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

Apple Releases Studio Display Firmware 15.5 With Webcam Update

The Studio Display seems like a rush-job, hastily cobbled together with left over parts.

The upsides:
• an absolutely beautiful design;
• a modestly improved 5k monitor;
• great speakers; and
• decent microphones.

Downsides:
• a mediocre camera;
• camera software that wasn't ready for prime time;
• a powerful chip and ample storage that are *barely* utilized (could have been a standalone iPad and/or smart TV);
• no Face ID;
• no Wifi/Airplay for wireless connections or standalone use;
• good but not exactly spectacular color spaces;
• it's 8 bit, not 10 bit;
• only one Thunderbolt input (no HDMI or Display Port options)
• internal power brick (makes the display thicker, necessitates fans, and a power cord you can't remove);
• no height adjustment; and
• the VESA mount options are poor. There's no option for a matching Apple arm. The mounting brackets destroy the aesthetics (they look bolted on and obscure the Apple logo; hard to imagine Jony Ive had any input).
• the VESA option does NOT even include a longer thunderbolt cable. You'll have to shell out another ~$129 to get the 1.8 meters cable to make an arm usable. Did anyone at Apple even test this?

• there's no "Apple magic". Not a single design element or unique feature really "wows" me. No Face ID, Mag Safe, a great camera (or two); it won't do duty as a Wifi/smart home hub, work like a Home Pod, Apple TV; it could even be used as a backup to restore your computer in the event of a crash, etc. But nope.

If nothing else, in the era of telecommuting, the camera should be the top of the Apple line.

Granted, the upsides may yet be reason enough to buy it. But the monitor still contains many *avoidable* disappointments, on top of some really bad design choices.

Will Apple address these design flaws next year in an updated version? That would certainly be the right thing to do. Or will they freeze the design for at least 2 years, so as not to disappoint the early adopters?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: jakey rolling, Spacegray, jdb8167 and 2 others
EthanDMathews said:
The upsides:
• an absolutely beautiful design;
Click to expand...
I dunno. If you look at the Studio Display and the Pro Display XDR side-by-side, the Studio's wider bezels (about double the width) make it seem dated by comparison.

That wouldn't matter much to me personally, but if we're talking aesthetics ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: EthanDMathews
EthanDMathews said:
The Studio Display seems like a rush-job, hastily cobbled together with left over parts.

The upsides:
• an absolutely beautiful design;
• a modestly improved 5k monitor;
• great speakers; and
• decent microphones.

Downsides:
• a mediocre camera;
• camera software that wasn't ready for prime time;
• a powerful chip and ample storage that are *barely* utilized (could have been a standalone iPad and/or smart TV);
• no Face ID;
• no Wifi/Airplay for wireless connections or standalone use;
• good but not exactly spectacular color spaces;
• it's 8 bit, not 10 bit;
• internal power brick (makes the display thicker, necessitates fans, and a power cord you can't remove);
• no height adjustment; and
• the VESA mount options are poor. There's no option for a matching Apple arm. The mounting brackets destroy the aesthetics (they look bolted on and obscure the Apple logo; hard to imagine Jony Ive had any input).
• the VESA option does NOT even include a longer thunderbolt cable. You'll have to shell out another ~$129 to get the 1.8 meters cable to make an arm usable. Did anyone at Apple even test this?

Given the price and name ("Studio Display"), one would expect a few more professional quality features: Face ID and a much better camera (or two). At the very least, the camera should be the top of the Apple line.

Now, the upsides may yet be reason enough to buy it. But the monitor still contains many *avoidable* disappointments, on top of some really bad design choices.

Will Apple address these design flaws next year in an updated version? That would certainly be the right thing to do. Or will they freeze the design for at least 2 years, so as not to disappoint the early adopters?
Click to expand...
I agree with you. The good news is that some of these downsides can be solved with software/firmware updates. I refuse to believe that Apple put an entire A13 chip with 64 GB of memory just for Center Stage and Spacial Audio. I eagerly await WWDC. Concerning the panel, can you cite where it is 8 bit? I've yet to find a definitive source that nails this issue down, but most sources seem to agree that it is a 10-bit panel with support for 1.07 billion colors. I'm willing to be wrong on this though.

I have two of these displays. I originally had 2 LG 27 Ultragear 4K monitors. While I loved the much faster refresh rate and the support for HDR (though its HDR performance was meager), everything looked blown up and super large when using the displays at native resolution; using scaled modes introduced a bit of fuzziness which was unacceptable to my eyes. I saw the reviews about the camera prior to buying the displays, so I knew what I was getting into. While I do think some of the complaints are a bit of a stretch (the camera is far from unusable), I did expect much better at this price point. I enjoy the center stage feature, but they should've used a better sensor. I do believe they will continue to refine the camera as best they can and that it will get even better however, the display panel is far from a home run. Unfortunately, the only other 5K option is the LG monitor, and while the panels are very similar the build quality is miles apart.
 
EthanDMathews said:
The Studio Display seems like a rush-job, hastily cobbled together with left over parts.

The upsides:
• an absolutely beautiful design;
• a modestly improved 5k monitor;
• great speakers; and
• decent microphones.

