Used Pro Display XDR or New Studio Display XDR for Photography

[jdphoto]

Have been saving my pennies here for Apple display refreshes and the day finally came this week, but with the shift from 32" to 27" for the XDR and the drop from 6K to 5K resolution I'm feeling more stuck than I thought I would.

I do a lot of photo work and have an M4 Max (top spec other than SSD size) Mac Studio and am trying to figure out what route I should take for new monitors (right now limping along on an older stand-in monitor). I'm going dual monitor no matter what, but trying to decide if I should pick up two new Studio Display XDR monitors or if I should grab two Pro Display XDR monitors off the used market. Pricing is going to be close to the same.

With my primary use case being photography I don't feel like I need the higher refresh rate and think the resolution/size of the the Pro Display XDR would be better, but am curious what others think here.

 

[MacGizmo]

I think you would be crazy to buy either of the XDR displays. The regular Studio Display is a much better value for you, even if you can afford either of the XDRs. As a photographer, you're getting absolutely nothing for double (or triple) the price. The only legit benefit of the older XDR is the size, but I can assure you that even thought it's a 6K screen, you will not be running it at 6K resolution - the entire interface of the OS, Photoshop, Lightroom (and every other app) would simply be too tiny to see. Even the 5K Studio Display is rarely used by anyone at the full 5K resolution for the same reason. The other consideration is if you want/need a webcam... the older XDR doesn't have one built-in.

My 2 cents: You're going to love using ANY combination of the 4 Apple displays... so it really just comes down to money and desk space. VESA Mount versions of any of them would be my recommendation.

 

[Pezimak]

Have been saving my pennies here for Apple display refreshes and the day finally came this week, but with the shift from 32" to 27" for the XDR and the drop from 6K to 5K resolution I'm feeling more stuck than I thought I would.

I do a lot of photo work and have an M4 Max (top spec other than SSD size) Mac Studio and am trying to figure out what route I should take for new monitors (right now limping along on an older stand-in monitor). I'm going dual monitor no matter what, but trying to decide if I should pick up two new Studio Display XDR monitors or if I should grab two Pro Display XDR monitors off the used market. Pricing is going to be close to the same.

With my primary use case being photography I don't feel like I need the higher refresh rate and think the resolution/size of the the Pro Display XDR would be better, but am curious what others think here.

If I were you I'd get 2 of the new Studio Display XDR, new monitors which mean a warranty or ability to buy Apple Care if you use them for your profession. Also the new XDR out performs the old one in every way bar screen size.

 

[etc]

The only legit benefit of the older XDR is the size, but I can assure you that even thought it's a 6K screen, you will not be running it at 6K resolution - the entire interface of the OS, Photoshop, Lightroom (and every other app) would simply be too tiny to see.

ASD and XDR have the same PPI. There is no difference in UI elements size, but you have more space on XDR.

 

[SeppelHut]

Even the 5K Studio Display is rarely used by anyone at the full 5K resolution for the same reason.

This is not true. I use it personally for Lightroom and the size of the UI is totally fine. I also know a lot other photographers who use it for LR.

Sometimes I wish for a bigger display. Therefore I waited for a new 32“ which unfortunately did not arrive. The UI would not be smaller since the pixels per inch are similar.

 

[MacGizmo]

ASD and XDR have the same PPI. There is no difference in UI elements size, but you have more space on XDR.

I think you misread my comment. I wasn't comparing the two displays, I was saying that at 5120x2880, the UI elements are too tiny for anyone to use on a regular basis... except for a few people who apparently have "Super Vision." LOL.

 

[etc]

I think you misread my comment. I wasn't comparing the two displays, I was saying that at 5120x2880, the UI elements are too tiny for anyone to use on a regular basis... except for a few people who apparently have "Super Vision." LOL.

I wouldn't recommend generalizing and speaking on behalf of all users to begin with.

Personally, I've been using this interface size at native resolution for 15 years now, starting with a Thunderbolt Display that has a density of 110 pixels per inch. Retina displays, which came out later, have the same physical interface size but double ppi and that's it. So this is a gold standard for decades, at least for Apple users. It seems they all have "super vision" according to Apple.

 

[avro707]

Have been saving my pennies here for Apple display refreshes and the day finally came this week, but with the shift from 32" to 27" for the XDR and the drop from 6K to 5K resolution I'm feeling more stuck than I thought I would.

If you rush you can probably get the original Studio Display with the non-glossy finish and the height adjustable stand for a very decent price brand new.

The 32" XDR is beautiful, but too expensive and no longer available. If you can find one new at a good price then go for it, otherwise leave it. Remember too that it has no camera built in so you have to buy one. And you have to buy a stand for it as well if I'm not mistaken, and that's expensive.

