Author Topic: Affordable recommended monitors  (Read 987 times)

arthurking83

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 225
  • Good to be back on NikonGear
Re: Affordable recommended monitors
« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2020, 15:03:38 »

..... Please don’t tell people concerned with color accuracy that their inPut is worthless because you are willing to settle for less than that. Some folks shoot for museum quality, they’re people too.

Yep, totally understood.
But the OP specifically stated that they had a budget of a few hundred Euro, so unless you can purchase high end gear, as Ann refers too, for a few hundred Euro, then my comment still stands.

Also, I never made any mention that Ann's info was "worthless".
The info about super high end, extended gamut screen is useless to the OP. That is, it's irrelevant.

My reply is more in tune with Erik's, in that a usable quality sRGB screen is fine for printing.
I say this with the experience, in having had a 10bit extended gamut screen right next to a cheaper sRGB(98%) screen, and for all intents and purposes, I've never seen any difference between my(few) prints and both screens.

Yes! .. in some cases, you can see differences between proper 10 bit screen and lower quality 6 bit screen(most are properly 8bit now, anyhow), but I've only ever seen that when an image had been pushed hard(mainly in shadows areas and blue tones).

But from what I've personally seen, a lot of lower end screens nowadays are actually better than in days gone by, where they may have been subpar in terms of color accuarcy.
Screen tech(and prices) have come a long way.

My take is like this: would I be happy with a 100%(or even 98%) sRGB capable screen for printing images, no problem at all.
I'd put more $ effort into calibrating(both hardware and software) and get it calibrated right.
Do I regret spending $2.5K on a high end extended gamut screen myself? .. sure do!
Could have spent the additional $2K on something else, and still been happy with a $500 screen instead!

@ Frank. Can't recall their name(s), but I do remember one chap and a robust exchange along the lines of Nikon's superiority on some things or other.
As for provocateur .. others can be the judge of that, I just prefer to see more targeted advice given .. and allowances made for any gotchas too!
Arthur

Nikfuson

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 216
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Affordable recommended monitors
« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2020, 17:16:05 »
I have been/am just as GAS'able as anyone.
Personally I have kinda landed now:
Eyes often wants more than the stomach.
Whatever floats your boat.
Personal taste.
Wallet.



Bill Mellen

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 311
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Affordable recommended monitors
« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2020, 20:21:40 »
Colin,

The Dell UltraSharp 24” Model U2419H is a nice full SRGB monitor that has a list price of $250 USD.  There is a Model U2415 that claims it is calibrated from the factory as well for a few dollars more.

Should be a good choice within your budget.
Everything gets better as we grow younger and thinner

Michael Erlewine

  • Close-Up Photographer
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 1548
  • Close-Up with APO
    • Spirit Grooves
Re: Affordable recommended monitors
« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2020, 20:44:32 »
I am happy with the NEC MultiSync PA302W, which is very adjustable and not limited to a choice of preset options options. It is not inexpensive ($1999), but affordable for me is something that actually works well.
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com (articles), https://www.youtube.com/user/merlewine (video tutorials), All-Music Guide, All-Movie Guide, Classic Posters.com, Matrix Software, SpiritGrooves.net, DharmaGrooves.com

ColinM

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 781
  • Bristol, UK
    • My Pictures
Re: Affordable recommended monitors
« Reply #19 on: February 09, 2020, 17:22:15 »
The Dell UltraSharp 24” Model U2419H is a nice full SRGB monitor that has a list price of $250 USD.  There is a Model U2415 that claims it is calibrated from the factory as well for a few dollars more.

Should be a good choice within your budget.

Thanks for this Bill
Several years ago, the Dell 2209WA I then bought was deemed fair quality, esp at the price I paid.
Your suggestion seems to be available for less than UK£200

Michael, I'm sure my eyes might love that NEC PA302W. But I'm retired now and if I had a choice on what to spend the extra $1,700, it would be on some overseas travel to take more photos :)

I realise my requirements are a lot simpler than many here on Nikongear and am grateful to have seen some of the other considerations for high end gear.

Ann

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 540
  • You ARE NikonGear
    • Photographs by Ann Shelbourne
Re: Affordable recommended monitors
« Reply #20 on: February 09, 2020, 20:54:00 »
Colin:

There are monitors being sold at all price-points so the main things to determine are:
How much desk-space do you have available?
Do you shoot RAW or only JPG?
If RAW, do you wish to see the full gamut of colours which your camera captured?
Do you publish or print your images?
Do you care whether other people using different devices will see the same image which you see on your own monitor?

