etc
macrumors 6502
Yes, less blooming but still would be noticable. It has only 4x more dimming zones than Pro XDR.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Used Pro Display XDR or New Studio Display XDR for Photography
- Thread starter jdphoto
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Zubba
macrumors regular
We'll have to wait and see what the results are, but by all early accounts the blacks are noticeably better on the new XDR vs. the old one, and significantly better than a standard studio display. You're not going to eliminate all blooming on a mini-led, but you can come close depending on implementation, and QC. I'm holding off on my order while I decide if I want to go nano-texture or not, and to see what more extensive reviews say once these get into people's hands.
AndreeOnline
macrumors 6502a
Ever since I got my 16" MacBook Pro M3 Max with the XDR MiniLED, I've wanted that display in 27" plus size. The Pro XDR looked OK initially, but there were too many flags (few dimming zones), a high price, and no convenience features such as a webcam or speakers.
I would have loved to have seen the Studio XDR in 6k 32", but even at 27" and 5k, it's an instant buy. I should mention that in Switzerland it's 2800 'currency' for me, and we used to have roughly 1:1 CHF vs Dollar prices.
I hear a lot of moping about the Studio XDR, but where is the competition? Sure, we'll get offers from other brands at $2500-ish, but that's essentially the same price category. What we WON'T get is a competitor for $1600.
Don't people get the difference between IPS traditional LED and IPS MiniLED?
Not for photography? How do you develop your HDR photos then (the first MAJOR leap in photographic display technology in a loooong while)? And let me proactively stop anyone from bringing up any 400 nit "HDR" display as a competitor.....
EDIT: small clarification around IPS...
I would have loved to have seen the Studio XDR in 6k 32", but even at 27" and 5k, it's an instant buy. I should mention that in Switzerland it's 2800 'currency' for me, and we used to have roughly 1:1 CHF vs Dollar prices.
I hear a lot of moping about the Studio XDR, but where is the competition? Sure, we'll get offers from other brands at $2500-ish, but that's essentially the same price category. What we WON'T get is a competitor for $1600.
Don't people get the difference between IPS traditional LED and IPS MiniLED?
Not for photography? How do you develop your HDR photos then (the first MAJOR leap in photographic display technology in a loooong while)? And let me proactively stop anyone from bringing up any 400 nit "HDR" display as a competitor.....
EDIT: small clarification around IPS...
Last edited:
Golf7-R
macrumors regular
@AndreeOnline i think many people just want a good monitor from apple and don’t actually need HDR etc. I myself want a sharp screen for software development. Deep black and hdr are nice but not important. I got the old Studio Display because it has ~220ppi for retina and it just looks great.
27 inch feel a little small for me now and I want something bigger. I was thinking to get the new xdr (2nd monitor) due to 120hz. But I would pay a lot for it and won’t really use all its other features. So I wished for a nice 32 inch 6k from apple… maybe I will buy the kuycon 6k instead
27 inch feel a little small for me now and I want something bigger. I was thinking to get the new xdr (2nd monitor) due to 120hz. But I would pay a lot for it and won’t really use all its other features. So I wished for a nice 32 inch 6k from apple… maybe I will buy the kuycon 6k instead
AndreeOnline
macrumors 6502a
A reasonable request, but this crowd has nothing to do with the Studio XDR, so one would not expect any of them to have opinions about a product they are not interested in?
That statement should not be interpreted as 'opinion policing'. I don't complain that the MacBook Neo is "too small and underpowered". I know that there are many from whom that computer is perfect. Same goes for higher end products: there's a target group for the Studio XDR too.
I'm not defending the price of the normal Studio Display. It's not for me, and in THAT category, there are many options where you can make any tradeoffs you like in terms of size, looks and whatnot.
The panels in the Studio Display and the Studio XDR have no similarities except for size and resolution. Totally different technologies.
Golf7-R
macrumors regular
I know that they are made for different purposes. But if you own the old Studio Display and wanted something better, apple wont offer it. Same for the discontinued Pro Display XDR owners. I feel apple wants you to use 2 Studio Displays via dacy chain.
I would love that they offered the same setup in the 32 inch size 🙂
I would love that they offered the same setup in the 32 inch size 🙂
AndreeOnline
macrumors 6502a
Since Apple is discontinuing the Pro Display XDR, a 32" 6K form factor would be a cleaner transition to MiniLED. Same size, but this time around with MiniLED, webcam speakers AND stand for $3995 would probably have worked, even if $3495 would have been better of course.
That said, the sooner the normal Studio Display can get to $1195—if not $995, the better.
Even though I take delivery of the Studio XDR on Wednesday, I'm well aware it's transitional technology. The goal at the time is probably MicroLED or some layered OLED. But those displays in 32" 6K+ are a few years out with mainstream pricing.
