Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple 23" Display v. Acer 24" Display

samfeldman

samfeldman

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 11, 2007
9
0
Phoenix, AZ
Ok, so I'm new to this but have had macs for many years (PB G4 currently). I've also been reading this site and the forums for a long time, but never needed advice I couldn't find before. Here's my problem.

I'm buying the 2.3MhZ MBP 15", considering some upgrades to it, and also buying the Apple bluetooth keyboard/mouse combo. I need a display for when I'm working at my desk. I will be doing prof. photo and video editing at tv quality, but I need the portability (hence a laptop, not MacPro).

I could buy the apple 23" display, but I am not necessarily attached at the hip to the monitor. It seems about $100-$200 overpriced, even with an edu discount and the recent price cut. I found an acer 24" with these specs:

Acer 24" (from BestBuy.com)
6 ms response time
1000:1 contrast ratio
500 cd/m² brightness
1920 x 1200 maximum resolution; 178° viewing angles

And apple's specs are:
16ms response time
700:1 contrast ration
400 cd/m2 brightness
1920 x 1200 resolution; 170 degree viewing angle

First, am I going to notice a difference between the specifications of these two monitors?

Second, is one better than the other?

Third, should I just be loyal to apply and buy their monitor? It's $150 more, an inch smaller, and I'm already spending an insane amount on the computer itself. Is it their any non-aesthetic reason to purchase the apple monitor?

Thanks all -- you're comments are very much appreciated!
 
For $150 you get the extra aesthetic value of the Apple Cinema Display. The extra inch on the Acer doesn't matter due to the fact the screen resolution is exactly the same on both displays.

My vote is the Apple Cinema Display, for its style.
 
Generally speaking Apple monitors have better colour straight from the box. With other monitors you may need to tweak it abit (or a lot) to get the to look the same. Apple monitors are also very very solid in terms of construction ... no one else can compare really.
You also get a firewire/usb hub as a bonus. And better resell value later if that is of any importance to you.
 
i'm not so fond of the apple 23"... its built quality is not optimal, there has been a number of issue regarding to its color.

apple's display is generally pretty good.. just the 23" seems to have a series of problems

i'm not sure how important is color accuracy in terms of video editing for TV... but if it's not super critical, id at least consider other options.

the specs are a bit lower on apple's end, but i'm not sure just exactly how much can you tell in terms of those.
 
apple is generally more honest with specs, It's likely that the ACD is better technically even not including colour accuracy.

Get the ACD unless you need more inputs, then get a dell.
 
The Acer 24" appears to be an S-PVA screen by Samsung. Not bad, could be much worse. The Apple 23" is S-IPS, which is better yet — especially for colour fidelity. The aluminum design looks nicer too.

Also, I suspect Acer is exaggerating on the viewing angle. PVA screens tend to look yellowish at angles even if they're technically still "viewable".
 
i personally like acers, but the color does look a lil dim on my mac mini....it's just darker than the colors actually are, but then I've never tried to adjust it

...I dont like apple displays though...too bulky for my taste
 
I'm not an expert at this, but I've read here that longer reponse times is better for photo editing...can't remeber why though... But I do think that Acer's LCDs look a little "dry." Probably what jayeskreezy was talking about.
 
I have read that the 23" cinema display goes into a "zombie sleep" (i.e. does not wake up from sleep) after one year of use. Am not sure if this is true or not, but here is the LINK Has any cinema display owner has this problem? If so, the acer might be a better one to get? I dunno...
 
Thanks Guys!

Thanks everyone for your thoughts and suggestions -- I went to the Apple Store and Best Buy today and saw both. The ACER really isn't as pretty, but I tend to enjoy the look more. The ACD is amazing, too, though, and I love that it matches the MBP and has the USB/Firewire hubs. Tough decision!

I also saw online the Dell 24", which is fairly nice, it seems. But the Dell Direct store is rather far away, so I may not make it out there till this weekend. What about the Dell? Anyone have thoughts on that monitor?

Any more advice? Anyone think this is a clear decision?
 