My strong advice is that only after you have decided on the answers to those questions, should you narrow-down your choice depending on price!

IF
you are the only person who will ever see your photographs;
you are perfectly content to see them with a very limited gamut;
and you are never planning to print them with any concern for reproducing the colours which you see on your monitor on the first print:
then any modern monitor is probably "good enough".

However, if you are more discerning;
have reasonably precise colour-vision;
intend to publish your images on the Web or on a printing Press;
or intend to print on an inkjet — without wasting a whole packet of paper and a complete set of (very expensive!!) inks on every print that you make;
then you need to consider a hardware-calibrated and profiled monitor.

Resolution is a separate issue:
4K may be over-kill and your choice here should be influenced by the software which you use and how scaleable its UI may be.
I happen to use a lot of software from different manufacturers so I need the capability of being able to set preferences to Scale my 2K 27" monitor to best accommodate applications which still do not provide scalable text in their UI — although I also use plenty of other software which does scale so I need to be able to change screen-resolution on the fly.

Another thing to consider is whether your GPU (graphics card) is capable of driving the monitor through the optimal kind of  cable connector. My BenQ delivers 11-bit images though its DP port.
DP ports are the most desirable but HDMI also deliver good quality high-bit images.

If you have the kind of computer to which you can gain internal access, you could update the original GPU.

As an aside:
I have just taken my 2010 (!) Mac Pro Tower apart myself and changed most of its internal hardware.
It now has a new 8GB VRAM  Radeon 580X GPU; a new 2 TB SSD for the Boot drive; more DRAM (for a total 40 GB) and a PCI card with an external extender to give me 8 modern USB 3.0 ports.
The rebilding has worked out very well (far exceeding what I had expected) and I now have a "new" Franken-Mac Pro which is totally silent, runs extremely coolly and is very fast — for about one sixth of the price of a new Mac Pro!

To return to the subject of Monitors:
I had originally intended to buy another NEC multi-sync (they are expensive but you may get 10 years of excellent service from one) but then became aware of the BenQ range. BenQ makes monitors in several sizes and with different levels of capability.

I ordered their 27-inch SW2700PT (it cost a little under $600 which is less than half the price of the equivalent NEC or EIZO) with the knowledge that if it wasn't satisfactory, I could always return it for something better.

Unlike what certain naysayers on the web may have reported, my example is absolutely superb.
It is evenly lit, has no dead pixels, sturdy and thoroughly ergonomic design (can be swung between vertical and horizontal aspects); has easy to reach ports of all kinds; an excellent Hood with a shuttered-opening on the top through which to hang a calibrator puck; and included seemingly excellent software for doing the calibration itself.
My BenQ also came with an external controller device which lets me alternate between two saved and stored calibrations — sRGB and Adobe RGB — at the click of a button.

For me, and my purposes, the BenQ is a "keeper"!

Even if you don't think that you need the capabilities of the SW2700PT model, do look at the lower-priced monitors which this company sells because I do think that you might like them.

Most importantly, try to buy from a company which will permit you to return a monitor (or any other equipment!) if it fails to meet your needs.







arthurking83

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 225
  • Good to be back on NikonGear
Re: Affordable recommended monitors
« Reply #21 on: February 09, 2020, 23:35:04 »
.....

I realise my requirements are a lot simpler than many here on Nikongear and am grateful to have seen some of the other considerations for high end gear.

I reckon a more accurate way to explain that would that your requirements may be a lot simpler than SOME .. not so much the many you referred too.
Me for example. Not a pro, don't care for publishing and suchlike, just a regular hobbyist/enthusiast/amateur .. I believe like so many others on NG.

So you're not alone!
(only difference maybe that I'm a gearhead, in that I tinker with all manner of stuff, and PCs and components are one of those aspects)

Resolution is good. more = better! simple as that.

Back about 10 years ago, I had the usual gear back then too. TFT screens, etc.
I had a thing for not very regular, but updating PC gear on an as needed basis ... more importantly value for money PC equipment!
If it was cheap, and it did the job, that'd be more than enough(for me).
Anyhow, many screen updates later, I'm happy with the screen I have, but I know I could have got better value for money from the thousand dollars saved that could have gone to holidays(which I'm not interested in) .. and more likely more other gear of some type.

So, now I have a massive 32" 4K Samsung screen, after much to-ing and fro-ing, I finally settled on. Main sell point on this screen is the built in hardware calibration setup. That is, I can hardware calibrate the monitor and not just software, ie. I can use the monitor on any OS now, and it's still calibrated.

