate than most monitors), so if colour accuracy is important, colour calibration is recommended with each newly purchased Studio Display.

Apple Studio Display review: An excellent monitor at a steep price

Apple's new Studio Display is an extremely color accurate IPS LCD with a bunch of unique features and exceptional build quality. But with a price tag of $1,600, you really have to value those extra features. For Apple, this is a missed opportunity to give the creative community a smaller, more...

www.dpreview.com

Before calibration, with the default display profile:



Before calibration, with the Photography display profile:



After calibration:



Out of the box the results for this particular unit are actually very good but not perfect of course, and unsurprisingly others have said there is some variability from unit to unit. Some are better than others. However, with calibration, there is significant improvement.

 

[citysnaps]

I'm no expert, but other people have previously stated that the Apple Studio Display is not always completely colour accurate out of the box (although judging by reviews, it's generally much more accurate than most monitors), so if colour accuracy is important, colour calibration is recommended with each newly purchased Studio Display.

Apple Studio Display review: An excellent monitor at a steep price

Apple's new Studio Display is an extremely color accurate IPS LCD with a bunch of unique features and exceptional build quality. But with a price tag of $1,600, you really have to value those extra features. For Apple, this is a missed opportunity to give the creative community a smaller, more...

www.dpreview.com

Before calibration, with the default display profile:

View attachment 2478494

Before calibration, with the Photography display profile:

View attachment 2478495

After calibration:

View attachment 2478496

Out of the box the results for this particular unit are actually very good but not perfect of course, and unsurprisingly others have said there is some variability from unit to unit. Some are better than others. However, with calibration, there is significant improvement.

Yes... The user does need to first select the photography profile. As I mentioned in my post I did make a few tweaks to the profile (taking a few minutes and saved as a preset), which produced prints that matched what I saw on my display.

The nice thing about my ASD is it is very stable with age. After two years of everyday use I haven't needed to go back and recalibrate from a print.

 

[An-apple-a-day]

Signaling that perhaps a new ASD on the way... alongside new M4 Mac Studios... 😃

 

[chetzar]

This thing is almost always on sale. Why? Because it’s overpriced.

It’s a great display, sure. But $1599 for a monitor with just ONE input? Gimme a break.
Apple drums up all this fancy stuff on the Studio Display and Pro Display XDR, but then kneecaps it with a single input.

 

[svish]

Good to see a reduction in price but still costly. Not expecting to see a new model or a further discount anytime soon. So if one is looking out to purchase the Studio Display, it seems like a good time.

 

[Student of Life]

Isn’t Samsung coming out with a 27 inch Oled 5k display later this year?

 

[UltimaKilo]

A stuttery 60Hz in 2025? Not even for $500

 

[theorist9]

For those of us who strongly prefer glossy displays because of their text sharpness and lack of "sparkling snowfield" effect on white backgrounds, there is, unfortunately, nothing out there that's competitive with the ASD. Everyone else's 5k and 6k displays are matte only, with the exception of the much older 5k LG Ultrafine.

It seems like Samsung, Dell, etc. are making their 5k and 6k displays with the PC market in mind rather than the Mac market. I.e., if they were also making them for the Mac market, I think they'd follow Apple's lead and offer it in both glossy and matte variants. Apple offers the glossy because they know many Mac owners are used to, and very fond of, the outstanding glossy 5k display offered for many years on the 5k Retina iMac.

 

[TechRunner]

The Asus ProArts come pre-calibrated with ΔE error <2, and even come with a printout of the calibration report. The Asus stand and bezel aesthetics are not beautiful though, and their menu system is clearly designed by an engineer not a UX designer.

My recently purchased ProArt PA34VCNV also came with a three-year warranty, another selling point when I was comparing monitors.

 

[ErneX]

Nobody makes a nicer built monitor than Apple, but this year there are a bunch of good monitors coming, and importantly, these other monitors feature KVM and multiple video inputs unlike the Apple ones, if you need to use it with 2 computers the Apple is a chore (you need to unplug and plug the cable all the time).

I’ll probably get the Asus 6K 32inch one, retail price is supposedly 1200 USD, that has 218ppi just like most 5K 27inch monitors.

If you want a 5K 27inch BenQ has a new one but it costs the same as the 6K Asus. It does come with a puck remote control though.

