Review: BenQ PD2730S 5K Designer Monitor – A Studio Display Alternative That Doesn't Break the Bank

[fathergll]

In MR reviews of displays that is sometimes the case and sometimes not. It was certainly not mentioned at all in their recent (Feb 2025) review of the ASUS ProArt 5k (I searched the entire transcript of their full video review). Here's what MR wrote:

"the appeal is not the looks of the body or the materials used but how your max content looks on the actual display itself and with that it's pretty much right up there with Apple Studio display in terms of that quality ...if functionality is your main priority which I'm definitely hammering home here it should be for you you'll absolutely be happy with this monitor ...the main reason why I recommend this display because I am so used to a studio display or Pro display or just any display from Apple and I'm just quite frankly spoiled at how good they are for my daily use and nothing has really matched that until now."

Yet none of this is true if you're buying a 5k for text sharpness (which many are), and you have good vision, since the ASUS display is matte and thus can't match the glossy Apple Retina displays in that key attribute.

They said 'anti-reflective coating' in the review and it's in the product documentation and should be in the specs before you click the buy buttom. Regardless I'm not here to defend and nitpick the details of every review that was done on these monitors. I'm just stating that the specs for these monitors are matte and not glossy. If you buy a matte monitor thinking it's glossy then that is your own fault and since Apple sells many devices with matte retina displays which you keep ignoring in your posts.

I work in a very brightly-lit room, with a combination of interior lights and ample natural light, and I get no reflections on my glossy iMac. So if you're using your external display indoors (as woud most typically be the case), you'd need to have unusually challenging lighting conditions for text to look better with a matte coating.

It's not relevant if you personally get reflections or not in your room as you can have light in a room without the type of reflections I am talking about. It's that reflections will show more if direct light hits it since a glossy screen will reflect light specularly while a matte will diffuse it. Thats one of the reasons most monitors are matte and why Apple offers matte options. There is nothing magical about glossy Apple displays that prevents it from adhering to the physics of light despite what your personal situation is. I own a glossy 5k iMac and it will absolutely show reflections if direct light hits it. If glossy didn't have these issues it would be far more popular.


I'm not here to convince you which one is better(i own both). I am stating both and pros and cons of both and before you click the buy button it states you are buying a matte display. Once again, if you want glossy display than this is obviously not the monitor you want but you should see this in the product description.

 

[theorist9]

They said 'anti-reflective coating' in the review and it's in the product documentation and should be in the specs before you click the buy buttom

Anti-reflective doesn't mean matte. In fact, it suggests glossy, since coatings on glossy displays are typically referred to as AR coatiings, while those on matte display are typically referred to as matte or nano-textured.

Regardless I'm not here to defend and nitpick the details of every review that was done on these monitors.

Then why are you arguing with me about my critique of the MR reviews of these?

I'm just stating that the specs for these monitors are matte and not glossy.

Yeah, we all know that. So why are you stating the obvious?

If you buy a matte monitor thinking it's glossy then that is your own fault

This indicates a total misunderstanding of my posts. My concern isn't that, because of these reviews, readers will be fooled into thinking a matte monitor is glossy. Rather, my point is that the nature of the coating/surface treatment has important effects on sharpness, and discussing sharpness, or making claims about sharpness, while ignoring the effect of the coating/surface treatment on the sharpness, is superficial reviewing. It's like reviewing the snow performance of a 2WD car without discussing the consequences of that vs. AWD or 4WD.

Apple sells many devices with matte retina displays which you keep ignoring in your posts.

That's a flat-out lie. I've repeatedly noted that Apple makes matte Retina displays. Here's three quotes from me from this same thread (bolded emphasis added). We're done.

If you do a side-by-side comparison of text on the glossy and matte ASD's...,

Certainly, for those who want a matte display, and would othewise get the nano-textured ASD, this new crop of matte 5k displays is a boon. But not so much for those of us who strongly perfer a glossy display for our text-heavy work.

The display on the 5k Retina iMac, which was available only in glossy for most of its production life (the 2020 model was offered in a matte version), was consistently praised by Apple consumers....

 

[Joshuaorange]

?
Of course it is, by today's standards ... it's 30" and only 2560 x 1600 / 60hz / CFL backlight
Just .. old at this point

The coating on it was great though, and the overall design and package superb

No, the packaging/ design is terrible by today’s standards. Wonky plastic inserts on the sides, fugly, thick bezel overlapping the outside edge of the screen. That thing was awful to clean the screen too.