The jump from HD(1920x1080) I can tell you is a very nice feature. Something that almost everyone appreciates, so resolution is important.
This is also off the fact that many of us hobbyists also use our computers for other things, and most likely don't have a dedicated computer for (say) just photo editing.
All software benefits from a resolution increase, even the simplest software like a browser! .. as long as the software was coded with 4K in mind(like CNX-D and VNX-i weren't for a long time).
Most is tho, so if you do spreadsheets, or whatever else .. that extra resolution sure if handy to have.
This is where I've realised my major benefit in having a 4K screen .. spreadsheets and web browser. It's nice to see more(better) detail in your images, but the ability to see more in other apps is probably the biggest advantage.
In fact, it's annoying going back to a lower res screen and having to put up with it.
But you need to have the right PC equipment to handle the data throughput, of higher resolution.
eg. if you don't have a graphics card to output to the screen, and you rely on the onboard graphics chip, it's most likely not going to give a nice 4K experience(if at all).

If you list your PCs hardware specs, it'll be an easy task to determine this.
Also, do you have a calibrator(of any type)?

So, 10 years ago my first LCD screen update was a simple and very cheap(and nasty) LG 2442 screen. Still works, calibrates well and I've printed a few very nice large(ish) prints for family and friends when they requested them.
Prints were done at a high quality pro level printing lab(for anyone in Melbourne, Prism Graphics are highly recommended!)
At the time I was worried about the print coming out as I saw in on the low gamut capabilities of this LG screen. Man at the printers took me in loaded up my image(off a D300) showed me on his multi thousand dollar screen .. no issues.
What I saw on my screen I then saw on his screen too .. so, no issues with this lower gamut difference. AND YES! all my images are raw only. File taken to printers was high quality TIF on a CF card.
That was my first ever large print(30"). My concern was that it contained a lot of green(foliage) and I was worried about out of gamut greens(due to the LG screens "supposed" limitations).
I'd kept that LG screen up until about 6 months ago when son asked for a second screen(here at my house). He does graphics type stuff(3D animations stuff I care nothing for) and just required a second screen for his stuff.
I got my 32" Samsung about 6 years ago, it calibrates very well, and for most of those 6 years, I had it and the LG screen side by side.
On an almost perfectly Samsung calibrated screen(very low, 0.3 Delta) and the LG(more like 0.9), I could see no difference(other than the massive resolution difference). And you won't see any difference, unless it's a very bad cheapie, hard to find nowadays, or if it doesn't calibrate well at all. 
From memory a DeltaE of about 1.5 or lower is imperceptible to the human eye .. only a machine can determine any differences.

In terms of colour accuracy(screen to print to physical subject), having done a few prints for my sisters button shop, colours are near perfect seeing the button vs the print(on the LG).
Sister took the tif files I gave her and she printed them at the local chemist/photo print store!  :o

I get what the more affluent members will tell you .. get a higher quality this or that .. I get that. IN many instances it's usually better.
But for some of us, that more expensive $700 item, or thousand dollar item .. isn't worth 5x the $200 equivalent!

I will end up getting another second screen to replace the LG I donated to son. I could easily just take it back, it's only 3 fee away, but a PITA to dismount, disconnect, and remount to my monitor stand.
I'm expecting to spend not too much more than about $400 or so myself, will most likely get another 4K(my graphics card can handle 2x 4K streams). Not sure if I do 24"(like the LG) or 27".

Dell usually has a very good lineup. Some of their older generation screens(like the 2413, or whatever) have very high quality outputs. They don't have mod cons like USB3 ports, or thunderbolt or whatever other usually meaningless thing, but screens can be of a very high quality. Low res tho if you think that higher res would be of benefit.

I just had a quick peek at the Dell(UK) site and of the three 24" models they currently have on offer(under 200), the older U2415 is the better deal, in your neck of the woods.
Arthur

Ilkka Nissilä

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1187
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Affordable recommended monitors
« Reply #22 on: February 11, 2020, 14:01:57 »
I actually find high resolution and large size of monitors to be problematic. I have a 27" monitor with resolution 2560x1440 and to move the mouse from one end of the screen to the other, it requires greater physical movement of the mouse (at maximum speed settings) than my previous 22" 1680x1050  monitor. I prefer to move my fingers as little as possible to avoid straining my neck and arm (many people who work at the office get symptoms if they have to lift their arm a lot). It's still manageable but a bit annoying.

