1445 posts and no one complained that that the new iPad Air doesn't get a True Tone flash like on the iPad mini 6. I guess no one really does care about taking photos with a large iPad.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Event Live Blog: iPhone SE, iPad Air, Mac Studio, and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’m sure my 70 year old dad is losing sleep over it, but nobody in my generation uses an iPad for photography. They could get rid of the rear facing camera altogether and I woudn’t care.
It wasn't too long ago we thought the Mac was a dead platform. Apple has really turned the Mac around.
It's part of Apple's commitment to the environment.
I'm guessing Apple is looking at its user base, who probably all own a good, easier-to-use camera phone at this point.
Compared to my current fully-maxed 27" iMac (not iMac Pro) for $2700, of which this new model will blow out of the water, I think it's a pretty good deal. But then again, I paid over $5K for a Quadra 700 box and close to $10K for my whole studio set up in 1993. I was a design student and eventually paid it off. Haven't complained about a better-computer-for-less-money ever since.
I would say not good price for M1max: I was considering this instead of the never arriving 16” M1Max 10/32 64GB 2TB I’ve ordered, but equivalent Studio + base Display= 5.534,71€ vs 4.199,00€ MBP. So plus 1.335,71€ for a bigger but considerably worst display? Or only less 463,29€ than MBP+Display combo. Don’t think so. Always felt this time around MBP were very reasonable priced. The Studio price makes them a “bargain”.
Display was underwhelming, but price made it ridiculous…
Do Not Forget Pro software, specially anything using ray tracing hardware, still to be around here…
Or take out those speakers and camera and make it US$ 999 (including the adjustable stand).
100% Agree.Unfortunately this panel is not up the task😞
16”MBP is by far the best offer: 16”M1Max 10/32 64GB 2TB less 1.335,71€ than equivalent Studio+Display combo, and you get a much better display albeit smaller.
It is a dead platform util they start caring about software, we had fast enough cpus since sandy bridge, we need software improvements
I think that problem comes from Apple wanting $1600 for a $1000 display, not the Mac Studio. Without the display:
Using US prices: 16" MBP, 10/32 32GB 1TB M1 Max => $3500
Studio 10/32 32GB 1TB M1 Max => $2400
...and I'm sure you could get a nice 3rd party display, keyboard etc. for that $1100 change, assuming you don't already have them.
Bear in mind that, with Intel, mobile-class processors came at a significant premium c.f. the desktop processors used in iMacs etc. whereas with Apple Silicon - at least up to 'M1 max' level - everything is using the same chips.
Problem is - either 5k panels are stupidly expensive wholesale, or Apple is cashing in on the lack of competing 5k panels.
It's this. The PC market mostly has two modes: extremely cheap garbage screens intended for people to use in offices for general tasks, where the only point is "be as cheap as possible", or if screens are more expensive they're typically targeted at gamers, who don't necessarily want high pixel density (because higher resolutions require more expensive GPUs to drive at decent frame rates) but instead prioritize refresh rate and latency. So the wider third-party monitor market is mostly tailored to those two segments. Almost all monitors (even gamer-focused ones) top out at 4K. Anything higher tends to be thousands of dollars because it's for a niche of a niche.
Doubled 2560x1440 (the 5K of Apple's 27" iMac and now Studio display) never really became a thing in the PC market. Everyone decided 4K was enough, so there's almost no panels to use. Apple and LG with the UltraFine are really the only two folks making a monitor with that resolution panel. So… yeah, they can kind of charge whatever they want for it.
I'm hoping in a few years it'll get bumped to mini-LED backlighting and >60Hz ProMotion as that technology becomes cheaper, at which point I'd feel much more comfortable with the $1600 price. But I think that's several years out yet.
Nope, both have M1-max. Essentially same computer.
What are those things?
At any given moment your eyes can only see contrast ratio of 1:1000. With peaks in 2100, you can't see anything below 2 nits. With peaks in 1000, you can't see anything below 1 nit.
So it's all about available light around you, and if you can control it, there's no need for infinite amount of brightness.
If you don't like the feel of being blinded every now and then.