 

[macduke]

I love finally having more 5K options, but it's a no from me until we can get at least HDR 600, which doesn't seem like it's asking for much in this futuristic year of 2025. I mean, Apple came out with the first 5K display what, nearly 11 years ago?

What I would rather have is 5K mini LED, HDR 600, 120Hz for the ~$1600 that Apple charges for the current studio display. That seems fair. Not the perfect spec, but the best for a reasonable price.

 

[drrich2]

I love finally having more 5K options, but it's a no from me until we can get at least HDR 600, which doesn't seem like it's asking for much in this futuristic year of 2025.

Reviews I've read left me with the impression HDR on IPS displays tends to be lackluster; does anyone care to dispute that point?

How important is HDR to people shopping for 'retina' class displays (e.g.: 5K 27" or 6K 32")? Sure, it'd be nice, but is it like 120-Hz refresh rate...something some people would ideally prefer but apparently not enough demand to put it in there for whatever target demographics tend to buy these monitors?

Will quality HDR require OLED, and if so, how many of you are waiting for retina class resolution OLED displays? Other than likely higher price, and the risk of burn in (which doesn't seem to be a big concern with more recent products from the reviews?), do you anticipate any likely drawbacks with, oh, say, a 5K 27" OLED display?

The 5K 27" ASUS with IPS Black is around $800; how much more would you be willing to pay for an otherwise same but OLED version?

 

[jhaldan]

I guess its impossible to understand, that taking everything into consideration, some people prefer matte displays to glossy displays

 

[drrich2]

I guess its impossible to understand, that taking everything into consideration, some people prefer matte displays to glossy displays

Perhaps more likely it's hard to know just how to quantify the difference. Not everyone has had the two side-by-side (though the prevalence of old glossy iMacs helps with that). But on the matte side, not all matte is created equal. It's my understanding one manufacturer's approach to matte on a given model may differ from another's. So let's say you compare an Apple Studio Display to a Samsung 5K display scrutinizing text and form an opinion as to whether and to what extent fine text quality suffers from the Samsung's matte effect. Should we generalize that to the new ASUS 5K 27", assuming it'll be the same as the Samsung, for good or ill? And does the ASD look more 'punchy' color-wise due to being glossy?

Then I must ask if it's been tweaked. When I got my 4K 27" Dell U2732QE and set it up by an old 27" 5K iMac, I was underwhelmed...till I turned up the brightness on the Dell considerably, and that leveled the playing field a lot. I learned the Dell needs to be run at a higher % of its brightness capability. Had I observed them side-by-side in a store, I'd have thought the iMac was sweet and the Dell lackluster.

The other issue is subjective, like 4K vs. 5K 27". Some people indicate in daily use they're basically equivalent and one need resort to 'pixel peeping' to tell the difference, and others indicate it's a glaring difference and 4K 27" displays are awful. Both are sincere. Hard to know who to believe.

 

[antic]

I would like to see a comparison between the Benq and the Asus 5k monitor which sells for $799. There doesn't seem to be much difference between them apart from the thunderbolt 4 on the Benq monitor

 

[antic]

There are 32" 5k one coming soon

If I hadn't moved on to a much larger TV based setup, I'd be VERY excited about those

For my aging eyes, 32" with a 5k panel offers "perfect 2x Retina scaling" that makes on screen elements a very comfortable size for me.

Asus revealed a 32in PA32QCV 6k monitor at CES. It is expected to sell for around $1200

 

[turbineseaplane]

Asus revealed a 32in PA32QCV 6k monitor at CES. It is expected to sell for around $1200

Yep, the thing is that involves scaling again (for my personal preferences)

Through lot of testing of scaling modes over the years, I've determined that I really enjoy the size of onscreen elements I would get from perfect 2x "retina' scaling on a 32" screen with a 5k panel resolution

 

[ErneX]

Yep, the thing is that involves scaling again (for my personal preferences)

Through lot of testing of scaling modes over the years, I've determined that I really enjoy the size of onscreen elements I would get from perfect 2x "retina' scaling on a 32" screen with a 5k panel resolution

5K at 32 inch seems low DPI (no idea if such a monitor exists).

5K at 27 inch is 218 PPI, just like 6K at 32 inch = 218 PPI.

 

[turbineseaplane]

5K at 32 inch seems low DPI (no idea if such a monitor exists).

5K at 27 inch is 218 PPI, just like 6K at 32 inch = 218 PPI.

