Dell 3007 or the new 2707 WFP?

[BrSmith]

Hello,

I am planning to get a mac pro when the next refresh comes around...

Dell has a good deal on the 3007 monitor that I have heard good things about. I was all set to get that, then saw the new 27 inch 2707 and am now unsure what to get.

My thoughts;
3007
Pro
-higher resolution
-cheaper
Con
-fewer connection options, only dual dvi works
-black case

2707
Pro
-many connection options-does not have to use dual dvi
-brushed silver casing...more Mac-like
Con
-more expensive
-same res as the 24 inch, just bigger screen, not sure how what will look like.

Anybody have anything to add or advice.

Thanks.

 

[rogersmj]

I'd get the 30 inch. The 27 inch, having the same resolution as the 24" Dell and the 23" Apple, is going to have a grainier-looking image because the pixels are larger. Plus, I personally think the 30" frame and leg style is classier than the new monstrosities Dell is selling. I've always liked Dell monitors, but I think the new 27" and, to a lesser extent, the 22" are kind of a ripoff.

 

[Zwhaler]

Yes go with the thirty. Higher resolution plus bigger size? Can't go wrong. If they squeezed the 30's resolution into the 27, I would pick it. But Dell has yet to do that...

 

[JAT]

The 27 inch, having the same resolution as the 24" Dell and the 23" Apple, is going to have a grainier-looking image because the pixels are larger.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. However, I agree the 30 is probably a better choice.

 

[rogersmj]

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Then you need to think about it again. This is a really basic display principle.

A 23" Apple display has a resolution of 1920x1200. The Dell 27" also has a resolution of 1920x1200. That's in pixels, for the uninitiated. Since they have the same number of pixels, but the Dell is physically quite a bit larger, then the Dell has what is called a larger dot pitch. A larger dot pitch means larger individual pixels, because the same number of them have to be spread over a larger area. A larger dot pitch also means a less fine, or "grainy" image -- because the pixels are larger, you're more likely to see them individually, resulting in jagged edges and a less smooth image than what you would have at a higher dot pitch.

Make sense now?

 

[Chaszmyr]

I can see absolutely no reason that anyone would buy the new 27'' display, unless, perhaps, they have poor vision. The 30'', on the other hand, is a great display.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

It makes perfect sense, and it's completely true.

 

[FleurDuMal]

I can see absolutely no reason that anyone would buy the new 27'' display, unless, perhaps, they have poor vision. The 30'', on the other hand, is a great display.

People who use their computers for viewing a lot of media might be interested in the 27". After all, as long as the resolution is at least SD (or HD, if you're that way inclined), the resolution doesn't really matter. Also, gamers might be interested if they want a giant display but don't want to have to pay for the graphical clout to drive huge resolutions (1920x1200 is pretty massive on its own).

But for movie or photo editing, it'd be a giant waste of money.

 

[emotion]

I can see absolutely no reason that anyone would buy the new 27'' display, unless, perhaps, they have poor vision.

For the same reason people bought 14" ibooks instead of 12".

 

[Chaszmyr]

But you guys seem to be ignoring the fact that the 30'' costs less than the 27''. The 14'' iBook didn't cost less than the 12''.

 

[fiercetiger224]

Then you need to think about it again. This is a really basic display principle.

A 23" Apple display has a resolution of 1920x1200. The Dell 27" also has a resolution of 1920x1200. That's in pixels, for the uninitiated. Since they have the same number of pixels, but the Dell is physically quite a bit larger, then the Dell has what is called a larger dot pitch. A larger dot pitch means larger individual pixels, because the same number of them have to be spread over a larger area. A larger dot pitch also means a less fine, or "grainy" image -- because the pixels are larger, you're more likely to see them individually, resulting in jagged edges and a less smooth image than what you would have at a higher dot pitch.

Make sense now?

Well, I would say that when you're sitting up close, the bigger screen with the same resolution doesn't look as clear. But when you're sitting farther away from the screen, the bigger screen will look clearer than the smaller screen, especially if you have bad eyes. The bigger screen with the bigger dot pitch will be more like a TV. And actually, at that resolution and size, it's basically a TV-like panel.

 

[emotion]

But you guys seem to be ignoring the fact that the 30'' costs less than the 27''. The 14'' iBook didn't cost less than the 12''.

I didn't know the dell prices. Odd, maybe the discounts haven't kicked in for the 30 yet.

 

[rogersmj]

Well, I would say that when you're sitting up close, the bigger screen with the same resolution doesn't look as clear. But when you're sitting farther away from the screen, the bigger screen will look clearer than the smaller screen, especially if you have bad eyes. The bigger screen with the bigger dot pitch will be more like a TV. And actually, at that resolution and size, it's basically a TV-like panel.

