which 27inch non mac monitor for less than 400 is best?

Discussion in 'Mac Accessories' started by enthawizeguy, Apr 27, 2011.

  1. enthawizeguy, Apr 27, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2011

    enthawizeguy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Location:
    North Hollywood, CA
    #1
    i am trying to figure out which monitor to by. I do alot of movie watching and audio editing. I would like to get a 27 inch but can't afford a apple cinema display. What would you guys recommend , I am going to hook it up to my mac mini and quad core macbook pro ?? HD preferbly?

    Thanks in advance?
     
  2. Potatochobit macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    #2
  3. enthawizeguy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Location:
    North Hollywood, CA
    #3
    I am looking for something more along the lines of 27 inch. I am using pro tools and logic and ableton live mostly and will watch netflix, hulu and dvds. As long as editing won't hurt my eyes and it is good quality i am cool . Is that the only 27 inch recommendation?
     
  4. Corban987 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Location:
    Michigan
    #4
    Just go to Newegg and search, but you get what you pay for. The Apple display is very reasonably priced for its resolution and quality. Compare the specs with whats out there then look at the price, if you find a similar spec'd monitor let us know. I still have not found one. Dell has one for exactly the same price. Between the 2 I know which one I would get, it's not the ugly black plastic one either.
     
  5. sivosam macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    #5
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

    I have Samsung SyncMaster 2770hd and it's nice. You should be able to get one for around 300$
     
  6. chrismacguy, Apr 28, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2011

    chrismacguy macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #6
    Any 27" under $600+ will be low resolution, and your much better off going with a 24"er (Especially for video (/) editing). 1920*1080 looks best at 21.5", and 1920*1200 at 23/24". Anything larger than that looks absolutely awful for editing and isnt worth the money, unless you like very low pixel density. The Apple Cinema Display is so expensive because it actually makes use of the screen size with a 2560*1440 display. Anything less than that looks dreadful, and its resolution, not sizes that makes stuff look good, especially for Pro Apps. (Including ProTools 9, since the extra space for tracks is invaluable)
     
  7. MacHamster68, Apr 28, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2011

    MacHamster68 macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #7
    i agree with chrismacguy
    you want a 27" then so far you need to go apple or dell if you want a quality display , dont waste your money for some low res monitor, at that size high resolution and pixel density is a must hp has a 30" ips monitor too , but you are looking at more then $400
    i had a tv @27" lcd tv for a very short time with just 1920x1080 and there you see every single pixel then and you soon will want a higher resolution , its alright for tv use from great distance , but not for use as monitor

    so for your budget if you need to stick to that i would suggest best to go for a 21.5-23" monitor as then a "lower" resolution of 1920x1080/1200 is ok
    but there is always the option if you are on such low budget to get a CRT monitor , don't lough but they still beat most of those budget lcd's in terms of picture quality like for example the sony fw900 24".2304 x 1440 @ 85Hz ..some gamers and photographers and movie editors still swear on crt's even in 2011
    and i still got my Lacie electron 22blue IV visible 20" but 2048 x 1536 / 86.0 Hz resolution and that picture is sharp and crisp and a pleasure to look at
     
  8. mark28 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    #8
    The max resolution of movies is 1920 x 1080, so why would you want a 27" display for watching movies?
     
  9. kbright1892 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    #9
    Probably because it's bigger? Most 27's under 400 are going to be 1920x1080 unless you get an older model.

    I've read good reviews on Asus and they can be picked up for around 300 and still under 400 if you want to go LED backlit. Check out reviews on NewEgg. A lot of good information can be found if you actually read them instead of just looking at eggs.
     
  10. Thares macrumors 6502

    Thares

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Location:
    Dresden, Germany
    #10
  11. enthawizeguy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Location:
    North Hollywood, CA
    #11
    i already have a 19 inch monitor? soo your telling me i wont be able to edit at all with a monitor thats less than 400? I can't afford 900 dollars for a screen it couldn't be that bad? pictures anyone. Now i dont know what to do i feel like 19 to 24 is not a big enough upgrade and like the size of the cinema display.
     
  12. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    I don't think you understood what chrismacguy said. Size actually doesn't really matter. Resolution, however, does!

    Just take a look at this image: 1920x1200 is what you get from a 27" $400 display. 2560x1440 is the real estate you get from the Cinema.
    That being said, 1920x1200 (so the same usable space!) can be found in monitors from 22" to 24" as well. The result is physically smaller pixels which make the image sharper.

