Thank you for the link! I just bought one there
neat. please report back when you get it
if there's any left...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Best Monitor for New Mini
- Thread starter goldbuffalo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
neat. please report back when you get it
if there's any left...It's lack of familiarity with brands like Eizo, Flanders Scientific and HP DreamColor that is part of the problem with this thread.
Eizo's 24" and 32" 4K monitors sell for US$2750 and $6,000 respectively, and they are very highly regarded by professionals, but if you read this thread you would think that they are inferior products. Apparently not enough pixels per inch for this crowd, and that's not all. I've read on this forum that a 32" 4K monitor, by definition, is about as useful as a television at a distance of 10'.
Today I read in this thread "So, yes, that LG Ultrafine 4K is the gold standard...". Gold standard for what? To someone who makes photographs and is serious about printing, which is not exactly an uncommon endeavour, that monitor does not even meet the basic requirement of offering the Adobe RGB colour space, even as an emulation. I shoot 8x10 photographs. While I don't do a lot of digital printing these days (I like contact printing a negative that size), for a digital print there is not a hope in hell that I would use either of these LG UltraFine monitors. I don't go to the expense of shooting 8x10 film, and having it professionally scanned, so that I can be hobbled by a monitor that happens to have a lot of pixels.
This thread may be well-intended, but there is a complete lack of balance, arising, as far as I can tell, from inexperience and an absence of participants who use monitors for something other than surfing the web, watching YouTube videos, writing code and maybe taking a few photos that will never be seen outside the internet.
Last edited:
I've read a couple of time that judging image sharpness and quality on retina (hi density) displays can be deceitful.
Eizo's are highly regarded for their color accuracy obviously, and they do also produce a 24" ColorEdge 3840*2160 display with relatively high pixel density. (Well out of my price range and I really really don't need it)
LG UlftraFine 4K is the only external display that offers the same experience as the MacBook/iMac internal displays in terms of pixel density/UI size without scaling. It's not built for best color accuracy nor is that its purpose.
in the same manner that gaming monitors are designed for lowest possible latency not best color accuracy.
I got spoiled by the 15" ppi and want to transfer that same experience to the Mini, and Ultrafine is the only monitor that does it.
Apple certainly claims that these monitors are built for colour accuracy. It made a deliberate, and at the time controversial, decision to support only the DCI-P3 colour space, which is of interest to filmmakers, but not photographers.
The gold standard when it comes to pixel density. That was the context of the discussion.
I understand that viewing distance and sight are factors in this discussion, but the former shouldn’t vary that much in a desktop setup and the latter I simply assumed to be fine for most people.
I also mentioned that people have been using low PPI displays for ages and if you’re still ok with that, that’s great - you have a far greater selection of monitors to choose from. Of course the Eizos you mentioned are highly regarded, but at least in case of the 32” 4K I would simply rule it out due to the low pixel density. 4k at 24” is fine however. Regardless of all those varying use cases we might agree that every user has to deal with text, lots of it, and that’s where high pixel density makes the biggest difference in my opinion. If your use case is professional photography, admittedly a niche category, then sure, you naturally have other or additional requirements.
Someone needs to do an authoritative summary that informs consumers of all use cases. Informed by this thread I finally settled on two 27” 2K monitors for my 2018 mini and couldn’t be happier, but I certainly didn’t expect all the confusion when I started looking into it. And my choice would not suit a professional photographer, or someone with other preferences/needs.
If you're a professional you know what you need anyway, so no point here.
So here we go, monitor choice for 4K/5K
1) 21.5" 4K/ 27" 5K at 220 PPI
If you want the same experience as MacBook Pro Retina or iMac 4k/5k at native resolution.
Only LG Ultrafine 4K or 5K.
Looks the same as if you were running MacBook Pro 15" at "Default for the display, looks like 1440*900"
Retina at 41cm
1b) 24" 5K UHD (3840*2160) at 186PPI
possible choices: Dell P2415Q.
The interface will appear a little larger at native 2x resolution than on aforementioned Macs, but it should still be sharp.
Dell will look approximately like running MBP 15" at "large text, looks like 1280*800"
Looks retina at 47cm
2) 27" at 4K UHD (3840*2160) at 163 PPI
- Fine to run at @2x native resolution if you plan to be a little further from the screen, else screen elements will be too large. GUI looks like the left most scaled "large text, looks like 1024*640" on the mbp 15".
- Fine to run at native 1:1 if you sit closer to the screen. At 1:1, GUI size will be roughly the same as running MBP 15" scaled at "more space, looks like 1980*1200"
Looks retina at 53cm
3) 32" at 4K UHD (3840*2160) at 138 PPI
- Fine to run native 1:1 with "smallish" GUI elements. GUI size at 1:1 will be smaller than MBP 15" at "more space, looks like 1920*1200"
- running at 2x GUI size will be larger than running MacBook Pro 15" at scaled "large text, looks like 1024*640"
Looks retina at 64cm.
---------
I suspect iMac 4k/5k scaled resolutions choice are the same but cannot confirm since i dont have one.
You can possibly run these at scaled resolutions, but best sharpness and best performance is always by running either Native 1:1, or native @2x (hidpi/retina mode)
Excuse me, but I didn't say anything about professional photography. Indeed, if you knew anything about photography, you'd know that very few professionals shoot 8x10 film at this point, and probably none for commercial jobs.
There are countless people who take photographs, both professional and amateur, and a significant percentage of them print their work. They are not "niche", and your attempt to justify the way that you peddle your dogmatic views by throwing around that word, and marginalising an extremely popular activity, is rubbish.
I'll tell you what's niche. Somebody who says that he'd "simply rule out" professional Eizo, Flanders Scientific and HP DreamColor monitors over 24" because their pixel density isn't good enough for him. These monitors are not only good enough for photographers, graphic designers and the people who make the films that you see at the cinema, those people pay serious money for them.
I don't know anybody, professional or amateur, who makes graphics, photographs, films/videos or musical scores, who would turn up his nose at a 32" monitor made by one of those companies, or indeed turn up his nose at 32" monitors on principle. Friends engaged in creative endeavours who have seen the Asus monitor that I'm using to write this are flat out envious. It's pretty good for gaming too, such as on Gris, a game released four days ago that has beautiful animation and that looks spectacular on a 32" screen. Or are games and animation, in your rarified world, also "niche"?
I think that your posts, and those of several others in this thread, reveal that you trust numbers more than your eyes. That is why I have written the occasional post saying something that is patently obvious. When selecting a monitor, look at a few. Your eyes will tell you directly what's right for you:
Apparently, we can't have a thread about a monitor without it being turned into a debate over pixels that is equivalent to listening to people argue the merits of Malpeque and Blue Point Oysters, without tasting them, while sitting in an Oyster Bar that serves both.
Unless the participants are almost exclusively people whose use of a monitor is pretty much limited to surfing the web and writing code and forum posts, it is hard to understand how it is possible to have an 18 page thread about monitors that says almost nothing about viewing distance, eyesight, monitor use, colour space, colour stability and ease and accuracy of calibration. Nor is it easy to understand why there is little, if any, discussion about the obvious advantages, for applications like Final Cut Pro X (and iMovie) and Logic Pro X (and Garageband), of a large display.
Instead, we've got 18 pages of made-up dogma on pixels, repeated over and over and over, like a broken record.
Gris, Nomada Studio, Barcelona (capture: Asus ProArt 32")
Last edited:
I'm one of the people who pushes 220ppi in this thread, fwiw, I'm trying to get my hands on Dell P2415Q (Eizo 24" is out of my price range) to see in person how it works at HiDPI.
Also, I extensively commented on PPI vs viewing distance in my previous post.
My country is crap and there's not a lot of display models, so there's only 27" everywhere which i find too big at 4K because i prefer being closer to the screen.
Gotta say, what you attached looks glorious on the 15" 220 PPI retina.
Fyi the default is not straight 2x on a 15” mbp. From memory it’s “looks like 1920x1200” (or maybe 1080, I forget - are they 16:9 or 16:10 these days?)
“Looks like 1680*1050” since 2016 models came out, but the setting is still called “default for the display” iirc.
Which is a terrible solution for being too lazy to make a true 1680x1060@2x panel
The bottom line is...
Best monitor is a totally generic phrase that has no right/wrong or pertinent answer since there are too many variables in what anyone uses a monitor for, to begin with.
For me, shooting pictures with a Nikon D750, I want a monitor that has pretty accurate color representation for print.
I don't game so the best monitor in my case could be a CRT as long as the colors are accurate.
Correct.
I wear contact lenses so my minimum focusing distance is from my iMac screen(27-inch @ 2560 x 1440...running a MacMini in target display on the iMac) is about 20-24 inches. At this distance everything on screen looks sharp, but if I wear readers to look close up, of course I can see pixelation.
My Viewsonic 32" 4K is coming tomorrow and I honestly can't imagine it is going to be "worse" than the workflow and viewing environment as on my 27" iMac screen. But some posts I've read in this thread would argue to the bone that it will be. Guess I'll have to verify it with my own eyes.