That said, the sooner the normal Studio Display can get to $1195—if not $995, the better.
Even though I take delivery of the Studio XDR on Wednesday, I'm well aware it's transitional technology. The goal at the time is probably MicroLED or some layered OLED. But those displays in 32" 6K+ are a few years out with mainstream pricing.
AndreeOnline
macrumors 6502a
For the intended setup, yes, it will be a single monitor to which I will connect my MacBook Pro (clamshell mode, or open as a second monitor).
My Mac Pro (not compatible anyway, has another setup with dual monitors and OLED TV).
You use the word 'only' together with 1400€, as if it's a comparison to $3300. We can't compare prices between different technologies. It's as if I'm looking at 65" UHD OLEDs and I get tips of cheaper 85" (it's bigger!) 1080p backprojecting TVs. There are many displays that come in at a much lower prices than 1400€.
"Yes, but not at 6K" someone says. Well, we just left MiniLED behind, now let's leave 6K too. And then the next thing, and the next.... That's how it works.
I'm aware that there are announced MiniLEDs for sub $2K. I'll wait for reviews before making any sort of judgement of Apple's pricing. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not of the opinion that Apple stuff is expensive 'like for like'. What people tend to do is to lock in on some spec of an Apple product and then find much cheaper stuff elsewhere. But when you start to REALLY compare: worse calibration, poor viewing angles, cheap materials and build, less innovative technical solutions, less synergy with other Apple products, other specs much weaker such as 2 cheap speakers instead of 6 kind of good ones, poor mic implementation...
I get that some users look for "sharp 6K and 32 inches—and the rest should be good enough". That use case opens the door to many products. Know your needs.
Some tech reviewers just seem so used to mansplaining products to the large masses that they think their own setup is some sort of benchmark.
Golf7-R
macrumors regular
I use the word only for people like me who need a monitor for static text like coding and mostly care about sharp text (retina) and > 27 inch.
Currently there is no other 120hz 5k miniled on the market and I doubt there will be a 120hz 6k monitor any time soon. So I was ready to spend the extra money on apples new monitor because I think it is worth it. But if I am honest with myself, all i really need is more space and sharp text. Apple is just not offering that…
Currently there is no other 120hz 5k miniled on the market and I doubt there will be a 120hz 6k monitor any time soon. So I was ready to spend the extra money on apples new monitor because I think it is worth it. But if I am honest with myself, all i really need is more space and sharp text. Apple is just not offering that…
Ehhh, that’s not true. They are very similar tech, just different backlighting. Obviously this upgrade makes for a much better experience for certain applications, but they are both IPS panels.
They still have inherent flaws like slow pixel response + the need to be viewed straight on for the best contrast
I would agree with you if the new Apple 27" Studio Display XDR had a MicroLED panel, but it still has an LCD panel like the Kuycon G32P, only with a different type of backlighting.
However, you write your arguments in such a way that you are talking about a completely different technology... I would agree with you if it were MicroLED, but with MiniLED, that's obviously total nonsense 😉
You haven't accidentally confused MicroLED and MiniLED (like other rookies)? Actually, you should be able to tell immediately what this is about based on the price, because a 5K 27" monitor with MicroLED would certainly cost a good US$ 10,000-20,000.
AndreeOnline
macrumors 6502a
All people have to know is that the Studio Display is the 5K iMac from 2014, give or take, and the Studio XDR is the screen from the 16" MacBook Pro "Liquid Retina XDR" sized up to 27" and 5K.
Working from that, if someone IMMEDIATELY knows what that means and the impact it has, they can make their decision with confidence. If the statement doesn't really mean that much... if the panels mentioned above are "heh, what's the difference" (lack of general knowledge or experience) or "I know the MacBook Pro panel is brighter on paper, but who in their right mind wants to surf the web with sunglasses" (points to misunderstandings and/or knowledge gaps), or anything similar to that (which probably can happen depending on what apps your working in and what type of content), then don't worry about it.
The name of the tech doesn't really matter. At a very minimum, someone thinking about the XDR should know that HDR is a completely different mode of the display, with lots of implications. Appropriate software can of course limit the HDR mode to certain windows, such as DaVinci Resolve, Lightroom and others.
AndreeOnline
macrumors 6502a
It would be interesting to know if there are any photographers here who shoot raw with a system camera and HAVE NOT seen or tested the HDR mode in Lightroom—on a proper HDR display—on their photos.
As before, "HDR displays" capable of 400-600 nits don't count. Yes, they will switch mode, but I'm referring to HDR displays such as the Pro XDR, or the Liquid Retina XDR in the MacBook Pros and iPad Pros (and iPhone Pros).