 

[drrich2]

It seems like Samsung, Dell, etc. are making their 5k and 6k displays with the PC market in mind rather than the Mac market. I.e., if they were also making them for the Mac market, I think they'd follow Apple's lead and offer it in both glossy and matte variants. Apple offers the glossy because they know many Mac owners are used to, and very fond of, the outstanding glossy 5k display offered for many years on the 5k Retina iMac.

That's a good insight. On the PC side, they don't suffer from the fear-uncertainty-doubt (FUD) factor when considering 4K 27" displays and are happy with them (as I'm happy with mine on a Mac, but then there's the debate about scaling on Macs), and they never had 5K 27" iMacs. So, what PC user is likely to pay extra for 5K 27"?

Someone in an office? A professional in an environment where glare is fairly likely, at times intensely scrutinizing his/her screen for fine detail?

In fairness, to get 'matte' (nano texture) on an ASD is a pretty significant upcharge.

 

[uller6]

BenQ PD2730S is a good competitor here

$1199 MSRP -- nearly the same specs but includes a height adjustable stand w/ VESA options built in and a ton more connectivity (DP, TB, PD, USB-C, HDMI, Audio Out), basic HDR (better than nothing), 100% sRGB, 98% DCI-P3 ...

No Webcam though ... Personally that's of no importance to me, but I understand some users will want one

The BenQ PD2730S only has 400 nits brightness, as compared to the Studio Display's 600 nits. They don't even compare...at those brightness levels the BenQ is next to useless in a room with windows.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The BenQ PD2730S only has 400 nits brightness, as compared to the Studio Display's 600 nits. They don't even compare...at those brightness levels the BenQ is next to useless in a room with windows.

"next to useless" is a little hyperbolic honestly -- but to each everyones own, for sure

BenQ has 2000:1 contrast ratio vs only 1200:1 for ASD if you're looking to flip it around on some other specs


Cheers

 

[uller6]

"next to useless" is a little hyperbolic honestly -- but to each everyones own, for sure

BenQ has 2000:1 contrast ratio vs only 1200:1 for ASD if you're looking to flip it around on some other specs


Cheers

It's definitely hyperbolic! I should have explicitly said that it's my opinion and others may feel differently. But the difference between 400 nits and 600 nits is huge.

 

[Alameda]

Specmanship matters when someone is buying one product to cover a range of tasks and either has limited funds or demands clear value for money.

Some people have a pickup truck and a car (whatever brand and model); some have just one.



Similarly, some people have a t.v. and watch most videos on it; some either just have a one display device (e.g.: monitor or t.v.), or mainly watch just one device (e.g.: my wife watches a t.v. in the bedroom, and I watch videos on my Dell monitor). Samsung even offers some computer displays with smart t.v. features and a remote.

The spec.s matter when the buyer is weighing his options. Someone who already has a sweet 3rd party sound system may have no use for spatial audio, but someone in a dorm room with tight space constraints might love it. I don't care much about the ASD's aluminum frame build quality and aesthetic, but someone in another thread valued it pretty highly. I rarely video conference; some people use it a lot. Color accuracy is a big deal with some professionals.

You simply do not understand. I thought I explained it clearly.

You complained that the refresh rate of a display optimized for photo editing and graphic design is not as fast as the refresh rate of some other displays. I tried to explain that there is no display that’s optimal for all things. You seem to think there is… But there isn’t. I’ve done this professionally probably since before you were born.

 

[Alameda]

"next to useless" is a little hyperbolic honestly -- but to each everyones own, for sure

BenQ has 2000:1 contrast ratio vs only 1200:1 for ASD if you're looking to flip it around on some other specs


Cheers

That doesn’t sound like a meaningful comparison because the ASD has 600 nits of peak brightness vs 400 for the BenQ. That’s an objectively measurable value.

But how does 400 nits get us to “2000 times brighter than the blackest black”? The ASD’s blacks would have to be horrible for that comparison to hold objectively.

How can this claim hold up? One way is for the BenQ to use local dimming: The LED backlighting behind dark regions of the screen get turned off or dimmed. While this can be effective for watching movies at a distance, or maybe video gaming, it doesn’t work for reading black text against a white background, and it’s bad to use for photo editing and graphics work because you want to see the actual contrast in your image without the monitor going bright and dark at random. The ASD isn’t a TV set or a gaming monitor, so it shouldn’t be expected to have unrealistically high contrast ratio.

 

[EugW]

That doesn’t sound like a meaningful comparison because the ASD has 600 nits of peak brightness vs 400 for the BenQ. That’s an objectively measurable value.