I've enjoyed this for 3 years now:
34" Class 21:9 UltraWide® 5K2K LED Monitor - 34WK95U-W | LG USA
Discover the 34" Class 21:9 UltraWide® 5K2K LED Monitor that features HDR 600 and Nano IPS Display. Find reviews, specs, and more for 34WK95U-W.
(Only problem is that mini2018 has really bad drivers for TB-embedded audio, most models use DP-embedded audio... And Apple never fixed this...)
And I won't downgrade the width, I could use more height though.
Bigger size is better for me than tinier pixels.
Sure, but again, ultrawides are not the same as Retina. Apple has committed to Retina across their lineup. If you don't WANT a Retina screen, then don't buy one. There are clearly plenty of displays out there have decided the same thing. Personally, I just want a 16:9 Retina-class display where I don't have to run in a scaled mode to get a 5K screen. I don't think the Studio Display introduced today makes sense at its current price, but whenever it gets MacBook Pro-like features (AKA mini-LED array backlighting and ProMotion), I'll absolutely buy it.
Yup. Pretty much. Garbage product though for $2000-$4000.
But it doesn’t even support 4K@120Hz over HDMI
Last edited:
You aren't wrong. The issue is that you can't always control brightness around you. Controlling light in my office is near impossible, at least during the day.
I want to produce a contrast ratio that is just greater than what I can perceive. And, to be fair, monitors with extreme nit displays also have other features, like automatic calibration. What I struggle to justify, but still want, are the 16-bit displays. Similar problem, with a similar justification.
And what is the official definition of "Retina"?
Because if you define it by horizontal viewing angle ultrawide 5k is as much "retina" as non-ultrawide 5k.
Although, people have finally realized that all ultrawides should be curved and this might be something that Apple can never produce.
It's defined by pixel pitch and how that interacts with the human eye at typical viewing distances. If you're sitting a couple feet from your monitor, 5120x2160 pixels stretched out over 34"+ is not "Retina". It's 168PPI, a far cry from the 217PPI of a Studio Display. It's definitely higher than the ~110PPI average of other non-Retina displays, but it's not in the same territory as a proper high resolution display. In general you need somewhere north of 200PPI for a desktop display and somewhere north of 300PPI on a mobile device display (typically viewed closer up) to truly make individual pixels indistinguishable.
Obviously yes the term "Retina" is a marketing one, but to my knowledge Apple has not released a display below ~218PPI in a Mac system and called it "Retina" in the history of their usage of the term.
Melikes the MateView, but it's still a bit expensive (if a cool and very affordable alternative to the new Studio Display).Well, I've also got a 2017 5k iMac - but that was because there was no viable headless desktop available at the time and I was already kinda tending towards the "high end Mini" and using 3rd-party displays...
A M1 Max Mac Studio with a pair of these arouses my interest:
HUAWEI MateView 28.2 inch Monitor, 4K UHD(3840x2560), 1 Billion Colours, Ultra-thin, 60 Hz Refresh Rate, IPS,HDR400,MiniDP, HDMI, 2xUSB-C,2xUSB Mystic Silver
HUAWEI MateView is a monitor that enhances every aspect of your experience. It presents elegance in a stunning 4K+ display and intensifies your love of colour. It enables smart work via wireless connectivity to multiple devices. Use your finger to conveniently control MateView functions and setti...www.amazon.co.uk
(EDIT: Amazon have the screen res wrong - it's actually a 3840x2400 16:10 ratio)
I've been doing the math and I'm ever more tempted to get myself a second LG 27UK670. It's not the most beautiful thing ever but, with its subtle chin, not too offensive either (I'd much rather have a Logitech webcam up top than that stupid forehead on the UltraFine, mind you); also, our first PC ever was a GoldStar 386SX, so I do have a bit of a soft spot for LG.