Yes, I'm aware of all that
My aging eyes like larger on screen elements, DPI concerns aside

I do work with my monitors ... and comfort is important for me

 

[Tagbert]

…

The other issue is subjective, like 4K vs. 5K 27". Some people indicate in daily use they're basically equivalent and one need resort to 'pixel peeping' to tell the difference, and others indicate it's a glaring difference and 4K 27" displays are awful. Both are sincere. Hard to know who to believe.

Looking for pixels is not the most useful way to see a difference between 4K and 5K. The best way to see the difference is to put up some small text and see how small it can be while you can still read it. The text will be legible on 5K at smaller sizes. That is a real-world difference.

 

[jakey rolling]

Looking for pixels is not the most useful way to see a difference between 4K and 5K. The best way to see the difference is to put up some small text and see how small it can be while you can still read it. The text will be legible on 5K at smaller sizes. That is a real-world difference.

That is hardly any more "real world" than trying to see how close you can get to the monitor before you see pixels. Nobody in the "real world" is going to do either of those things for any purpose other than to show their friends "hey, look what this awesome expensive monitor can do!" The rest of the time, people who need to actually work with small text are going to either zoom in on the document if the job is to edit or format the text itself, or zoom out on the page to fit the text into whatever page they are laying out. Neither of these things see any real benefit from 5k over 4k (they do, however, see a huge benefit from a good portrait monitor, such as the LG Dual-Up)

 

[Tagbert]

That is hardly any more "real world" than trying to see how close you can get to the monitor before you see pixels. Nobody in the "real world" is going to do either of those things for any purpose other than to show their friends "hey, look what this awesome expensive monitor can do!" The rest of the time, people who need to actually work with small text are going to either zoom in on the document if the job is to edit or format the text itself, or zoom out on the page to fit the text into whatever page they are laying out. Neither of these things see any real benefit from 5k over 4k (they do, however, see a huge benefit from a good portrait monitor, such as the LG Dual-Up)

No, what you will do is look at a web page or document that has a mix of font sizes and some will be too small to read on a lower resolution display requiring you to zoom in on it. With the higher resolution screen you won’t need to zoom. Zooming takes time and sometimes you can’t zoom in and still see the whole block of text. This become more of a problem when you have more than one document on screen. How many PDF documents with complicated layouts have you tried to read? This is a very real world problem.

 

[jakey rolling]

With the higher resolution screen you won’t need to zoom. Zooming takes time and sometimes you can’t zoom in and still see the whole block of text.

Is there something uniquely braindead about MacOS PDF rendering and zooming that makes it a chore to zoom and makes it difficult to zoom in on certain fonts? Because I have never encountered a situation where zooming "takes time" nor where a font could not be zoomed.

 

[fathergll]

Anti-reflective doesn't mean matte. In fact, it suggests glossy, since coatings on glossy displays are typically referred to as AR coatiings, while those on matte display are typically referred to as matte or nano-textured.

It's used all the time to describe matte hence the word "anti-relective".

Regardless my point is that that they pointed out there was some kind of coating on there clearly and they showed in 4K that it was clearly matte if you watched the video instead of searching the transcript for key boards to prove a point and its in the spec sheet.

Then why are you arguing with me about my critique of the MR reviews of these?

I don't care if we talk about this review. I am saying I don't want to engage in the insanity of searching through keywords of every single review video trying to prove a point that someone reviewer out there did not say the word "matte" in the video.

Yeah, we all know that. So why are you stating the obvious?

If it's so obvious and 'we all know that' then how did you miss that they mentioned it twice in the review originally and edited your post to remove "The problems is that you can't meaningfully discuss sharpness without saying if the display is glossy or matte. I had to look it up on BenQ's website: This display is matte."

It's like reviewing the snow performance of a 2WD car without discussing the consequences of that vs. AWD or 4WD.

I'm not a car guy but without looking it up I am going to guess that the 2WD doesn't do as well in the snow. Am I right?

That's a flat-out lie. I've repeatedly noted that Apple makes matte Retina displays. Here's three quotes from me from this same thread (bolded emphasis added). We're done.

I said "Apple sells many devices with matte retina displays....". I didn't mean you didn't literally mention it at all as a product that exists, I meant in your posts they allude to this idea that they are way more niche than they actually are and that matte finish on a retina display is pointless "Yet none of this is true if you're buying a 5k for text sharpness (which many are), and you have good vision".

Retina matte displays are all over the product lineups and it has nothing to do with having good vision. Thats why they exist all over the products lineups and gain popularity. If you have a reflection on your device they it isn't sharp to begin with hence why the coatings are there.

We're done.

