27" display monitors for photography

[LuckyDuck69]

Apple iMac 27-inch (2013): Screen Quality

The size of the 27-inch iMac means the screen is the first thing most people notice. Its 2,560 x 1,440 resolution is very high, not 'retina' high but that's not a realistic expectation with a screen this size as making it 'retina' would be extortionately expensive. It might happen in future, but not right now.

As with our monitor reviews, we broke out our Xrite i1 Display Pro 2 to get an idea of how the screen measures up. The result is very good, albeit with one small caveat.

The default colour temperature of our review sample was 6,730K, which is only a little off the 6,500K benchmark (nothing a little tuning can't fix) and the contrast ratio 1147:1 is among the best we've seen lately - only the 3,200:1 BenQ GW2760HS (a VA-based monitor) has recorded much above 1,000:1 in our recent testing.

The peak brightness is a retina burning 337 nits, while a DeltaE (a measurement of colour accuracy) of 2.13 is good. We wouldn't qualify these as 'professional' level results, but then the glossy finish rules out genuine professional use (by which we mean absolute colour critical work) from the outset. But for a consumer monitor it's very good and many regular professionals should find it ample for their needs.

The 'consumer' focus brings us to the caveat, which is that default colour profile crushes blacks a little too much for our liking in favour of producing a 'contrasty' appearance. This means you lose details in dark scenes of HD video, the kind of details we want to see. Some will prefer this look, perhaps, but if you'd rather see all the detail available there's a simple fix: just select the Adobe RGB (1998) profile in the 'Color' control menu. It restores the detail and still maintains decent black levels.

Finally, while the glass front means this isn't a true professional class screen, reflections aren't anything like as bad as you'd expect. This is largely down to changes introduced last year, namely an improved coating and tighter air gap, but the result is impressive. The excellent peak brightness helps here, too, and means we didn't have serious problems in a brightly lit office environment.

Read more at http://www.trustedreviews.com/imac-27-inch-2013_Desktop-PC_review#XqHCFZxCKcYC4Q08.99

 

[thekev]

the NEC 271 seems to be selling for about $1300 (B&H) or much higher at other places. That would be at the limit , or beyond for me.

I don't really have anything bad to say about Dell's displays, but you should take note that if the price was $1300, that was probably a spectraview kit. I've seen the display alone as low as $950. If you planned to buy a colorimeter anyway, that would factor against the $1300 figure. I know you can at least find the basic monitors under $1000. That model came out in 2009 or 2010. Desktop display don't change very quickly. When new models come out, they'll start high again, then drop by 30% or more a year later. NEC is quite aggressive in that regard.

Only if your output,,,,a printer,,,,,does wide gamut. What else will you do with a wige gamut image except print it? You sure can't put in on the narrow gamut internet or show it on most projectors or TV monitor.

Be careful with that logic. A lot of modern displays don't perfectly cover sRGB either, especially as they age and shift.

The peak brightness is a retina burning 337 nits, while a DeltaE (a measurement of colour accuracy) of 2.13 is good. We wouldn't qualify these as 'professional' level results, but then the glossy finish rules out genuine professional use (by which we mean absolute colour critical work) from the outset. But for a consumer monitor it's very good and many regular professionals should find it ample for their needs.

It's a nice post, so I don't want to seem nitpicky. I do want to say that DeltaE "post - purchase" as a measure of accuracy can be somewhat misleading at times. It relies on the ability of the software/colorimeter combination to judge against a given target (can vary target to target). Viewing conditions also affect perception, and uniformity can affect things as well. It's also a matter of what colors are tested. Displays can shift in temperature from white to black, and you'll often find the weirdness when you try atypical colors, such as an ochre or maroon. Depending on color target, uniformity of that reading, and tolerance of the measurement device, 2.13 could be either mediocre or amazing. A couple people brought up Eizo. At the factory against their own targets, they only guarantee within 3 delta E on any given patch as measured with a minolta color analyzer. I think Barco used to claim 1.5. Again these things aren't the same as what you most likely see in basiccolor, spectraview, or whatever else.

 

[double329]

As much as I like the TB monitor, my requirement is the ability to connect non-apple to the monitor and as good as or better than TB monitor. I have done many research and tried few different monitors. I went with Samsung Series 9 27". All I can say is: WOW!, I love this monitor. Picture quality and color reproduction on this monitor are phenomenal. However, physical built is not as good as all aluminum like TB, which I preferred(personal pref). It is still an excellent built and appearance. Yes, it is more expensive than the Apple TB monitor. You might be able to find at at around the same price as TB monitor.