 

[MacGizmo]

I wouldn't recommend generalizing and speaking on behalf of all users to begin with.

Personally, I've been using this interface size at native resolution for 15 years now, starting with a Thunderbolt Display that has a density of 110 pixels per inch. Retina displays, which came out later, have the same physical interface size but double ppi and that's it. So this is a gold standard for decades, at least for Apple users. It seems they all have "super vision" according to Apple.

Well that's interesting, considering the Thunderbolt Display wasn't a 5K screen, it maxed out at 2560 by 1440 pixels.

I'm not sure how you're getting the resolution of 5120x2880 on that display at all, nor does pixels per inch come into play. But if you do, and set the resolution to the lowest resolution possible, and then switch it to the highest resolution possible, I can't understand how your entire interface isn't reduced in size to show the increased amount of pixels on the screen.

On the ASD, the menubar is so tiny at 5120x2880 I can't even read it from 22 inches away – when I set it to 3200x1800 I can read it clearly from 36-48 inches away. This is how every display ever built works. This is one reason why Apple doesn't make that setting (5120x2880) the default.

 

[Zubba]

I think you would be crazy to buy either of the XDR displays. The regular Studio Display is a much better value for you, even if you can afford either of the XDRs. As a photographer, you're getting absolutely nothing for double (or triple) the price. The only legit benefit of the older XDR is the size, but I can assure you that even thought it's a 6K screen, you will not be running it at 6K resolution - the entire interface of the OS, Photoshop, Lightroom (and every other app) would simply be too tiny to see. Even the 5K Studio Display is rarely used by anyone at the full 5K resolution for the same reason. The other consideration is if you want/need a webcam... the older XDR doesn't have one built-in.

My 2 cents: You're going to love using ANY combination of the 4 Apple displays... so it really just comes down to money and desk space. VESA Mount versions of any of them would be my recommendation.

I'm sorry, but this is not good advice, as it's just inaccurate.

Either the old Pro XDR, or the new Studio XDR offer vastly superior contrast, and better color accuracy than the Studio display.

The new Studio XDR, despite having a similar technical rating as the Pro XDR should offer superior contrast with less blooming, because of the mini LED backlight, and crapload of dimming zones. Throw on top the fact that the new Studio XDR will also be MUCH brighter than any display Apple has ever offered, is able to handle HDR content/editing, is the first Apple display to offer a P3-D65 reference mode, and it's very clearly, without a doubt, a significantly better choice for professional level photo editors than a standard Studio display, or the old Pro XDR.

 

[avro707]

I'm sorry, but this is not good advice, as it's just inaccurate.

How about Eizo with their built in calbration? They've long been used in the photography world - despite their huge prices.

 

[Zubba]

How about Eizo with their built in calbration? They've long been used in the photography world - despite their huge prices.

What about them? There will always be niche monitor offerings tailored to a specific need. The problem with Eizo CG series monitors is that while they are exceptional for color work they are pretty clunky every day drivers, but yes they are great photo editing tools.

 

[Dark-Signature]

This is not true. I use it personally for Lightroom and the size of the UI is totally fine. I also know a lot other photographers who use it for LR.

Sometimes I wish for a bigger display. Therefore I waited for a new 32“ which unfortunately did not arrive. The UI would not be smaller since the pixels per inch are similar.

You use the monitor without scaling settings as the default setting? Respect!

 

[Dark-Signature]

What about them? There will always be niche monitor offerings tailored to a specific need. The problem with Eizo CG series monitors is that while they are exceptional for color work they are pretty clunky every day drivers, but yes they are great photo editing tools.

Until 2015, I always bought and used EIZO monitors because of their image quality. But then in 2015, I bought the Dell UP2715K, the first glossy 5K 27" monitor for PCs, and in terms of image quality, it made every EIZO I had look like EIZO was a cheap brand. From 2015 to today, I've added two Apple Studio Displays in glossy + one more Dell UP2715K and, for almost a year now, a 32" 6K Kuycon G32P, all in glossy because that delivers the perfect image quality!

 

[SeppelHut]

You use the monitor without scaling settings as the default setting? Respect!

Yes. The UI is the same size as on my MacBook Pro and other Apple
devices I own. But I think it also depends on how far away you are from the display. I just have a regular sized desk which is not crazy deep.

 

[H_D]

We used the Eizo hardware calibrated monitors for years and I still love the wa that little sensor pops out.
But the thing is - for anything but digital print proofs these kind of suck. My old one has Norwegian, video content looks flat and off.
I have had a quite okay experience with the iMac Pro and ASD for print production with their D50 profile, even without the hardware calibration which is not the case with most other displays. And for every other task, UX design, Video, Social, the ASD outperforms the Eizos.
Very tempted by the XDR, especially as I am one of the few people that actually like the build in camera and audio. Wish it had one or two more TB ports, and Iwonder how the daisy chaining transfer rate is while driving a 120hz screen.