Downsides:
• a mediocre camera;
• camera software that wasn't ready for prime time;
• a powerful chip and ample storage that are *barely* utilized (could have been a standalone iPad and/or smart TV);
• no Face ID;
• no Wifi/Airplay for wireless connections or standalone use;
• good but not exactly spectacular color spaces;
• it's 8 bit, not 10 bit;
• internal power brick (makes the display thicker, necessitates fans, and a power cord you can't remove);
• no height adjustment; and
• the VESA mount options are poor. There's no option for a matching Apple arm. The mounting brackets destroy the aesthetics (they look bolted on and obscure the Apple logo; hard to imagine Jony Ive had any input).
• the VESA option does NOT even include a longer thunderbolt cable. You'll have to shell out another ~$129 to get the 1.8 meters cable to make an arm usable. Did anyone at Apple even test this?

Given the price and name ("Studio Display"), one would expect a few more professional quality features: Face ID and a much better camera (or two). At the very least, the camera should be the top of the Apple line.

Now, the upsides may yet be reason enough to buy it. But the monitor still contains many *avoidable* disappointments, on top of some really bad design choices.

Will Apple address these design flaws next year in an updated version? That would certainly be the right thing to do. Or will they freeze the design for at least 2 years, so as not to disappoint the early adopters?
Click to expand...

You missed the biggest downside for me and that is it only has one input
 
  • Like
Reactions: EthanDMathews, Spacegray, jdb8167 and 1 other person
jha said:
not sure what everybody expects
Click to expand...

I can tell you exactly what I expect. I expect the image quality to at least match the dumb-looking $100 camera that I guess I'll just need to keep on top of my Studio Display.

SFjohn said:
If you can afford this display and don’t care for it‘s webcam, you can certainly afford a 3rd party webcam to suit your tastes.
Click to expand...

Cost is not the issue. I would have happily paid more for the display if I didn't need stack more hardware on top. However, I do think it is pricy enough as it is to warrant expectations of a decent camera.

theorist9 said:
Let's remember they didn't do anything fundamental to improve the display portion of this monitor over what's in the 2020 iMac (no increase in size or resolution, no local dimming, no variable refresh, no HDR), and yet they are charging only $200 less for this ($1599) than they did for an entire 2020 iMac ($1799).
Click to expand...

It could even be compared to the 2014 iMac, there have been very few meaningful improvements to the display since then.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EthanDMathews, theorist9 and jakey rolling
I'm an early adopter who ordered a Studio Display on the day it was announced. I don't mind paying premium prices for superior products. My Mac Studio is the seventeenth Macintosh that I've owned. This is the third version of this panel that I've owned (2017 iMac Pro and LG 5K Ultrafine Display). It is definitely the best of the three (reds look better and the blacks are slightly darker). The speakers are the best that I've heard in a monitor. The overall build quality of the monitor is incredible. Unfortunately, the camera is practically useless.

Even after yesterday's update the camera produces an image that is grainy, noisy and has flat washed-out color. In other words it's awful and unacceptable. I watched a video that I shot 13 years ago with my old 24 inch LED Cinema Display (released in 2008). Even though the image is small by today's standards (640 x 480), it's clear and easy to watch unlike the video that my Studio Display produces.

The current camera module is obviously the wrong one for this product. The primary purpose of the webcam is to capture great video of someone looking at the monitor. The designers ignored that and gave us Center Stage. I need a built-in camera that captures my image. I don't need Center Stage.

When I had a 2017 iMac Pro, I normally had the best looking video in a Zoom meeting. A couple of weeks ago, a guy asked me if I was using a Logitech Quickcam (a 20 year old webcam) because I had never looked so bad. I told him that I was using Apple's latest system and that I paid $4,200 for it.

I expect a certain amount of quality from Apple and this monitor doesn't deliver it. Apple should do the right thing and engineer an updated version of the Studio Display that makes useful video. It needs to feature a camera that produces results that are equal to or better than the FaceTime HD camera from five years ago. Then they should recall all of the Studio Displays that they have released thus far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDE and EthanDMathews
JR-in-Florida said:
This is the third version of this panel that I've owned (2017 iMac Pro and LG 5K Ultrafine Display).
Click to expand...

Same here, 2015 iMac and 2017 iMac.

JR-in-Florida said:
Unfortunately, the camera is practically useless.
Click to expand...

Yep. Regretfully have to agree, now that I have the update installed after initially getting the support.apple.com/display/restore message.

JR-in-Florida said:
The current camera module is obviously the wrong one for this product. The primary purpose of the webcam is to capture great video of someone looking at the monitor. The designers ignored that and gave us Center Stage. I need a built-in camera that captures my image. I don't need Center Stage.
Click to expand...

I did some tests with Center Stage, and determined I simply cannot safely use it without rearranging my workspace. The camera is so wide that it follows me to parts of the room that under no circumstances should be visible to random people in meetings.

Does ANYBODY actually want this? I cannot imagine many Studio Displays will ever be used by entire families at once to talk to grandma. In fact, I cannot imagine that more than a negligible number of them will ever be used in any other way than a single person sitting or standing still at a desk.