As before, "HDR displays" capable of 400-600 nits don't count. Yes, they will switch mode, but I'm referring to HDR displays such as the Pro XDR, or the Liquid Retina XDR in the MacBook Pros and iPad Pros (and iPhone Pros).
I think you're just talking yourself into something here 😀
The panel itself (I'm not talking about the type of backlighting or the electronics that control the refresh rate) is very likely identical in the new Apple Studio Display and Apple Studio Display XDR (and of a very high quality). The difference lies in the backlighting and electronics mentioned above.
The fact that you don't even mention your faux pas between MiniLED and MicroLED says a lot about your technical understanding of monitor technology! Personally, that's enough for me to be able to assess you better 😉
Zubba
macrumors regular
Why are you so concerned with talking down to him? The fact you act like backlighting is nothing of consequence in display tech suggests *YOU* have a limited understanding of what you're pretending to be an expert on.
When reviews show that the differences in contrast/black levels, blooming, and brightness are significant between the XDR/Standard what are you going to come up with to pretend like what he's trying to convey isn't basically accurate, if not technically so?
Please note that the original author has spoken grandly about different “technologies” here and is clearly unaware of the difference between MicroLED and MiniLED, and THAT is relevant when discussing monitor technologies, because otherwise rumors will be spread and other (conventional) monitors will be indirectly devalued, either intentionally or unintentionally, all because of a lack of knowledge about this essential difference (!).
AndreeOnline
macrumors 6502a
Hehe. I referred to MicroLED above. Specify the faux pas, if you like. It's makes it easer to reply to.
But the paper specs are relatively uninteresting. I'm using existing displays that people are very familiar with, as an example. If the display examples I give have little meaning—then as I said: don't worry about it.
I'm not trying to fight anyone else's fight here. No horse in this race, apart from making people aware that the Studio Display ≠ Studio Display XDR in ways that some people might not be aware of.
AndreeOnline
macrumors 6502a
Last edited:
AndreeOnline
macrumors 6502a
Anyway.
Upcoming display technologies will have per-pixel lighting. We'll have OLEDs and MicroLEDs. MicroLEDs look especially promising (hinted at in post #33), combining per-pixel lighting (meaning perfect pixel-level blacks) with high brightness.
Good current HDR technology (and remember, the Studio XDR is all about the HDR. If that means nothing to you—look elsewhere!) often relies on MiniLED. It offers high brightness, which is important for true HDR, and you want peak brightness of at least 1200 nits, or so. Apple's previous displays have had 1600 nits, and the Studio XDR is now up to 2000 nits.
A step above normal quality: will use marketing labels such as "IPS black" and similar. They don't rely on high light output, but rather deeper blacks to achieve great contrast. But great contrast isn't the same as HDR. But it is similar to OLED TVs that for many years often topped out at 600-700 nits, while offering OLED "perfect per-pixel blacks". When you have perfect blacks, you don't need super-high brightness for an "HDR effect", but ideally, your HDR screen should be able to replicate the light output from the screen, as the light source it portrays.
It's the difference between a screen that actually emits light, like a light source, and a screen that can go pretty dark to make it seem like average light levels look brighter than they otherwise would.
The rest: "normal" LED screens with a max brightness of 400-500 nits. Sometimes even THESE screens come with some sort of HDR labelling such as "HDR600", or whatever. But bro. Please.
For non-HDR use, I'm sure I'd be happy with a modern 32" 6K screen for around $1500.
Upcoming display technologies will have per-pixel lighting. We'll have OLEDs and MicroLEDs. MicroLEDs look especially promising (hinted at in post #33), combining per-pixel lighting (meaning perfect pixel-level blacks) with high brightness.
Good current HDR technology (and remember, the Studio XDR is all about the HDR. If that means nothing to you—look elsewhere!) often relies on MiniLED. It offers high brightness, which is important for true HDR, and you want peak brightness of at least 1200 nits, or so. Apple's previous displays have had 1600 nits, and the Studio XDR is now up to 2000 nits.
A step above normal quality: will use marketing labels such as "IPS black" and similar. They don't rely on high light output, but rather deeper blacks to achieve great contrast. But great contrast isn't the same as HDR. But it is similar to OLED TVs that for many years often topped out at 600-700 nits, while offering OLED "perfect per-pixel blacks". When you have perfect blacks, you don't need super-high brightness for an "HDR effect", but ideally, your HDR screen should be able to replicate the light output from the screen, as the light source it portrays.
It's the difference between a screen that actually emits light, like a light source, and a screen that can go pretty dark to make it seem like average light levels look brighter than they otherwise would.
The rest: "normal" LED screens with a max brightness of 400-500 nits. Sometimes even THESE screens come with some sort of HDR labelling such as "HDR600", or whatever. But bro. Please.
