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

Apple Unveils $1,599 27-Inch 5K 'Studio Display' External Monitor

Lammers said:
Pretty weird that you would claim to know what someone else can and can’t perceive.

For about 18 months I used dual 27 4K in the office and dual 27 5K at home, same seating distance, and I could tell the difference in sharpness and density.

That said, I agree that 27 4K is typically adequate for most people for a “retina-like” experience.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the math says it is highly unlikely the difference you saw was due to the resolution itself. You have to be within 21" of a 27" 4k monitor to be able to distinguish individual pixels. Obviously there is variation from person to person, but at a normal desk setup, the monitor is usually going to be at least 24" away from you and often something more like 27" or 28". More likely what you are seeing is either better calibration or different settings (particularly with brightness) along with macOS's inability to do non-integer scaling well. All of those things could be fixed in a 4k monitor if Apple wanted to. Instead, they want to be one more than 4k for marketing reasons.

LonestarOne said:
A few days ago, people were predicting the new display would cost at least $2000, probably $2500 or more.

So, Apple introduced a display for $1600, and everyone’s all “insane prices, yadda, yadad….”

Since everyone else is complaining about the Studio Display, let me be the first to say I’m disappointed in the lack of a notch. :)
Click to expand...

I think people were assuming specs that would be handily beat 5 year old monitors. That didn't happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppelGeenyus
LonestarOne said:
A few days ago, people were predicting the new display would cost at least $2000, probably $2500 or more.

So, Apple introduced a display for $1600, and everyone’s all “insane prices, yadda, yadad….”

Since everyone else is complaining about the Studio Display, let me be the first to say I’m disappointed in the lack of a notch. :)
Click to expand...
As one of those people that was expecting a much higher price, that was upon the expectation that the monitor would be miniLED. I didn't expect them to release the same panel as the LG 5K.

That being said, I agree with you that the complaints of about the price are perplexing. I think many people would have gladly paid a $300 premium over the LG 5K just to get Apple's build quality and industrial design. Giving it a 12 MP camera with center stage and what seems to me to be a really nice sound system, in addition to TrueTone (and probably other niceties I'm forgetting about) makes it seem like a bargain at its price. There is simply no other monitor out there that's like the Studio Display.

What does perplex me are the complaints from people for whom existing monitors seem to be adequate. Yes, you can buy a 4K 32" monitor for less than a third the price of the Studio Display. It's not nearly as good. Apple was never going to release something like that and try to compete on price, because why bother doing so when there are so many such monitors to choose from? They built something that didn't exist for people whose needs are not satisfied by existing monitors and priced it very reasonably. Just because I'm not one of those people doesn't mean I can't appreciate how good the Studio Display is for those who do need or want it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WP31 and TheBigApple2006
CWallace said:
To be fair, the iMac 5K was not meant for those who needed to rely on color accuracy, either. Nor was the iiyama and LG monitors that use the same 5K panel. Heck, until the Pro Display XDR, no Apple monitor was meant for that.

Those who use Macs and relied on color accuracy are using monitors from other OEMs who do provide that calibration.
Click to expand...

Wrong. All displays prior to the XDR, the latest MBPs, and this new one (ones that have "reference" modes) allowed for calibration using affordable tools. With their new "reference" modes, these monitors no longer allow for that. It has trended in the wrong direction. Plain and simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppelGeenyus
Allen121 said:
600 nits, no mini LEDs, no ProMotion, and nothing about its contrast = not worth it and not meant for actual pros.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, can you point me to this alternative monitor that has >600 nits, miniLEDs, and ProMotion, in addition to a 5K+ resolution, P3 color space, retina PPI and all the other things the Studio Display does offer?

Pros have to be using something, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: deeddawg, ErikGrim and WP31
For secondary displays the additional camera and set of speakers on each display are superfluous. Why isn't there a model without them? If I was hoping for a reasonably priced monitor to add to my iMac setup, for example, I'd be pretty miffed that Apple still didn't have anything for me.
 
smallduck said:
For secondary displays the additional camera and set of speakers on each display are superfluous. Why isn't there a model without them? If I was hoping for a reasonably priced monitor to add to my iMac setup, for example, I'd be pretty miffed that Apple still didn't have anything for me.
Click to expand...

Because taking them out probably would save you $100 at MSRP and complicates Apple's supply chain by having to build and stock two separate models.

And then you would have all the folks buying the wrong version because they shopped on price alone and didn't bother to check why it was $100 cheaper.

Add it all together, and Apple would likely have raised prices $100 on both models to cover the hassles. So then you end up with a $1599 model without any of the extra features and would be paying $1699 for the one with them. :rolleyes:


I had an Apple Thunderbolt Display connected to my 2012 iMac and every single port on it was superfluous:
  • didn't need the extra RJ-45 Ethernet jack;
  • didn't need the extra Thunderbolt 2 ports;
  • didn't need the extra FireWire 800 port;
  • didn't need the extra USB-A ports;
Still bought it because it had the same panel as my iMac calibrated to the same out-of-the-box experience so they looked alike.

And if I really needed a second 5K display for my 2020 iMac 5K, I'd buy the Apple Studio Display. And in this case, I actually could make use of the extra USB-C ports and the webcam is so much better than what is in my iMac so I would make it my main display and the iMac would move to the side as the secondary one. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arctic Moose and WP31
Cashmonee said:
This display feels out of date before it has even launched. A 60Hz, non-HDR, IPS LED, non-HDMI 2.1, edge-lit monitor for $1600? Yikes.
Click to expand...
If you don't need 5K, just get a simple LG for $300, and a Mac mini will perform well enough for the average person as well. I was hoping for mini LED, but apparently it's not affordable yet. I would pay $2500 for a mini LED 5K 30".
 