However, without Center Stage the framing is terrible. I need to tilt the display and raise it higher than I want it to be where I want to be in the frame, and the image quality is almost as bad as it was prior to the update.

I am just going to have to accept having an external camera on top of my expensive display.

JR-in-Florida said:
Then they should recall all of the Studio Displays that they have released thus far.
Click to expand...

That is harsh, but I agree, it is that bad.
 
Last edited:
eifelbube said:
It is true that many people are happy with the display quality (color reproduction, sharpness, etc.) but for $1500 I would expect equally high quality for all its functionalities and features. While it is smaller, the M1 iMac has not only an equally good display but it is a whole computer and has a better webcam at $200 less for the base model.
Click to expand...

no doubt. but if you have a mac mini or studio you ideally want to pair a 5k and speaker system to it. This gives both with exceptional build quality and aesthetics. Everyone I have shown it too are speechless as to its build quality and overall display sharpness.

Im not going to argue its high price though, if you want more for that $ I totally agree the webcam is not good because who cares about center stage when you are solo sitting in front of it -- really dumb design decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: performa_6400 and Arctic Moose
I’m wondering if this was a trade off on a device they had been developing for 3 years. I think they intended to use the iMac camera but couldn’t source enough chips to make that happen.

It was either release without a camera or use a scaled back one that supports the new center stage feature. The only other option was to not release it at all and wait until the chip issue was resolved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: performa_6400
Would we get better quality video if Center Stage was disabled? Basically just kill the cropping?
 
I don't see any improvement in my webcam on my Studio Display. It is as bad as ever. Really disappointed.
 
Loismustdie1 said:
Unfortunately, the only other 5K option is the LG monitor, and while the panels are very similar the build quality is miles apart.
Click to expand...
"Build quality". AKA "Apple encased their monitor in an aluminum shell." Of course, forgetting the fact that if you drop the thing or throw an Xbox controller at it, both monitors would probably fare about the same.

Given the number of compromises Apple built into their version of the monitor just to give you that famous Apple look-and-feel, that "build quality" schtick is a pretty hot take.
 
theorist9 said:
Yeah, something feels off about this product in terms of quality and branding. Let's remember they didn't do anything fundamental to improve the display portion of this monitor over what's in the 2020 iMac (no increase in size or resolution, no local dimming, no variable refresh, no HDR), and yet they are charging only $200 less for this ($1599) than they did for an entire 2020 iMac ($1799). At best, it seems there are small improvements in max brightness and black levels. And the bezels are narrower (though still twice as wide as those on the XDR, which has a more sleek, modern look for that reason).

I understand they were probably under manufacturing/technological/time constraints that prevented them from doing anything really cool with the screen (as contrasted with what they did with the 14" and 16" MBPs). But given this, and given what they planned to charge, the best approach would have been do to something special with the camera, like they did with the three-microphone array (which is reportedly excellent), and also not force an upcharge for something as basic as a vertically adjustable stand.

Specifically, at $1599, the webcam should have been outstanding. They could have done some clever engineering to both have Center Stage, yet allow the webcam to make use of the entire sensor when used in the most common mode, which is with one person. Simply doing a wide view and and then implementing an agressive crop for single-person use is a cheap, lazy approach.
Click to expand...
Adding full HDR would have required adding mini-LED which would also have given you local dimming but likley would have pushed the price up to $2K or more. The density of LEDs on a panel of that size might be less than we would like based on TV panel examples and on the XDR.

I think their mistake in the camera was in choosing the flashy Center Stage feature instead of just a solid and higher resolution webcam. The way that Center Stage requires a crop and zoom of an ultra-wide angle image means that it will always suffer from lower resolution and sharpness.

I know that Center Stage makes a good demo, but I don't see much value in it for a daily-use, professional monitor's webcam. It does little for a single individual and I don't know when I would ever have multiple people in front of that monitor. It might make sense on an iPad, but not a pro monitor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arctic Moose and theorist9
jakey rolling said:
"Build quality". AKA "Apple encased their monitor in an aluminum shell." Of course, forgetting the fact that if you drop the thing or throw an Xbox controller at it, both monitors would probably fare about the same.

Given the number of compromises Apple built into their version of the monitor just to give you that famous Apple look-and-feel, that "build quality" schtick is a pretty hot take.
Click to expand...
The LG Ultrafine has a history of failing thunderbolt ports when the ports detach from the circuit board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EthanDMathews
I wish there was an option to turn OFF centerstage. I feel like that could be part of the problem because of the dynamic cropping needed via software.
 
Arctic Moose said:
I did some tests with Center Stage, and determined I simply cannot safely use it without rearranging my workspace. The camera is so wide that it follows me to parts of the room that under no circumstances should be visible to random people in meetings.
Click to expand...
This is a really good point that I haven't seen very much. Center Stage is often highly undesirable when videoconferencing (for example, the typical work-from-home setup) because you don't want the camera to follow you if you need to move out of the picture, or to show parts of your room that you don't specifically want in the picture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arctic Moose, EthanDMathews and dennisbrekke
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