For non-HDR use, I'm sure I'd be happy with a modern 32" 6K screen for around $1500.
Worst kind of ignorant people are the ones who think they know what they’re talking about.
As a current Studio Display user, I can guarantee you, you’ll see and appreciate the difference between the new Studio Display and Studio Display XDR.
Studio Display is extremely good for most users including myself, but when you compare it side by side with a Pro Display XDR, you see the difference instantly. Not the difference in size, but the difference in brightness, contrast and color reproduction.
Studio Display XDR will be even better than Pro Display XDR while the image quality improvements in the base Studio Display will be insignificant.
It’s safe to assume that the new Studio XDR will offer OLED-like blacks with no downside such as low peak brightness and burn-in. Yes, burn-in is still a big issue if you’re using your computer long hours with a lot of static UI elements.
I’m planning to buy a second display, and I’m very much afraid to visit an Apple Store these days, because I feel like if I see the new XDR display, I will end up spending twice to get it.
As a current Studio Display user, I can guarantee you, you’ll see and appreciate the difference between the new Studio Display and Studio Display XDR.
Studio Display is extremely good for most users including myself, but when you compare it side by side with a Pro Display XDR, you see the difference instantly. Not the difference in size, but the difference in brightness, contrast and color reproduction.
Studio Display XDR will be even better than Pro Display XDR while the image quality improvements in the base Studio Display will be insignificant.
It’s safe to assume that the new Studio XDR will offer OLED-like blacks with no downside such as low peak brightness and burn-in. Yes, burn-in is still a big issue if you’re using your computer long hours with a lot of static UI elements.
I’m planning to buy a second display, and I’m very much afraid to visit an Apple Store these days, because I feel like if I see the new XDR display, I will end up spending twice to get it.
AndreeOnline
macrumors 6502a
I missed this remark earlier. I did say "no similarities", so that's on me, if you want to read it literally. But if you see how I've attacked this topic, you hopefully notice that my remarks have been more sweeping in nature. I know the differences (and similarities) between the monitor technologies.
But I have a feeling that this part of Macrumors have a wider audience than, let's say, the Mac Pro forum. I just felt it was more effective to refer to actual displays that people might know such as the old 5K Retina iMac from 2014 (which had a great display) and its extension: today's Studio Display, to a modern MacBook Pro with Liquid XDR, or a current iPad Pro, for example. For some people, maybe all the displays mentioned here are "all the same"?
The gist of my argument was underlined by:
And this is what I mean. It doesn't matter if it's "just" backlighting. The sum of the technical differences adds up to a totally different experience. The caveat being: FOR HDR. But I feel I have kept hammering that nail.
I'm sure there are many from whom 'HDR' is pretty abstract still, but it's certainly not "audiophile territory" where most things are best enjoyed imagined. Anyone would easily see the differences between SDR and proper (light emitting) HDR, when they are pointed out.
Zubba
macrumors regular
Early reviews suggest the sentiment you expressed here is wrong. It's massively better at controlling blooming than the Pro XDR was.
Apple Knowledge Navigator
macrumors 601
Honestly, as a photographer myself, I wouldn't purchase either. The standard Studio Display is fine for your needs and, in one regard, better.
Backlight uniformity has been proven to actually be better on the standard SD (see PetaPixel), which is critical for photography.
Also, consider the following:
- You don't need a high refresh rate.
- You don't need super-high brightness (1000+ nits)
- All three displays have P3-wide colour, if you're working strictly in digital realms.
- If you're printing your photographs, then you should know that Adobe RGB, surprisingly and disappointingly, is virtually equal on the Studio Display and Studio Display XDR (84-86%). BenQ and Asus ProArt have monitors for less than half the price have Adobe RGB at 95%+.
If your needs are only photography then I would strongly consider a BenQ or Asus ProArt. However, the regular Studio Display can be worth it if you need nice(er) speakers, microphone, camera, and high quality enclosure.
Backlight uniformity has been proven to actually be better on the standard SD (see PetaPixel), which is critical for photography.
Also, consider the following:
- You don't need a high refresh rate.
- You don't need super-high brightness (1000+ nits)
- All three displays have P3-wide colour, if you're working strictly in digital realms.
- If you're printing your photographs, then you should know that Adobe RGB, surprisingly and disappointingly, is virtually equal on the Studio Display and Studio Display XDR (84-86%). BenQ and Asus ProArt have monitors for less than half the price have Adobe RGB at 95%+.
If your needs are only photography then I would strongly consider a BenQ or Asus ProArt. However, the regular Studio Display can be worth it if you need nice(er) speakers, microphone, camera, and high quality enclosure.