Best ~$500 Monitor 24-27" for photo editing (with 15" MBP)?

[crashwins]

One reason I love Apple is because I don't have to deal with obscene amounts of choices/decisions! I used to have a 27" Cinema Display, which I had to retire after many years.

I want a good 24-27" monitor for photo editing that hooks up easily to my i9 15" MBP (2019). I've gone back and forth on 4K. I've read from enough people that 4K is the worst of both worlds on a 27", and 1440p is better. The Cinema Display was good to me (great colors) and I'm guessing the resolution was even lower. So I'm curious of the responses on this one...Accurate color is paramount over anything else.

I edit photos 90% of the time, some video, and game now and then. Some of the Dells have USB-C, which can't be bad.

I've looked at Ben-Qs and Dells mostly.

Funnily enough, as I've been considering, I was DMing this famous editorial photog on IG. He does stuff for Time, WSJ, etc -- he edits on two of those old 20" Cinema Displays. That made me feel dumb.

Thank you for reading and any advice you might have ?

 

[kenoh]

We have just got a ThinkVision T27p-10 27” (supplied by my wife's employer for home working) it is great for my use case but as I don't need colour accuracy then you may want to check it out a bit more first.

 

[Ray2]

I use a Dell Ultrasharp U2415 (24”). Had it for at least 5 years. I believe it’s discontinued but new ones can be had for $250 on Amazon. It replaced a 24” Cinema Display in one home (also had a 27” Cinema Display in another home at the time). I preferred the Dell's mat screen to either of the Apple glossy panels.

I’m delighted with it. Out of the box the color was excellent. Lots of ports, multiple inputs, works seamlessly with my old 13” rMBP and current 2018 mini. Sleep functions well. Highly adjustable stand. Not Apple build quality but a step up from a vision POV.

Note: changed incorrect 26” for the U2415 to 24”.

 

[Clix Pix]

A little bit more than $500, the 24" 4K LG Thunderbolt 3 monitor is wonderful and color accuracy seems to be pretty much on the mark. It used to be sold in the Apple retail stores but I am not sure of current availability now. I simply plugged it into my 2018 MBP and it powers both the machine and itself. Controls are managed on the MBP rather than on the monitor. I really like this display.

 

[MevetS]

I currently have three displays connected to my 2018 Mac mini, a 20" Apple Cinema Display, a 23" Apple Cinema Display HD, and a new addition, a BenQ SW2700, purchased with the help of a nice 'working from home' stipend from my company. So far I'm happy with this setup.

Good luck deciding.

 

[Apple fanboy]

BenQ SW2700 would get my vote. But then I do sort of sell them where I work so I get a nice discount! But they are very good colour monitors for the price. The inclusion of things like a shading hood etc can make a real difference. I use an old ACD at work and that glossy screen is a nightmare. Its only spreadsheets and such but still. Mat screens are so much better for photography.

 

[dimme]

I also may be in the market for a new display, depending on work in the next few weeks. But I have also been going back and forth over the 4K or not 4K. I have used a few iMacs w/5K screens and love them. So why does 4K get a bad rap.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I also may be in the market for a new display, depending on work in the next few weeks. But I have also been going back and forth over the 4K or not 4K. I have used a few iMacs w/5K screens and love them. So why does 4K get a bad rap.

Where? Here’s a challenge. Cut out a cardboard rectangle and look at an image on your 5k Mac. Then again on a 4K screen? Can you tell the difference?

 

[deeddawg]

I also may be in the market for a new display, depending on work in the next few weeks. But I have also been going back and forth over the 4K or not 4K. I have used a few iMacs w/5K screens and love them. So why does 4K get a bad rap.

Many folks think that for 27" displays, a 2560x1440 (1440p or QHD) is the sweet spot in terms of user interface sizing.

With 5K, you have 5120x2880 so on a 27" display you get 1:2 scaling for a "retina" type display with a QHD sized user interface. Easy peasy. Great option at 27"

4K on 27" however means you're doing a 1.5x non-integer scaling for the display -- which increases the work in the computer to do this vs. the "easier" integer scaling. I've not tried it myself, but I've not seen the advantage vs. just getting a good QHD native 1440p display and not scaling anything.

That said, 4K on a 24" display is a good choice as you get integer scaling to 1080p, which is a good user-interface size for that display size.

I've been very pleased with my Dell U2717D - I'd expect more recent Ultrasharp models remain top notch choices.

 

[dimme]

Many folks think that for 27" displays, a 2560x1440 (1440p or QHD) is the sweet spot in terms of user interface sizing.

With 5K, you have 5120x2880 so on a 27" display you get 1:2 scaling for a "retina" type display with a QHD sized user interface. Easy peasy. Great option at 27"

4K on 27" however means you're doing a 1.5x non-integer scaling for the display -- which increases the work in the computer to do this vs. the "easier" integer scaling. I've not tried it myself, but I've not seen the advantage vs. just getting a good QHD native 1440p display and not scaling anything.

That said, 4K on a 24" display is a good choice as you get integer scaling to 1080p, which is a good user-interface size for that display size.

I've been very pleased with my Dell U2717D - I'd expect more recent Ultrasharp models remain top notch choices.

Thank you for the explanation that really clears it up for me!

 

[Apple fanboy]

A monitor is always sharper at its native resolution. Do a 2500 x 1440 display looks sharper than a 4K monitor if it’s scaled. So choosing a monitor is really about choosing what resolution you want to run it.
As well as colour space, uniformity, calibration, connectivity and of course price!