Additionally, the relative size of fonts on the desktop, icons and text in many tools relative to the overall size of the display, so sometimes I have to spend more time looking for what I am trying to find on the screen. I imagine that if using a 4K screen, they would become still smaller. Using varifocal eyeglasses, I find myself tilting my head up and down a lot to read the small text in different parts of the screen. (If I didn't have varifocals, I'd have to choose whether I can read or see long distances, so I'd be swapping glasses a lot).

I think my current screen is a good compromise as it allows me to see a fullhd resolution image at 100% and have ample space around for tools. However, I would prefer if there were more options for customizing the mouse behavior when using high-resolution screens and if it were possible to increase the size of fonts, tools and icons across the system, I'd use that option to compensate for the high-resolution screen making them smaller. I am not convinced that using a 4K or 8K screen would make my life easier as it is.

Birna Rørslett

  • Global Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 2057
  • A lesser fierce bear of the North
Re: Affordable recommended monitors
« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2020, 14:21:20 »
Always considered 1600x1200 as the "perfect" monitor resolution.

Ann

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 540
  • You ARE NikonGear
    • Photographs by Ann Shelbourne
Re: Affordable recommended monitors
« Reply #24 on: February 11, 2020, 21:23:47 »
>>>
However, I would prefer if there were more options for customizing the mouse behavior when using high-resolution screens and if it were possible to increase the size of fonts, tools and icons across the system, I'd use that option to compensate for the high-resolution screen making them smaller.
>>>>>

Ilkka:
I am not sure exactly how one would do this in Windows but I am sure that there is a way?

On a Mac, I just go to System Preferences > Display and click the "Scale" button.
There i can scale-down from 2560x1440 to 2048 x 1148 which is fine for programs like Dreamweaver which has not yet got around to updating its UI.
It is still a colossal bore to have to that — particularly because I use DW in conjunction with other software which has updated their UIs.

A 4K monitor would make the situation worse for what I do; but they are probably super for gamesters or for those who only use their computers for photo viewing and editing.

Ilkka Nissilä

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1187
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Affordable recommended monitors
« Reply #25 on: February 12, 2020, 12:10:26 »

I am not sure exactly how one would do this in Windows but I am sure that there is a way?

For the mouse I am at maximum speed setting, and it still is a bit slow to move for my taste. For the fonts and icons, I will need to see if I can increase them from control panel.

Seapy

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 799
Re: Affordable recommended monitors
« Reply #26 on: February 12, 2020, 16:10:46 »
I have a 27" monitor with resolution 2560x1440 and to move the mouse from one end of the screen to the other, it requires greater physical movement of the mouse (at maximum speed settings) than my previous 22" 1680x1050  monitor. I prefer to move my fingers as little as possible to avoid straining my neck and arm (many people who work at the office get symptoms if they have to lift their arm a lot). It's still manageable but a bit annoying.

Ilkka, I also use a 27" monitor with the same resolution, an iMac.  My mouse responds to the speed I move it.  If I move the mouse very fast I can swipe from one side of the screen to the other without moving my arm, just wrist action, about two inches, if I move the mouse very slowly I have to move it almost as far as it is moving on the screen, I would guess about a ratio of 1:1.5?  This is directly related to the speed of movement, faster I move the mouse, the greater distance it moves on the screen compared with the distance I move the mouse.  It's very natural, in fact I hadn't notice until I read this thread!
Robert C. P.
South Cumbria, UK

Birna Rørslett

  • Global Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 2057
  • A lesser fierce bear of the North
Re: Affordable recommended monitors
« Reply #27 on: February 12, 2020, 16:55:21 »
The problem with "built-in" mouse acceleration is overshooting the end point is highly likely if a larger distance is to be moved.  Thus one gets there, but has to iterate into the final destination. I tend to set mouse acceleration to a minimum to have a better haptic response.

Ilkka Nissilä

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1187
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Affordable recommended monitors
« Reply #28 on: February 13, 2020, 21:15:03 »
I found settings to increase the font size in Windows, ViewNX-i and Photoshop; good in theory, but I am not yet decided whether it is an improvement or not. ;-)  I need to get used to the new settings.

Ann

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 540
  • You ARE NikonGear
    • Photographs by Ann Shelbourne
Re: Affordable recommended monitors
« Reply #29 on: February 13, 2020, 23:03:42 »
Ps is OK for me with the "standard" settings for my monitor (because its Prefs let us choose a larger text size) but Dreamweaver (as just one example) does not give the user that option in its Prefs so I have to decrease monitor resolution when I am using DW.

Problem is that I have both programs open simultaneously; and am swapping continuously between them, so the text-size problem drives me bananas!

This must be doubly more infuriating for users of a 4k monitor