But how does 400 nits get us to “2000 times brighter than the blackest black”? The ASD’s blacks would have to be horrible for that comparison to hold objectively.

How can this claim hold up? One way is for the BenQ to use local dimming: The LED backlighting behind dark regions of the screen get turned off or dimmed. While this can be effective for watching movies at a distance, or maybe video gaming, it doesn’t work for reading black text against a white background, and it’s bad to use for photo editing and graphics work because you want to see the actual contrast in your image without the monitor going bright and dark at random. The ASD isn’t a TV set or a gaming monitor, so it shouldn’t be expected to have unrealistically high contrast ratio.

2000:1 contrast ratios are becoming more common for IPS screens, and yes the measured contrast ratio is indeed close to 2000:1 real world. LG calls this IPS Black and it is achieved by having a different IPS design with improved black levels. It is typically found in higher end panels aimed at creative professionals, but it is not present in the Apple 27” Studio Display. It does not involve a mini-LED or FALD backlight per se, although you can design IPS Black displays with mini-LED / FALD as well.

 

[drrich2]

The BenQ PD2730S only has 400 nits brightness, as compared to the Studio Display's 600 nits. They don't even compare...at those brightness levels the BenQ is next to useless in a room with windows.

Question...does the ASD with glossy display use brightness to overcome glare, whereas competitors use some degree of matte coating, such that maybe they don't need to be quite as bright? Curious and haven't seen this side-by-side in such an environment.

You simply do not understand. I thought I explained it clearly.

I think I do. I may well be looking at and articulately the matter differently than you do, from a different perspective, but that does not mean I 'don't understand.'

And I dealt with your metaphor. Not everyone can have the car and the pickup; some use a single device more broadly, even when it's not the best choice for some of what's done with it.

You complained that the refresh rate of a display optimized for photo editing and graphic design is not as fast as the refresh rate of some other displays.

I've been pointing out various features and limitations, but don't recall 'complaining.' For that matter, where in this thread did I say anything about refresh rates, much less that the refresh rate of a display optimized for photo editing and graphic design isn't as fast as that of some other displays?

I looked over my posts on this thread so far, and maybe I'm just missing it? Quote it for me so I can see.

I tried to explain that there is no display that’s optimal for all things. You seem to think there is… But there isn’t.

How you concluded I think there's a display optional for all things I don't know. I don't think and did not assert that.

Now someone monitor shopping often does aim to deduce what balance of factors is optimum for her or her, be it resolution, color accuracy, screen size, build quality, built-in sound system, price, etc...

I’ve done this professionally probably since before you were born.

Congratulations.

 

[theorist9]

That's a good insight. On the PC side, they don't suffer from the fear-uncertainty-doubt (FUD) factor when considering 4K 27" displays and are happy with them (as I'm happy with mine on a Mac, but then there's the debate about scaling on Macs), and they never had 5K 27" iMacs. So, what PC user is likely to pay extra for 5K 27"?

Someone in an office? A professional in an environment where glare is fairly likely, at times intensely scrutinizing his/her screen for fine detail?

In fairness, to get 'matte' (nano texture) on an ASD is a pretty significant upcharge.

And you make a good point as well—most PC users have had no exposure to 220 ppi displays (5k@27"), and are perfectly happy with 160 ppi (4k@27"), so aren't even going to be motivated to consider a 5k. Thus it's surprising these other brands didn't do a better job of building something that would please Mac users, as they are a natural market for this product.

Plus I'm not sure if they're even doing a good job marketing it to PC users. Apple marketed 5k to video creatives by saying 'this allows you to view 4k natively, while giving you screen area for your UI'. That was Apple's original stated purpose for the 5k screen. I don't know if Dell/Sammy/etc. are doing this with their 5k marketing materials.

But I have to say that, as someone who uses a 4k@27" (Dell) alongside a 5k@27" (iMac), the difference is legit. I strongly prefer the latter over the former. It's sharper, clearer, and less fatiguing to use. So it's not about FUD.

Many commenters on this don't have good eyesight and can't clearly see the difference themselves, so they don't understand. But for those of us who do, the 5k is a welcome upgrade. And that's especially true for those of us who work with large data sheets and thus need to zoom out to see the entire thing at once, while keeping those small fonts readable.

 

[EugW]

Windows looks better at 164 ppi than macOS does, because Windows has subpixel antialiasing, whereas macOS does not.

Apple removed this feature after all of its pro machines went Retina, making its non-Retina machines actually look worse than they did before.