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

Display Confusion

bloogersnigen

bloogersnigen

macrumors regular
Original poster
So I've been reading various other display threads and don't understand the different types of display too well, so I'm just going to leave it up to the masses. If I want the best quality for $600, what should I get? Probably will be a 1900x1200. This display will be used for professional photography so it needs to be as good as possible, but money is an issue. Other then having a DVI port (for connecting to the soon-to-be-mine mac pro) the other ports are bells and whistles too me. This display won't be connected to anything but the computer, I already have a firewire card reader and don't need those USB ports.


I'm looking at these:

Acer
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009125

Dell
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...etail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-6272

Other then the Acer having a better response time, and the extra ports on the Dell, I can't tell any other difference in the actual display. Is there something I'm not seeing that would justify the Dell being almost twice as much?

I was looking at these two. I'm willing to pay that, but only if there is a reason behind that.
 
I can't be much help, but a friend of mine bought that exact Acer monitor and I was impressed. Good price and it looked pretty dang good. He does a lot of photography also.
 
Actually, now that I look at it closer, it looks like the Acer doesn't have genuine 16.7 million colors, where the Dell might actually be 8-bit (it doesn't say on there website). Is this accurate. And does the Acer even have a DVI port?
 
I just picked up a Dell 2408WFP and aside from the overly vibrant red and green out of the box, the display seems to be pretty good. The display uses a PVA panel, so it should be good for color sensitive use like photography.

I was very much bothered by the saturated colors and overly bright screen, so I picked up a Spyder3 Pro calibrator. After calibration, the colors were less saturated and the screen didn't burn my retinas any longer.

Overall, for the price, the Dell makes for a good buy. It is definitely cheaper than my Lacie 324 and other closely priced alternatives like the IPS paneled NECs.
 
Actually I'd say quality is more important than price, so maybe $800-900 should be a better price point
 
bloogersnigen said:
Actually I'd say quality is more important than price, so maybe $800-900 should be a better price point
Click to expand...

~$600 gets you a decent 24" display like the Dell. $800 will get you an NEC LCD2470WNX which uses the same panel as the 2407 Dell, but has better electronics and controls and should give you better colour accuracy. For ~$1,100 you can get an NEC LCD2490WUXi which uses an IPS panel and will be a lot better than the Dell.

My real issue with reccomending the Dells is that is a complete gamble as far as colour quality goes. Some people get decent ones that can be calibrated to offer good colour accuracy, others get garbage that can't even be calibrated to be useful. (That's only based on the discussions you get surrounding the display, likely there are plenty who have them and don't care either way so hard to tell what % are useless).
 
Where do the Apple CInema Displays fit in in terms of quality?
Thanks you Umbongo, that NEC LCD2490WUXi looks awful tempting
 
^ Cinema displays have TFT S-IPS panels and so are good at colour accuracy and are professional grade. but as a downside they usually gave slower response times than entry level TFT and TN panel displays which are better for gaming and consumer use.
 
Umbongo said:
~$600 gets you a decent 24" display like the Dell. $800 will get you an NEC LCD2470WNX which uses the same panel as the 2407 Dell, but has better electronics and controls and should give you better colour accuracy. For ~$1,100 you can get an NEC LCD2490WUXi which uses an IPS panel and will be a lot better than the Dell.

My real issue with reccomending the Dells is that is a complete gamble as far as colour quality goes. Some people get decent ones that can be calibrated to offer good colour accuracy, others get garbage that can't even be calibrated to be useful. (That's only based on the discussions you get surrounding the display, likely there are plenty who have them and don't care either way so hard to tell what % are useless).
Click to expand...

If you have the money, +1 for the NEC display. It's specs are quite impressive. If you don't have nearly enough money, then I'd like to suggest the Lacie 324 with a colorimeter(sp). Although it has a PVA panel, it is well received as a pro monitor by those in the video and film industry. Plus I own one and I think it's great 😉
 
Dell's 24" LCDs were never the best for colour accuracy anyway. Their 20" and 30" were always better than the 24", so to be fair, Dell's monitors have always been quite good with regards to which panels they use. It's just the 24" (and probably the 27") that aren't good.

My Dell 20" is ace.
 
Abstract said:
Dell's 24" LCDs were never the best for colour accuracy anyway. Their 20" and 30" were always better than the 24", so to be fair, Dell's monitors have always been quite good with regards to which panels they use. It's just the 24" (and probably the 27") that aren't good.

My Dell 20" is ace.
Click to expand...

Yeah the 24" always used a PVA panel. The 30" used IPS and the 20" wide and non-widescreen have both IPS and PVA models. HP are the same I think, but don't often get mentioned.

Not that PVA panels are terrible or anything, just not the best without the specfic advances to improve color accuracy that companies like Eizo use.
 
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