Two further thoughts for you:

Photography these days is not limited to print but mostly is represented online. Where color calibration mostly still is a joke, your images are shown on cheap mobile phones with subideal displays and if worst comes to worst in sRGB. Not to speak of True Tone, dimming and other stuff. The ASD and XDR are quite close to the iPhone and iPad displays so at least you have a part of the market covered. I feel like what I get on these displays fits with the mobile pretty much.

I found the Apple Vision Pro to be a wonderful display for photo editing. Zero specks dust dirt or reflections. Surprising good sharpness and color accuracy. Room for UX and a big image in the wide and superwide screens. And youcan physically move close to the image and the AVP gives you the 4K at the spot you’re looking at. Hard at highto explain but once experienced you miss that with a regular display. And it makes 27 and even 32 inches feel small.

And the price tag is not that terrible compared to the XDR. Especially if you consider thatyou get much more than just a display…

 

[etc]

Well that's interesting, considering the Thunderbolt Display wasn't a 5K screen, it maxed out at 2560 by 1440 pixels.

I'm not sure how you're getting the resolution of 5120x2880 on that display at all, nor does pixels per inch come into play. But if you do, and set the resolution to the lowest resolution possible, and then switch it to the highest resolution possible, I can't understand how your entire interface isn't reduced in size to show the increased amount of pixels on the screen.

On the ASD, the menubar is so tiny at 5120x2880 I can't even read it from 22 inches away – when I set it to 3200x1800 I can read it clearly from 36-48 inches away. This is how every display ever built works. This is one reason why Apple doesn't make that setting (5120x2880) the default.

You should learn about Retina displays, HiDPI resolutions and the difference between physical and logical ("looks like") resolution.

UI physical size is the same, but one logical pixel is rendered with 4x physical pixels on Retina screens by default and this is a gold standard. On Thunderbolt display which is non-Retina 1 logical pixel = 1 physical and it has 110 pixels per inch. Retina displays usually have 220 physical pixels per inch but 110 logical pixels per inch, so UI keeps its physical size the same.

ASD has 2560x1440 logical, but 5120x2880 physical. XDR has 3008x1692 logical ("looks like") which is default in mac os, 6016x3384 physical. Both have the same physical 220 PPI. In other words XDR has the same pixel density as ASD but more area.

Yes, it is also possible to set higher "looks like" resolution than default, but this leads to non-integer scaling and worse picture quality.

 

[SDAVE]

Imo new Studio Display XDR is overpriced. It's not going to sell well.

There's constant light bloom on the miniLED panels over black levels (you can see this in the MacBook Pros and iPads with miniLED.

I wish Apple made it into a Tandem OLED

Going to studio to my 1st gen Studio Displays theyre really solid, irregardless if they're old panels. I do color accurate work and its fine.

If you truly want to go hard core, get an EIZO display

 

[Dark-Signature]

Yes. The UI is the same size as on my MacBook Pro and other Apple
devices I own. But I think it also depends on how far away you are from the display. I just have a regular sized desk which is not crazy deep.

I don't know how to interpret your answer and am still unsure whether you are a complete newbie to this topic or an absolute pro with eagle eyes...

Would you mind taking a photo (not a screenshot!) of your entire monitor showing how big the Apple menu bar looks, i.e., whether it is scaled to 100% or 200%?

 

[Golf7-R]

Imo new Studio Display XDR is overpriced. It's not going to sell well.

There's constant light bloom on the miniLED panels over black levels (you can see this in the MacBook Pros and iPads with miniLED.

I wish Apple made it into a Tandem OLED

Going to studio to my 1st gen Studio Displays theyre really solid, irregardless if they're old panels. I do color accurate work and its fine.

If you truly want to go hard core, get an EIZO display

I don’t see any 27 inch 5k OLED monitors. Besides they still suffer from burnin and can’t get as bright as miniled. So Miniled is currently the better option!

 

[SDAVE]

I don’t see any 27 inch 5k OLED monitors. Besides they still suffer from burnin and can’t get as bright as miniled. So Miniled is currently the better option!

Burn in on OLED is not an issue anymore, companies do a lot of stuff like screensavers etc. to workaround that.

 

[Dark-Signature]

Burn in on OLED is not an issue anymore, companies do a lot of stuff like screensavers etc. to workaround that.