It's very sad to lose the 1:1 pixel rendering and DCI-P3 coverage, but I believe I can't afford either of those options (the MateView and the Studio Display) at the moment… I mean, I could pair a MateView with the LG, but, ugh, having two differently sized (and aesthetically mismatched) screens again would be weird, and I'd much rather save those €200 and buy Apple's top-of-the line peripherals instead (on that subject, why the hell don't they offer the compact keyboards with black keys as well? It's much more ergonomic to have the alphanumeric portion centred on the desk with the mouse or trackpad close by, and having that combo in the “Pro” look would be nice for a change).
So my plan is to just keep the two LGs for a few years and, when I'm feeling less constrained in the financial department, to splurge on two Studio Displays and give the LGs to my dad (who travels between two offices and is already used to connecting his MacBook to our old 1080p 24'' Philips screens), or something…
As for the Mac, yep, I'm going for the base model Studio with the 1 TB upgrade (if it isn't this one, it may be the M2/M1X Max version next year). My current iMac has the 512 GB upgrade and a SATA SSD glued on the back, and it's already getting a bit cramped in there.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Retina is defined (by Apple) as 300 ppi viewed from 12 inches (https://www.designcompaniesranked.com/resources/is-this-retina/). You can't cite the PPI without also knowing the distance. The critical value is the angular size of the pixel at the viewing distance - i.e. the size divided by the distance. If you double the distance, you double the size (halve the density) of pixels needed for the "retina" effect.
So, 168PPI at 24" is effectively the same as 336 PPI at 12" (i.e. the same sort of pixel density as the iPhones for which Apple first used the "retina" name).
Imagine the image of a single pixel projected on your retina. Now stand twice as far from the screen - the image on your retina is going to be half the size. So a 1/300" pixel at 12" is going to look the same as a 1/150" pixel at 24".
The 300 PPI figure probably dates back to the old Apple LaserWriter which helped establish 300 DPI at the normal distance you'd hold a printed page - as the minimum resolution for acceptable quality printing (there's a whole can of worms about dots per inch vs. pixels per inch but for a monochrome bitmap it doesn't matter).
Retina is only a rule of thumb based on a very simple model of vision (it ignores how well your eye can focus at different distances, not to mention the crazy image processing done by the original "neural engine" in your skull) but the practical upshot is that, once you pass ~150 PPI for something you're viewing at 2 feet away, any more resolution brings rapidly diminishing returns.
Of course, if you lean over the desk and risk nose-prints on the glass doing A/B comparisons you'll see a difference, but that falls under "you're holding it wrong".
Seems to be about £500 here in the UK so you could get three for the price of Apple's offering.
Two might be interesting...
I get your point, but I still look at that extra $1.1k as more appealing: realy outstanding display and added benefit of portability. The Ultra is a different story.
And yes, Apple is obviously cashing in on our “dependence” on 220ppi…😔
Why do we think they stuck the Max chip in the Studio rather than the Mac Mini? The Mac Mini would be more than capable of cooling it if the MacBook Pro can do it competently!! I'm looking for a reason other than because it's easier to charge a $1300 premium for it over the M1 Mini ;-)
I imagine the M2 Ultra next year will have the power and heat ramped up, when those fans will suddenly start earning their keep.
I imagine the M2 Ultra next year will have the power and heat ramped up, when those fans will suddenly start earning their keep.
That Studio Display is only a regular sized SSD and a couple more gigs of RAM away from being an iMac. A slow iMac, sure, but it would work. Add an M1 and it's a compelling buy. Would be effortless to make the change for Apple- I bet it was prototyped as an iMac at some point in the last year...
Let me rephrase:
at what viewing distance the 168ppi monitor is retina display?
The relationship is why would they continue a technology if it’s no longer a technology they’re on board with? They have to at least be on board enough with it to keep adding it to new products
They could’ve added FaceID to the iMac if they really wanted to
I'll calculate:
2' = 24", circle is 151"
217ppi is then 91px per 1°. (Which, btw, is not nearly enough for normally accepted visual acuity, which is on arc minute, meaning 2px per arc minute, meaning 120px per 1°.)
To get 91px/1° with 168ppi, you need the circle of 195", which leads to distance from center to the circle: 31".
Wow! 7 INCHES (EDIT: difference)!
(That's less than my...)
Mark you position and keep your distance!
Last edited: