Screen not as good as RMBP

Discussion in 'iMac' started by m11rphy, Dec 2, 2012.

  1. m11rphy macrumors 6502

    Dec 26, 2009
    Hi Guys.

    Just been to the apple store to check out the new iMac before I order a new 27 but after seeing the screen think I might stick with my Mac Pro. The problem was that after having my retina mac book for a month the screen just didn't seem sharp enough.

    To be fair i feel the same way now about my 24 inch cinema screen but was hoping the screen on the new iMac would be an improvement. Im gonna wait to see the 27 inch in person as the resolution is higher. Im really disappointed now cos I was really looking forward to getting rid of the Pro. But right now I'm feeling the same about the iMac as i did the ipad mini when i saw it.

    Sorry for going on in this post and Im sure none of you care what I think, but just wanted to share my view :apple:
  2. beerglass007 macrumors 6502

    May 13, 2008
    I totally agree

    I have a 21.5" late 2010 and seeing the new 2012 iMac I can't see any difference.

    In the shop the difference in glare was reduced, but at home I never once felt the glare was a problem.

    When sat in front of the new iMac there is NO difference what so ever.

    Im having a real hard time keeping my BTO order.

    I even went to the store again this morning and played around with the speakers...What a let down as well

    No bass what so ever now
  3. BitterCreek macrumors newbie

    Nov 30, 2012
    Because they use the same LCD.
  4. jsolares macrumors 6502a

    Aug 8, 2011
    Land of eternal Spring
    To be honest i didn't think it would be as good as either rMBP, they're using the same LCDs after all, just better assembled and with reduced glare.

    I think you'll experience the same with the 27", there's just no increase in resolution, and they're still using IPS so the only improvement is in assembly with reduced glare.
  5. cosmicjoke macrumors 6502

    Oct 3, 2011
    Portland, OR
    I think any improvements regarding glare make the upgrade well worth it, I have two TB Displays at the moment and you can turn off every light in the room, close the door, shut the curtains and merely the light emitted from the display alone reflects off my black desk and glares back on the monitor. It's not so much that it's glossy (which will always cause a tiny bit of glare) - It's just the tempered glass that causes way too much glare - it was a bad design choice IMO and it's high time they've finally done something about it.
  6. Rogifan macrumors Core


    Nov 14, 2011
    Just imagine what a 27" "retina" iMac would cost. :eek:
  7. m11rphy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Dec 26, 2009
    I totally agree it would be mega money, thats why I don't believe if I wait a year I will see a retina iMac then either. Could still be 2 or 3 years away so if i get an iMac now I will be looking to upgrade by then anyway
  8. AppleMooseMan macrumors regular

    Sep 11, 2012
    I concur, that's what I plan to do. Hopefully be 2014 the retina displays comes as standard although it may take a bit longer. I'll buy my 21inch iMac now, and then once the retina display is at a competitive price I'll sell the 21inch.
  9. gagaliya macrumors 6502

    Feb 24, 2010
    one is retina, another is regular lcd. Of course it's different, what the hell are you guys smoking exactly.

    and i would never want a retina on a 27" imac, even with the highest graphic card upgrade, it will be slow as hell. Maybe in another 5 years...
  10. mushroomtip macrumors 6502


    Oct 27, 2012
    are you saying its not an improvement over the 24 cinema screen ?
  11. burninggarlic macrumors member


    Nov 30, 2012
    How do people define "good screen"?
    RMBP goes for 15' max. 27' shows much more contents. Just one example, I will never retouch any image on a 15' if I have a 27' over full hd beside, and what ever how high resolution that 15' one has. The same as project work with multiple PDFs and MS Word in the same time, who would prefer a 15' but not 27' just because the 15' is retina?

    Of course, if the 27' goes for retina as well.... Wait! Let me check my budget first!
  12. ali5289 macrumors newbie

    Jun 11, 2012
    Is the 15 RMBP slower than the imac. I can't decide between the two and not sure which to get..
  13. henry72 macrumors 65816


    Jun 18, 2009
    New Zealand
  14. jmhart macrumors regular

    Jun 14, 2012
    I definitely know what you mean. It's not just the extra resolution of the retina screens that make them look so much better, it's the much wider color gamut--they are capable of displaying a much broader range of colors than older LCD tech. I hadn't really thought of this until I saw it first hand, but these panels Apple is still using in the new iMacs is based on 3+ year old tech that doesn't have anywhere near the color saturation that the retina devices do. The least they could do is combine the new laminating tech with a wide gamut panel, even if it's not retina resolution.

