[gatorguy]

I like the Asus Pro Art series. Also worth considering are the things like the types of connections suit your computer and that it's height adjustable. Also you don't need a fast frequency like in gaming monitors so ignore that specification. IPS as already said many times.

I went through the same motions trying to decide on a monitor when I upgraded my system last year. I ended up selecting a ProArt too, a PA329C that I'm extremely pleased with.

---

Last edited by gatorguy; 12-19-2022 at 11:17 AM.

[77me]

I just recently replaced my 2019 5K iMac with a mac studio and studio display. I considered a 27in or larger 2K but I decided even if I might not need it, I wanted better than %99 srgb. I considered a 4K display with similar color and uniformity as the studio display. While I would save some money and I don't really need the studio display's fancy web cam, triple mic array, 6 speakers with spatial audio, and extra brightness, I do spend most of my time looking at text and the 5K when scaled to 2560X1440 will display crisper text than a 4k and I don't want to use a 4k scaled to 1920. Since a few hundred dollars spread over many years of use is not a lot and B&H has a $100 discount, I splurged.

[AggieDad]

I am enjoying all the comments and the discussion — especially about using more than 100% for sharpening and mask clean-up. I tend to do this with my iMac as well.

@pschlute: From your comments, am I to understand you try not to go over 100% with your Eizo 2560?

I hear everyone's recommendation for IPS loud and clear. That is one thing that the entire Internet is in agreement on (it's amazing that anything on the Internet has so much agreement).

Someone mentioned ports. Using the monitor for additional ports might be useful, but the Mac Studio has a slew of ports, including: 4 Thunderbolt; DisplayPort; 4 USB-C; 4 USB-C; 2 USB-A; HDMI port; 10Gb Ethernet; headphone; and SDXC card slot.

I am surprised there hasn't been more discussion of brands (almost any question seems to bring brands into the discussion). I did see mention of both Asus and Eizo, but I also expected to see both Dell and BenQ to have been mentioned by now.

[AggieDad]

I just recently replaced my 2019 5K iMac with a mac studio and studio display. I considered a 27in or larger 2K but I decided even if I might not need it, I wanted better than %99 srgb. I considered a 4K display with similar color and uniformity as the studio display. While I would save some money and I don't really need the studio display's fancy web cam, triple mic array, 6 speakers with spatial audio, and extra brightness, I do spend most of my time looking at text and the 5K when scaled to 2560X1440 will display crisper text than a 4k and I don't want to use a 4k scaled to 1920. Since a few hundred dollars spread over many years of use is not a lot and B&H has a $100 discount, I splurged.

@77me: You have done exactly what I am planning to do! I would love to know how the whole experience is working — from how you spec'd the Studio to anything you would do differently.

[Mooncatt]

I hear everyone's recommendation for IPS loud and clear. That is one thing that the entire Internet is in agreement on (it's amazing that anything on the Internet has so much agreement).

You should see some of the fanboying/girling going on about OLED monitors.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

I personally despise them and would take IPS over burn in any day. Plus there are now IPS screens coming out with local dimming, and there's also the option of adding bias lighting to increase perceived contrast and better black levels.

[JohnMc]

Don't forget there are very good choices available from NEC. You almost have too many choices and a price range difference of some $2k. IMO first decision/choice is calibration capability. Features like ports and stands may or maybe be of real significance for your needs as you noted. As also noted above, if you figure a life of 5 years does that make the 1,200 a compelling choice over the 700 (or 1700) models?

[AggieDad]

As also noted above, if you figure a life of 5 years does that make the 1,200 a compelling choice over the 700 (or 1700) models?

Nope.

While I would be foolish to simply spend $1600 without considering alternatives, value (or at least my perception of it), not price, is what is driving my survey of the market.

[btnapa]

Your thoughts will be appreciated

2K vs. 4K is important. However, for critical photo editing work, a monitor that covers the Adobe RGB space as close to 100% as possible is more important. I have a BenQ 2K monitor that covers only the s-RGB space (100%). Basically I am not seeing some of the colors and the highlight and the shadow details are not the best either.

If you are considering an Apple monitor, then you have the budget to get a nice monitor that covers 100% of the Adobe RGB space. My journey with BenQ started like this. I bought a 27" 2K s-RGB that died on me twice. Not a good PR for a monitor company! They kept sending me refurbished units once I sent my monitor in. That is what they do. Your brand new monitor breaks down. You send it to the manufacturer for repair, they send you a refurb unit back. After the second one died too and I sent it back, they felt bad and sent me the 32" version of the same 27" monitor I had purchased. That was some six years ago. The 32" is working like a champ 8-10 hours a day. As I mentioned, I have a 2K with only s-RGB coverage. It works but it is not the best for critical photo work.