    [​IMG]
    Thank you very much Paul Stamatiou for providing this image.
     
  13. englishman macrumors 6502a

    englishman

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    #13
    Some good value monitors out there.

    Trouble is the sharper image is ok for some but if you have eyesight problems a lower pixel density is easier to work on day in day out. I love the 27 but found it quite a strain. I have gone back to two old Dell 19" 1280 x 1024 displays which you can change to 1024 x 768 - yes it does look clunky but easier on the eyes for us oldies.

    ... something to think about if you have less than 100% eyesight
     
  14. enthawizeguy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Location:
    North Hollywood, CA
    #14
    So which 24 do you recommend ? I really need screen real estate I don't like scrolling around while arranging . What's the cheapest 27 for 500-600 as well?
     
  15. DarwinOSX macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    #15
    Keep in mind they will be lower res with huge pixels and TN screens which I personally can't stand. Backlighting does not make up for this. I would go with a 24-inch HP zr24w instead for about the same price but much better picture quality.
     
  16. chrismacguy, Apr 29, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 29, 2011

    chrismacguy macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #16
    2. If its real estate, then look at the Apple Cinema Display, and I think DELL and HP have similar panels (I think its the Dell U2711, but thats also $999) - but you are probably looking at $900+, because thats how much a 2560*1440 monitor costs (They really arent mainstream - there are I believe only 5 or 6 models from mainstream manufacturers in the 27"+ Hi-Res department) - if you can get an Apple Education Discount thru a family member, the 27" Cinema generally tends to be one of the cheapest and best options at $950 or so. These screens are all expensive and are likely to stay that way as no big manufacturer has brought out a Hi-Res monitor above 30"s yet.
    3. For 24" screens, Id look at HPs range and also DELLs Ultrasharps - although if color isnt important just find the cheapest you can (IIRC HP had a 24"er under their COMPAQ brand for $300/£200 which didnt seem too shabby - get 2 and you have plenty of real estate to work with).
     
  17. room271 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    #17
    I would say don't be put off if you really want a 27 inch monitor - just go and look at some review sites and see what they say.

    Yes resolution is important, but so is screen size - particularly if you want to do documents side by side etc.
     
  18. chrismacguy macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #18
    That is just plain wrong. The resolution is what dictates how much "space" you have on your screen, not the size. A 24" screen at 1920*1080 will display EXACTLY THE SAME amount of stuff as a 27" screen at 1920*1080, the extra 3 inches buy you no more "space" so you get to see no more "stuff".
     
  19. rimmi2002 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    #19
    I understand resolution dictates working space. I actually just bought a Samsung 27" from costco P2770FH. Good price. Only $280. I noticed that even though the workspace did not improve all so much from the 21.5 inch 1650x1050 Samsung LCD (this also happens to be have a crisper image) the 27 inch is easier on the eye.

    Is this because items on a 27 inch and just larger than on a 23/24 inch with the same 1920/1080 resolution or am I just plain wrong?
     
  20. chrismacguy macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #20
    This is why things appear bigger, however based on the OPs use, he wants more real-estate for audio editing (More room for tracks etc), instead of the same amount of stuff just blown up. - And the low-res 27s look absolutely horrible, and I mean absolutely horrible - if you like it, your in a minority, as most people hate being able to see individual pixels from 1ft away, especially once youve got used to sitting in front of 1 (or more) cinemas. A Cinema is bright and fantastic for getting stuff done, and you can run them at a lower resolution if you WANT too, you just don't have the option of going up, when you need the extra real estate to get stuff done. Viewing documents side by side also requires more resolution to view more stuff, and the extra size doesnt add anything, and in fact can make text appear a lot worse because of the low pixel density. Just use the Zoom control in Word if you have issues reading something or make its pixel size bigger, dont alter the pixel density, its the worse option.
     
  21. SidBala macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    #21
    You must first decide whether you want 1080p or 1440p.

    If you want to spend less than $400, then forget 1440p.

    If you want a 1080p, forget 27inch.

    Get a good 23 inch at 1080p.
     
  22. rimmi2002 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    #22

    Thanks for the info. I guess I'll be returning my 27 inch Samsung P2770. Color looks more accurate on my 21.6 Syncmaster 2253 at 1650x1050.

    My question is if a 27 inch at 1920x1080 looks bad because pixels are covering more area....then is it better to get a 23 inch at 1920x1080 over a 24 inch over the same reasoning? In that on a 23inch you have the same number of pixels packed in on a smaller area?
     

Share This Page