Ah come on. You left out the majority of my post which talks about the actual important things like reflection handling. I wanna hear about your magical glossy iMac that is immune to reflections.

 

[Jan.K]

The Viewsonic VP2788-5K looks almost like a twin. Also announced for Q1. Let's wait for the "real" prices.

 

[Tagbert]

Is there something uniquely braindead about MacOS PDF rendering and zooming that makes it a chore to zoom and makes it difficult to zoom in on certain fonts? Because I have never encountered a situation where zooming "takes time" nor where a font could not be zoomed.

Oh for…. of course I’m not saying that. The point is that the added resolution of a 5K is noticeable when you have documents with small text or illustrations. Yes, you can zoom, but then you may not see all of the text or you lose the context of the page. It’s better if you don’t have to zoom and on a 5K screen you have to zoom less than on a 4K screen. There is nothing controversial or confusing that more resolution makes it easier to see more detail.

 

[throAU]

$1200 for 400 nits and 60hz.

Is this 2019?


For 100 dollars less you’re dropping a centre stage webcam, decent speakers, enclosure build quality and about 200 nits?

 

[theorist9]

Oh for…. of course I’m not saying that. The point is that the added resolution of a 5K is noticeable when you have documents with small text or illustrations. Yes, you can zoom, but then you may not see all of the text or you lose the context of the page. It’s better if you don’t have to zoom and on a 5K screen you have to zoom less than on a 4K screen. There is nothing controversial or confusing that more resolution makes it easier to see more detail.

Exactly. Plus when you're working with data spread across a large spreadsheet, it's much more convenient if you can display the entire spreadsheet on the screen, rather than having to scroll back & forth and up & down. That requires using a low zoom value. A high-res monitor does much better job retaining the readability of those values. I encounter this regularly.

 

[drrich2]

$1200 for 400 nits and 60hz.

You bring up an interesting point...how many nits are most people running their displays at?

Late last year when monitor shopping, I noticed that my old iMac was rated at 500 nits, the ASD at 600 nits, and...competing 4K 27" displays tended to have lower brightness than either (if we ignore HDR brightness claims, anyway).

If someone runs a 500 nit display at 50% brightness, is it at 250 nits like I'd logically think, or not?

How many people are running displays at over, say, 300 nits brightness?

And is running a display near its max (say, 80%+?) brightness bad for the display, apt to shorter its effective lifespan?

Knowing these answers might put the value of the ASD's 600 nits in perspective.

 

[Tagbert]

You bring up an interesting point...how many nits are most people running their displays at?

Late last year when monitor shopping, I noticed that my old iMac was rated at 500 nits, the ASD at 600 nits, and...competing 4K 27" displays tended to have lower brightness than either (if we ignore HDR brightness claims, anyway).

If someone runs a 500 nit display at 50% brightness, is it at 250 nits like I'd logically think, or not?

How many people are running displays at over, say, 300 nits brightness?

And is running a display near its max (say, 80%+?) brightness bad for the display, apt to shorter its effective lifespan?

Knowing these answers might put the value of the ASD's 600 nits in perspective.

Yes, I rarely run my displays at max brightness. Most of the time it is around 50%.

 

[theorist9]

You bring up an interesting point...how many nits are most people running their displays at?

Late last year when monitor shopping, I noticed that my old iMac was rated at 500 nits, the ASD at 600 nits, and...competing 4K 27" displays tended to have lower brightness than either (if we ignore HDR brightness claims, anyway).

If someone runs a 500 nit display at 50% brightness, is it at 250 nits like I'd logically think, or not?

How many people are running displays at over, say, 300 nits brightness?

And is running a display near its max (say, 80%+?) brightness bad for the display, apt to shorter its effective lifespan?

Knowing these answers might put the value of the ASD's 600 nits in perspective.

I use Lunar, which enables me to coordinate the brightnesses of all three of my displays. My central display is a 2019 27" iMac. At the start of the day my eyes prefer dim displays, so I'll run all three at low brightness. But after a few hours I'll gradually increase them to max, which means I'm running the iMac at 500 nits.

 

[theorist9]

I guess its impossible to understand, that taking everything into consideration, some people prefer matte displays to glossy displays

Nope. The issue is that some people can't think beyond their own needs and tastes, and thus don't understand others may have needs and preferences different from theirs. I.e., they don't understand the benefit of choice.

Apple's external displays are offered in both matte and glossy, thus accommodating both preferences. By contrast, all these new 5k displays are offered in matte only, accommodating one group but not the other.

If all these new displays instead came in glossy only, those who prefer matte would have an equally legitimate beef.