If Apple wants to wow us with the next macOS, they should tackle display scaling, so that 2x is not the only thing that looks good.
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.
I'm genuinely surprised by the negative reviews of the Studio Display
- Thread starter CalMin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, because you can't do 5K 120Hz over TB4. Anyone that says you can is lying.
This will not happen and there are good reasons why Apple chose this approach. Just listen to John Siracusa explaining these reasons on the latest ATP podcast..
To be more specific, you can’t do 5K, 120Hz, HDR using DSC over DisplayPort 1.4. Changing any of those specifics leads to being more probable (take 5k down to 4k, or reduce 120 to 60), but that complete set of what some folks think they need in an Apple monitor isn’t possible with today’s tech.
price is what you pay, value is what you get.That, for me, is most curious. That someone, who already finds 1600 too much to pay would find a more expensive monitor perfectly fine if it only included technologies and features that aren’t even available in 5k at ANY price.
imo the vast majority of complaints about this monitor are in regards to value and not an absolute dollar amount.
haven't seen this mentioned here but snazzy labs has a good review:
Another funny review. If it's overpriced and not worthy, then why the hell I can't find a single one available and delivery dates up to mid - June?
Because we have no idea how many Apple made up front or put in the future order book
Lack of availability to purchase for quick delivery ≠ insatiable consumer demand
Last edited:
Is this true? Everything I’ve read so far suggests the color is quite accurate out of the box.
It's not 100% AdobeRGB so if that is important to your workflow there are better monitors.
For the color space coverage it has, yes
The point above your post was that it doesn't have full color space coverage of AdobeRGB
It is out of the box accurate, exceptionally so (higher tier Apple devices lately all fall into that category anyway)
However, without proper hardware calibration namely LUT ability, you have no guarantee of its accuracy over time.
Also as suggest above, without close to 100% Adobe RGB gamut coverage means you can’t see a rather large portion of US SWOP CMYK colors, which is the pre-press standard color space.
Then for photography you would want the widest coverage as you can afford just to see what your captured colors are like.
However, without proper hardware calibration namely LUT ability, you have no guarantee of its accuracy over time.
Also as suggest above, without close to 100% Adobe RGB gamut coverage means you can’t see a rather large portion of US SWOP CMYK colors, which is the pre-press standard color space.
Then for photography you would want the widest coverage as you can afford just to see what your captured colors are like.
To add on to @Chancha above:
I think when Apple says "studio" - they mean "video" much more so than print/photography studio.
Not to be overly cynical - but I think Apple realize how much money there is in selling very expensive good looking hardware to the YouTube creator crowd (who tend to also show off their gear in videos, etc)
I think when Apple says "studio" - they mean "video" much more so than print/photography studio.
Not to be overly cynical - but I think Apple realize how much money there is in selling very expensive good looking hardware to the YouTube creator crowd (who tend to also show off their gear in videos, etc)
But I must say this Studio Display does pass for serious hobbyist to semi-professional workflow for print and photography. Not all the roles in a chain need to be dead set accurate as long as the gate keepers are. But for a critical role, when given a choice, I see no reason to go for a general purpose display like this. If cost is a concern one can always go smaller or at least less dense displays, and spare the budget on actual color centric features. An older Eizo ColorEdge at FHD is still around everywhere in a print-house.
So I kind of agree a 5k P3/sRGB display seems to cater more towards the video crowd, where the interfacing needs to see a 4K video 1:1 pixel matching to judge sharpness, with room to spare for application interface. Because otherwise with static imageries like in pre-press or photo editing you can always pan and zoom all day regardless if your display matches the dimensions of your material. It only needs to be HiDPI to a point where your text kerns properly on screen.
But, what I’m saying is that the current monitor defines a bad value. Understanding that, even if a mythical 5K, 120Hz, HDR panel existed, it would be more than the $1,599 already a defined “bad value” for that set of features. Unless, I suppose, anyone thinks that Apple would sell a monitor with MORE features for less money?
can't speak for everyone but when the studio display was released, if it had no speakers/webcam/processor/internal psu and instead had mini-led and HDR, I would have been willing to pay around $2,000, depending on performance, for a VESA model and likely would have bought 2.
people have been waiting 5 years for an apple branded 5k display and what apple put out was more or less the same as what LG did 5 years ago, which was a bad value then. Then to top it off they do things like the upcharge for stand adjustability and the webcam failure, with parts bin components. How such poor QC went unnoticed for a premium priced product is baffling. As mentioned in the Snazzy Labs video, it just feels like the studio display was supposed to be something different and was changed last minute due to supply or other constraints, or it was hastily thrown together as a last minute product.
I fully agree with this - particularly now that we've seen teardowns showing all that is going on in there.
I really believe that at some point the ASD was actually the next generation iMac 27" 5k with ASi
Studio is just a brand name that means cheaper smaller worse monitor than the Pro model just like it did 20 years ago with the Studio/Cinema displays. Don't take anything from the name to be where they are positioning the product or who it's for. Same goes for Pro, it just means faster/better specs not necessarily for professionals.
I kinda feel like the iPhone 11 did worse than Apple expected so they had a hundred thousand A13s, cameras and what not lying around and the 27" iMac sales weren't quite their either so somebody decided to clear out inventory by smashing the two together.
Honestly, I'm not a graphics pro. It looks excellent for me, but I've seen folks comment on the fact that it is not a true 10-bit panel like the pro-display XDR. DP review though highly of it's color accuracy which is good enough for me and my Excel spreadsheets.
Apple Studio Display review: An excellent monitor at a steep price
Apple's new Studio Display is an extremely color accurate IPS LCD with a bunch of unique features and exceptional build quality. But with a price tag of $1,600, you really have to value those extra features. For Apple, this is a missed opportunity to give the creative community a smaller, more...
www.dpreview.com
The closest thing that I know of is the AsusProArt and it’s $3k USD, and it’s only a 4k screen. Quality seems hit or miss based on Amazon reviews so add Apple quality and build and they’d probably sell it for $4k. Maybe it could be cheaper if they have a panel that doesn’t cover as much Adobe RGB as the Asus but corners would have to be cut from somewhere to get lower.