I am budgeting for a 4k, 100% Adobe RGB monitor this year (BenQ again!). The 27" is about $1,500 and the 32" is $2,000. At these prices the BenQ monitors have built-in hardware calibration. If you are interested in getting the BenQ, look up artisright on YouTube. He is a guru when it comes to BenQ monitors and you will learn everything you need from his videos. If the budget is tight, they have a 2K monitor that covers 100% of the Adobe RGB space. I think it goes for about half of the 4K version. Remember, for photo work you do not need 4K. 4K is only required if you shoot 4K video and need to see the footage in its native resolution. I considered the 2K version but want to get 4K for future proofing for video work! Hope this helps you somehow.

[Papa_Joe]

If you are going for print, color management is a more serious topic then resolution I would say.
Propably an EIZO CS2740 Color EDGE (Wide Gamut, 4K) or CG2700X Color EDGE then.
I just do not think you will save some money compared to the Mac display and of course they do not have a thunderbold interface.

[pschlute]

@pschlute: From your comments, am I to understand you try not to go over 100% with your Eizo 2560?

Hi Don

Yes. It was how I learned to do sharpening on raw files using the Unsharp Mask. I was taught not to use more than 100% view when applying settings and checking for atifacts like halos. This was over 10 years ago and that is a lifetime in digi-tech, so it may not be relevant now.

My procedure is to allow the raw converter to use it's default settings for "input" sharpening. Then after all my processing is complete, I convert to sRGB colour space and resize the image for posting to the web .... typically 1440 pixels high*. Only then do I apply "output" sharpening with the USM.

If I am preparing an image for printing, the pixel dimensions will be considerably larger and the amount of sharpening will be considerably more. I will use 100% view to check for halos.

* as 4k screens become more popular I may have to revise that so my image when viewed by others on 4k won't appear too small.

[pschlute]

If you are going for print, color management is a more serious topic then resolution I would say

I would agree, and for posting to the web as well as printing.

[acoufap]

What's important for professional like color work:

- supported color space ~ Adobe RGB
- support for hardware calibration
- uniform brightness across the monitor

2k or 4k - I like 4k, but on a Mac (I use a Mac mini 2020) 27" 4k yields to tiny font presentation. I couldn't find a preference where I could make it bigger across all applications. So 32" would be preferable compared to 27", IMO. Because of this I use my EiZO-Montior mostly in 3008 x 1692 px mode.

[Class A]

A wide gamut panel (covering Adobe RGB, for instance) can be very useful, in particular if you want to print your images.
However, I'd recommend to get a wide gamut panel that has an sRGB emulation mode, unless you want to use the monitor exclusively for photo editing. In case you are using it for other purposes, e.g., watching videos on YouTube, it is important that you can switch to an sRGB emulation mode, otherwise you'll see an oversaturated image with false hues. That's an important advice for Windows users, anyhow, since on Windows most applications are not colour-managed. This is most likely different on your Mac, but I'd make sure you'll be fine with a wide gamut display.

A uniformity control to compensate for uneven brightness and colour hues (even offered by some DELL models) can be very useful as most panels are not very uniform out of the box. You'll lose some contrast, but the extra accuracy should be well worth it.

Finally, I'd try to get a model with a hardware LUT so that the calibration is effectively performed by the monitor rather than the graphics card. This not only means that the monitor will show accurate colours and tones for any device you connect to it, but more importantly that it will not show any banding. If a panel requires some less than mild calibration and the latter is performed via the graphics card (as is the case with the vast majority of affordable monitors) then chances are that some tones will be lost, resulting in banding and/or lack of smoothness in smooth gradients. On Windows, this will mean that you'll have to use calibration software dedicated to your monitor, as the former will have to upload the LUT data to the monitor. Not sure how that works with Macs.

If you can afford an EIZO, go for it.

P.S.: Note that 4K will raise the requirements on your hardware (CPU, graphics card) as more pixels have to be generated for a 4K display. A good RAW converter only calculates the parts of an image that are displayed for the resolution required at a particular magnification. As long as you do not see any individual pixels on a 2K monitor (depends on its size and your viewing distance), it will provide you with all the resolution you need without being as demanding on the hardware as a 4K monitor is.

[EssJayEff]

With Macs and 4K monitors, display scaling is another issue to consider. A 5K monitor may (or may not) be better for you.

You Tube

You Tube

.

[texandrews]

My feeling is: get the "best" you can afford. The handiest thing to me is a larger screen. But color fidelity and ability to truly calibrate are essentials. If you can get a 4K, large screen that can be calibrated, then go for that. Unless you misuse it, the screen will last.