  • Like
Reactions: WP31
Allen121 said:
600 nits, no mini LEDs, no ProMotion, and nothing about its contrast = not worth it and not meant for actual pros.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the lofty echelons of “actual pros”.

I do hope that all the pros that buy this screen (and I expect there will be a lot of them) realise that they’re just pretend pros, not actual pros.

Actual pros of course use one of the many alternative external screens readily available on the market that have mini-LED and ProMotion.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: deeddawg
For around $1200-$1400, I can acquire a 24" 4.5K iMac on the refurb site instead of the $1599 for this. But I bet you CAN'T use the 24" iMac as a monitor for the new M1Pro or Max laptops. If you could, you'd save up to $400 plus get a respectable computer when it's not needed as a monitor. My understanding is that a while back you COULD do this ...
 
Lammers said:
Pretty weird that you would claim to know what someone else can and can’t perceive.

For about 18 months I used dual 27 4K in the office and dual 27 5K at home, same seating distance, and I could tell the difference in sharpness and density.

That said, I agree that 27 4K is typically adequate for most people for a “retina-like” experience.
Click to expand...
Pretty weird you would claim I said that when I didn't. Even weirder that you would say it to me when it is in fact others claiming to know what I perceive(see page 8).

I also never claimed that nobody can tell the difference between 4K/5k.
 
AppelGeenyus said:
I don't care if you disagree, you are wrong ?. It isn't "very noticeable", I've already proven this to someone else a while back in another thread, as I actually work on both 163 and 254 ppi side by side daily, which is an even wider gap than 163 vs 218. You can go find it if you like.

It's amazing how powerful Apples marketing of "5K" has been.
Click to expand...
Why do practically blind people feel like they should make statements like this about the visual quality of a display? You are exactly like a person that claims how “human eyes cannot see over 60 fps anyway so high refresh rate is unnecessary”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arctic Moose
From the Apple website I can not figure out, if the studio display has an external power brick, like the 24"iMac or in internal power supply. Does anybody know this?

And in addition: Would it be possible to power the Mac Studio via the Studio display (or the studio display via the Mac)?
 
Alwis said:
From the Apple website I can not figure out, if the studio display has an external power brick, like the 24"iMac or in internal power supply. Does anybody know this?
Click to expand...

Interesting question, the Apple spec pages are really light on power details.

Compare it to the iMac specs:

www.apple.com

Studio Display - Technical Specifications

View all technical specifications for the 27-inch 5k Retina Studio Display.
www.apple.com

www.apple.com

iMac - iMac Technical Specifications

See all the technical specifications for iMac with the M4 chip and 24-inch display.
www.apple.com

The iMac lists the power brick in the "in the box" section, the Studio Display does not.

However, the Studio Display obviously has a power cord (that is not listed in that section for the Studio Display, which it is for the iMac) and from the fine print it is obvious that it is different for different markets.

Looking at the AR model you can see that it has a non-standard, round, interface for the power cord. (This sucks for me, I have spent a lot of time and effort to ensure all the cables in my work space are white. I'll probably have to solder the connector onto a different cable.)

From the AR model of the Mac Studio it is obvious that it has a standard IEC 60320 C6 inlet, weird that the Studio Display would not use the same.

Edit: A source in this thread claims internal power supply.

forums.macrumors.com

Studio Display power supply

Is there any info about the power supply for the studio display? Is it internal or is there a separate power brick?
forums.macrumors.com forums.macrumors.com

Alwis said:
And in addition: Would it be possible to power the Mac Studio via the Studio display (or the studio display via the Mac)?
Click to expand...

The spec page doesn't list wattage, but I believe currently USB-C PD is limited to 100W, I don't think that would be near enough in either direction.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Alwis
CWallace said:
IPS - it is the same edge-lit 5K 60Hz panel used in the Intel iMac 5K (which has now been discontinued).
Click to expand...
You have a source for this?
And is that panel as the one in the now pretty old LG UltraFine 27MD5KL 27" 5K IPS?

Was thinking something should have happened panel wise since then, but maybe the 5K panels doesn't evolves as fast as the 4K ones seem to do. ?‍♂️
 
Last edited:
Arctic Moose said:
Interesting question, the Apple spec pages are really light on power details.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your elaborated answer, so I am not the only one who can not figure that out.

According to the interface for the power cord I fear, that the display has an external power brick, which I really do not like...

Right know I am glad I decided to buy the 2020 iMac when it was released, maybe this hardware lineup needs some more polishing...
 
pacificblue said:
Why do practically blind people feel like they should make statements like this about the visual quality of a display? You are exactly like a person that claims how “human eyes cannot see over 60 fps anyway so high refresh rate is unnecessary”.
Click to expand...
Because some of us actually own and use the things we discuss. Some of us have actually tested this stuff extensively. Some peoples understanding of how this stuff works actually extends beyond Apples marketing terms. Some people prefer to only engage in conversations in an accurate and truthful manner, instead of posing and/or misleading others with utter nonsense.
 
AppelGeenyus said:
Because some of us actually own and use the things we discuss. Some of us have actually tested this stuff extensively. Some peoples understanding of how this stuff works actually extends beyond Apples marketing terms. Some people prefer to only engage in conversations in an accurate and truthful manner, instead of posing and/or misleading others with utter nonsense.
Click to expand...

I'll ask you again.

Are you accusing me of lying when I claim I have had a 5K iMac on my desk next to a 4K HP Z27 allowing me to move text windows between them and clearly see the difference?

220309-Monitors.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: deeddawg, pacificblue and WP31
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