Unfortunately, that's not exactly true. As a user, if you want to use an OLED for 8-10 years rather than just 3, there are important things to consider. For example, the dock should always hide automatically, otherwise there will be a visible effect in exactly that spot after 3-4 years. If that's not a problem for you, then feel free to go for an OLED. In my case, I would never choose an OLED for a monitor that I use 8 hours a day for work.

 

[Golf7-R]

OLED will also loose brightness with a lot of usage. MiniLED is just the better technology for a monitor that is being used for work. For gaming this is another story

 

[MacGizmo]

You should learn about Retina displays, HiDPI resolutions and the difference between physical and logical ("looks like") resolution.

UI physical size is the same, but one logical pixel is rendered with 4x physical pixels on Retina screens by default and this is a gold standard. On Thunderbolt display which is non-Retina 1 logical pixel = 1 physical and it has 110 pixels per inch. Retina displays usually have 220 physical pixels per inch but 110 logical pixels per inch, so UI keeps its physical size the same.

ASD has 2560x1440 logical, but 5120x2880 physical. XDR has 3008x1692 logical ("looks like") which is default in mac os, 6016x3384 physical. Both have the same physical 220 PPI. In other words XDR has the same pixel density as ASD but more area.

Yes, it is also possible to set higher "looks like" resolution than default, but this leads to non-integer scaling and worse picture quality.

I don't need to "learn" about anything here—I'm quite educated about the topic. You're just putting an incredible amount of (and wasted) effort into what I can only assume is avoiding acknowledging that you know exactly what I'm talking about and it's absolutely true, 100% of the time.

We can puke up all the ppi, density, scaling, bit depth, contrast ratio, density, anti-aliasing jargon and stats all we want, but it doesn't change the fact that when you go from a resolution of 2560 pixels wide to 5120 pixels wide, everything on your screen appears at half the size.

 

[alchemistics]

I don't need to "learn" about anything here—I'm quite educated about the topic. You're just putting an incredible amount of (and wasted) effort into what I can only assume is avoiding acknowledging that you know exactly what I'm talking about and it's absolutely true, 100% of the time.

We can puke up all the ppi, density, scaling, bit depth, contrast ratio, density, anti-aliasing jargon and stats all we want, but it doesn't change the fact that when you go from a resolution of 2560 pixels wide to 5120 pixels wide, everything on your screen appears at half the size.

I think you would be crazy to buy either of the XDR displays. The regular Studio Display is a much better value for you, even if you can afford either of the XDRs. As a photographer, you're getting absolutely nothing for double (or triple) the price. The only legit benefit of the older XDR is the size, but I can assure you that even thought it's a 6K screen, you will not be running it at 6K resolution - the entire interface of the OS, Photoshop, Lightroom (and every other app) would simply be too tiny to see. Even the 5K Studio Display is rarely used by anyone at the full 5K resolution for the same reason. The other consideration is if you want/need a webcam... the older XDR doesn't have one built-in.

My 2 cents: You're going to love using ANY combination of the 4 Apple displays... so it really just comes down to money and desk space. VESA Mount versions of any of them would be my recommendation.

Sorry but I think you really did not get the concept of resolution scaling for HiDPI Monitors.
You are stating that there is no benefit in using either a 5k or 6k display as running it at native resolution will make the UI elements to small. Running at native is truly not the way to go, however with enabled scaling you don't loose any resolution:

You don't have to run a 5k, 6k or even any HiDPI at native resolution to actually benefit from it.

UI scaling work by increasing the rendered size of UI elements, not reducing actual resolution.

So a typical 5k display has 5120 × 2880 pixels, 200% scaling appears as 2560 × 1440 pixels. This does not mean the monitor runs at 2560 × 1440 pixels, it's just a reference to pre HIDPI real estate jargon. It still runs at 5120 × 2880 pixels, one pixel just becomes 4 pixels, therefore UI elements get sharper with scaling, not just bigger.

So on a 5k display with 200% scaling, every pixel is used. UI Elements get more pixels AND Images, videos etc. are utilising every pixel independent of scaling.

To the Thread starter:

Honestly I'd go for the 32" 6k for photography if you work with high-resolution images and wan't to see as much of it.
For reference: The current 5k displays show you around 15 MP, the 6k around 20MP.

I've switched from 5k (LG, Apple) to 6k Monitors (XDR, Asus) and the added real estate is much more worth it than i.e. 120hz and miniled.

Go with the Asus 6k or similar (Kuycon..) if you wan't to stay on a budget. Avoid the LG 6k, it has a comparably bad matte coating. If it must be Apple for you, go for the XDR 6k. Maybe Apple will still release an updated 32", I'm so hoping for this, can't believe they killed the 6k at this point.