I can sort of see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure I agree with it. More and smaller pixels = better no matter which way I slice it. When you're sitting farther away, the bigger screen with the same res as the smaller screen will just look bigger -- I don't think it will look clearer, necessarily. Just bigger. So I guess that is an advantage if you're using it as a TV, but not as a monitor. More pixels no matter what the size is still better -- that's why a 1080p HDTV is better than a 720p HDTV of the same size. More pixels and smaller pixels.

Regardless, the point of my post was to address JAT's flippant remark about increasing pixel size making "no sense whatsoever."

 

[Nick T.]

In the ten months that I’ve had my two Dell 2727WFP monitors I have not had a single complaint, and on many days I’m actually conscious of just how good they are instead of merely using them without thought.

Opinion: The basics, such as brightness, speed, adjustability, etc. are as good or better than any of the 24” or 30” monitors that I’ve owned or looked at. In my opinion the ease of color calibration is excellent. Two of them pushed together giving a 3840x1200 desktop is pretty impressive; to say nothing about usability.

Fact (as I see it): Having all those input choices on each monitor gives you a great deal of flexibility in your setup; picture this:

The DVI ports of both monitors connect to a WinXP computer.
The VGA ports of the both monitors connect to a Mac Pro.

All of the Win stuff (task bar, quick launch, icons, etc) on #1 monitor, and all of the OS X stuff (dock, icons, etc) on the #2 monitor. A single touch of a button gives both monitors to one system or the other.

Connect the S-video ports of both monitors connect to a cable TV box. Now you can watch TV picture-in-picture on either monitor, and bring it to full screen with a button touch.

You still have more inputs to play with.

 

[jnc]

In the ten months that I’ve had my two Dell 2727WFP monitors I have not had a single complaint, and on many days I’m actually conscious of just how good they are instead of merely using them without thought.

Opinion: The basics, such as brightness, speed, adjustability, etc. are as good or better than any of the 24” or 30” monitors that I’ve owned or looked at. In my opinion the ease of color calibration is excellent. Two of them pushed together giving a 3840x1200 desktop is pretty impressive; to say nothing about usability.

Fact (as I see it): Having all those input choices on each monitor gives you a great deal of flexibility in your setup; picture this:

The DVI ports of both monitors connect to a WinXP computer.
The VGA ports of the both monitors connect to a Mac Pro.

All of the Win stuff (task bar, quick launch, icons, etc) on #1 monitor, and all of the OS X stuff (dock, icons, etc) on the #2 monitor. A single touch of a button gives both monitors to one system or the other.

Connect the S-video ports of both monitors connect to a cable TV box. Now you can watch TV picture-in-picture on either monitor, and bring it to full screen with a button touch.

You still have more inputs to play with.

Monster bump dude! This is like a year old...

That's a cool setup. Of course, With a Mac Pro and two displays, even without the Windows box I could still run Windows under OSX with VMWare, using a screen for each OS.

Now the 3007 has a successor in the 3008, I'm hoping the 2707 gets one too. Or even more ideally, Apple starts offering similar input options. Man, an 30" ACD with component, DVI and HDMI would suit me to a tee...

 

[Nick T.]

The primary factor that I considered when choosing the 2707 almost a year ago was the size/resolution question.
I’m 73 years old and my eyes are just as old. The font size on the 23” and 30” monitors was getting more difficult to read. Then along came the 27” with the same resolution (1920x1200) as the 23” & 24” monitors stretched out to almost the size of the 30” monitors. If you’re into numbers you can lookup the d.p.i., pixel size, etc. specs and do your own calculations before buying - - I did.

It is a trade-off. As the magnification is increased the blurriness is increased. As the sharpness of focus is increased the sized is decreased. Fact of life.

I have a 3 year-old 23” Sony monitor across the room from my 2707s and cannot see any difference in sharpness or clarity between the two sizes. The slight magnification on the 2707 really helps my tired eyes.

 

[Nick T.]

jnc - -

Still laughing at myself; can’t believe how many times I had to look at “01-26-2007” before I really understood that those posts were from last year! I guess that my opinions should probably be taken with a grain or two of salt.

BTW - I don’t actually have a Mac Pro. I do have a Mac-mini with its single DVI output connected to the #2 monitor with a DVI-VGA adapter. The mini has both BootCamp and Parallels. I’ve been using it for the past year or so to see whether or not I’d like to make the jump from Windows to OS X.

 

[jnc]

I have a 3 year-old 23” Sony monitor across the room from my 2707s and cannot see any difference in sharpness or clarity between the two sizes. The slight magnification on the 2707 really helps my tired eyes.

Here's testimony to why larger physical screens with the same resolution as smaller screens have a purpose!

I always hear arguments like "why would you want a 24 inch that has the same resolution as a 23 inch" or "why get a 27 inch with a resolution a 24 inch can handle?"

People who say this sort of thing don't take into account bad eyesight, or just the fact people might want to enjoy having a bigger physical screen when watching movies, or playing games etc!