    As if there weren't plenty of other factors holding me back from taking the plunge on the new iMac, the fact that my iPad 3 displays better color than a brand new $2000+ iMac is just unacceptable. The lack of wide color gamut on the iMac has been a problem for professional iMac users for years, so I really don't get this oversight on Apple's part--except that they must just counting on their users not knowing any better. :mad:
  15. BitterCreek macrumors newbie

    Nov 30, 2012
    Humm, a $2000 screen with a $1300 SSD, would anyone honestly pay $5700 for an AIO desktop that doesn't even have a DVD drive or firewire port?
  16. Stetrain macrumors 68040

    Feb 6, 2009
    So were people actually expecting this to be a significant screen quality/resolution improvement?

    Apple already said that it was the same resolution and same LCD, just laminated to reduce reflections and give a bit better color.
  17. m11rphy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Dec 26, 2009
    That's a good question, I decided before I got my retina mac book that I was getting a new iMac so guess i never really thought about the screen on it until seeing one in the flesh today.
  18. iMcLovin macrumors 68000


    Feb 11, 2009
    I´m very curious to see the screen in action myself. I don´t mind the screen itself not being "new" LCD tech or higher res (I dont really care that much for the whole retina trend, its ok but it really don´t give much else than nicer icons). But I would expect this:

    -less reflection ( this I know is in place)

    -better color calibration since the calibrate each screen separately (im a bit sceptical about this one, but since Phil Schiller actually used it as a selling point I would be kinda disappointed if the screens arent perfectly calibrated)

    -From what I understand, the screen lamination helps getting the screen closer to the surface which makes it feel as if the color and contrast pops much more.

    So all in all the screen SHOULD feel a lot better than the previous model even if its the same screen LCD tech and same resolution.
  19. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Jul 8, 2006
    1) I'm so glad that I have a 27" 2011 iMac. Still plenty fast for my needs and I can see myself having this iMac performing my tasks easily for the next 4 years. In short, no need for me to make these "difficult first-world choices".

    2) I consider the display of a 27" iMac to all ready be "Retina" because from a normal viewing distance (roughly 2 and 1/2 feet away), individual pixels cannot be made out. If anything I think the iMac's display could benefit from a 50% increase in pixel density just to make images a little sharper. So a 3840x2160 would be a welcomed improvement but not completely necessary (especially when considering the price a display this large with that resolution would go for). Other than that, I'm actually pretty happy with the display as it is.
  20. washburn macrumors 6502

    Apr 8, 2010
    That's ridiculous

    Get some glasses

    Why hasn't anyone mentioned that there is no longer a gap between the glass and the LCD?? This is a significant improvement.
  21. kaellar, Dec 3, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2012

    kaellar macrumors 6502

    Nov 12, 2012
    Well, frist of all, it was pretty stupid to expect sharper image from the display with the same screen size and resolution.
    The second thing to mention is the fact that TS needs to check his eyes. For me the difference was clear and obvious - not only the display is less reflective, it's also much better color reproduction with pretty sRGB-similar and definitely calibrated profile out of the box.
    It's not the retina of course, but the display of new 21.5 iMac is really good. The only thing that differs it from retina is the resolution itself. You should take a look for current 27 iMac. If it's resolution will be more comfortable and sharp for you, you can simply add less reflections and better colors and you'll know what to expect from new 27s. GL.
  22. jediDev macrumors regular

    Jun 13, 2012
    Yup. I feel less glare/reflection/eye strain.

    It's also a different LCD. The model number is similar but not same. SDC2 vs SDD1 iirc.
  23. m11rphy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Dec 26, 2009
    Just been reading some reviews and the 27inch does seem to be getting good comments on its screen quality and resolution. Im wait and see one in flesh as maybe i have been un fair judging the iMac on the lower model
  24. vladfein macrumors regular

    May 28, 2012
    If Apple would place old and new iMacs side by side in the store (not like there isn't room for that), it might be easier to see that.
    Or not...
  25. beerglass007 macrumors 6502

    May 13, 2008
    Not at all

    When using the iMac your not looking at the gap difference

    I standby my statement. It's not like night and day difference.

    It's basically iMac 1.5 not iMac 2.0

Share This Page