*HOA*Maxmus said:
I have read that the 23" cinema display goes into a "zombie sleep" (i.e. does not wake up from sleep) after one year of use. Am not sure if this is true or not, but here is the LINK Has any cinema display owner has this problem? If so, the acer might be a better one to get? I dunno...
Click to expand...

I'm not going to temp fate but my 23" is almost 2 years old come June. I haven't encountered sleep issues.

samfeldman said:
Thanks everyone for your thoughts and suggestions -- I went to the Apple Store and Best Buy today and saw both. The ACER really isn't as pretty, but I tend to enjoy the look more. The ACD is amazing, too, though, and I love that it matches the MBP and has the USB/Firewire hubs. Tough decision!

I also saw online the Dell 24", which is fairly nice, it seems. But the Dell Direct store is rather far away, so I may not make it out there till this weekend. What about the Dell? Anyone have thoughts on that monitor?

Any more advice? Anyone think this is a clear decision?
Click to expand...

Go for the Apple display, you will love it and the colour quality is fantastic. I got a second one because of it. Purely for graphic work though.
I love my Dell 2405 as well but it gets used for gaming, its just the colour and screen quality I find so much better for Photoshop work. Plus not only that the silver trim really is not an eye sore during the day or at night unlike the heavy black trim from the Dell.
 
Zwhaler said:
I would go with the Acer, simply because it has better specs. Either that or wait until ACDs are updated.
Click to expand...

Whoa, there... most specs these days on recent monitors are greatly exaggerated. The response time is grey-to-grey, which can be ambiguously defined by any manufacturer. Often the brightness is pumped up so the contrast ratio can be listed as higher -- but you lose real blacks. Viewing angles are simply ridiculous. I think the having 10% brightness can now pass as a "viewable" angle. That is not a workable angle. Make especially sure that you don't see a variance in brightness from the top to bottom of the screen (fill with a single color?), which might make color vary as you move your head slightly up and down.

Getting side by side comparisons is best, but hard (and even then, the brighter monitor will "look" better, so be careful). Evaluate those specs as best you can yourself. Move around it and decide what how much of a workable angle there is. Get a good black and white photo (covers the greyscale range -- see apple's default desktop background) on the screen, and make sure the blacks look black, and aren't reflecting too much of an overpowered backlight. I have a samsung monitor whose brightness i cannot turn down enough.

Ultimately, if quality of the image really matters, you will need to get a calibrator. I presume that all modern monitors have customizable color profiles, and doing it yourself will match your own lighting conditions best of all.

Can you buy both from Costco or something and return the one you don't like?

Let us know what you get, and what you think of it!
 
PkennethV said:
I'm not an expert at this, but I've read here that longer reponse times is better for photo editing...can't remeber why though...
Click to expand...

Can any1 verify this. Cause I want a moniter for video/photoediting. And a moniter for gaming. What moniters are good for each one.
 
antonwalker said:
Can any1 verify this. Cause I want a moniter for video/photoediting. And a moniter for gaming. What moniters are good for each one.
Click to expand...

Never heard this and my only concern with shopping for LCDs is for photo editing. I only look at the color accuracy potential (use a hardware calibrator...a must for photo work) and reliablity. I can care less about the other specs...though prefer lower brightness. All LCDs are capable of brightness far more than you need for photo editing (at least print work). All mine are usually turned all the way down when cailbrated.
 
antonwalker said:
Can any1 verify this. Cause I want a moniter for video/photoediting. And a moniter for gaming. What moniters are good for each one.
Click to expand...

I have played both MMORPGs and RTS's on my 23" Apple Cinema Display without effort.

I also do video- and photo-editing on it.
 
antonwalker said:
Can any1 verify this. Cause I want a moniter for video/photoediting. And a moniter for gaming. What moniters are good for each one.
Click to expand...
It's not really a matter of slower response time -> better quality, but there is some truth to it.

The fast "gamer"-lcd's with response times like 2ms use TN-panels. TN-panels have very fast response times, but are quite lacking in image quality.

LCDs with very good image quality, precise colors, etc use S-IPS panels. They're downside is that they have very slow response times.

The Acer you mentioned uses S-PVA. S-PVA-panels could be describes as Jacks of all trades. Decent image quality and not that bad response time, but not awesome at either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back