Best monitor is a totally generic phrase that has no right/wrong or pertinent answer since there are too many variables in what anyone uses a monitor for, to begin with.
For me, shooting pictures with a Nikon D750, I want a monitor that has pretty accurate color representation for print.
I don't game so the best monitor in my case could be a CRT as long as the colors are accurate.
Correct.
I wear contact lenses so my minimum focusing distance is from my iMac screen(27-inch @ 2560 x 1440...running a MacMini in target display on the iMac) is about 20-24 inches. At this distance everything on screen looks sharp, but if I wear readers to look close up, of course I can see pixelation.
My Viewsonic 32" 4K is coming tomorrow and I honestly can't imagine it is going to be "worse" than the workflow and viewing environment as on my 27" iMac screen. But some posts I've read in this thread would argue to the bone that it will be. Guess I'll have to verify it with my own eyes.
Similarly I don’t see much discussion of when multiple smaller displays make more sense.
[doublepost=1545065079][/doublepost]
Ah Thankyou, yes.
Maybe the point is it’s not “necessary” for the vast majority of people? Not defending the decision, just thinking out loud about the reason it is the way it is. I wonder what “default” is on the retina iMacs?
I only worked with one and it was 2560*1440 @2x iirc?
Point is performance suffer and 1440*900 @2x is also fine for majority of people
We have 3 x Dell P2715Q at home, good monitors. The HDMI flaked on one of them but DP working fine so I don't really care. Running 2 of them on a Radeon Pro WX5100 in a TB3 enclosure, connected to a 2018 Mac Mini. Does the job, nice colors, 8+2 bit color, 4k 60Hz, not the speediest (9ms) so if you're a gamer probably look elsewhere. It's been replaced by the U2718Q (recommended in other posts), thinner bezel and 5ms but otherwise looks very similar for a slightly heftier pricetag.
Of course, "What monitor should I buy?" is a bit of a "how long is a piece of string?" question. lol
Personally, I would go for the Eizo CG319X if I were you. I'm assuming you are a recent lottery winner and looking for a good way to get rid of all that money really quickly. Get 2.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1425544-REG/eizo_cg319x_4k_bk_31_1_dci_4k_wide_screen.html
Of course, "What monitor should I buy?" is a bit of a "how long is a piece of string?" question. lol
Personally, I would go for the Eizo CG319X if I were you. I'm assuming you are a recent lottery winner and looking for a good way to get rid of all that money really quickly.
Get 2.https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1425544-REG/eizo_cg319x_4k_bk_31_1_dci_4k_wide_screen.html
I don’t value numbers and specifications over what’s actually before my eyes. In fact my eyes and my daily interactions with high PPI displays, whether it’s an iPad Pro or an iMac 5K, are what motivates my decision to never go back to low PPI displays, which I had plenty of experience with.
My use case is actually music production in Logic and Ableton Live as well as software development. So it’s not as if I don’t value screen real estate. However I don’t want it at the expense of pixel density. I’d use a high PPI dual monitor setup instead of a single 32” 4k display any day.
Of course photography is a popular use case. However your earlier post seemed to suggest a more professional background (which would indeed be niche), particularly in the context of Eizo monitors upwards of 2000€. Do you really think those hobby photographers that make the category popular need the color accuracy of professionally priced displays like those you mentioned?
Of course in the next paragraph you switch back to the context of music scores and film editing, a special category that may indeed have advanced requirements.
Frankly, I don’t like the condescending tone of your post. I don’t mind that we don’t share the same requirements when it comes to displays, but presenting subjective and of course valid opinions as absolute, universal facts I couldn’t possibly disagree with doesn’t serve any purpose. That’s the difference between our posts: While I spent my time stating and advertising my very own preferences, you seem to be more concerned with “fixing” those of others.
You are free to move the discussion towards the things you value in a display, like exceptional color accuracy. The fact that a lot of posts in this thread have been addressing pixel density may be partially my fault, but it may also very well indicate that it is indeed a feature people value.
Thanks for this, but those are all 4K/5K options. I am quite happy with my less expensive 27” 2K 2560x1440 monitors on my 2018 mini. I use them extensively for my professional work, which is not in computers or photography. Sounds like there are others like me out there, and lots of professionals in other fields, who are confused about monitor options the way I was until I finally sorted it out for my use case. A broader scoped concise guide like you started would be helpful.
My post didn't suggest anything of the kind, and my comments apply regardless of the cost of the monitor or whether the use is amateur or professional.
That said, there are in fact lots of amateurs who own Eizo monitors*. Your comment is like saying that amateurs don't purchase digital Leica M or Hasselblad cameras. In the case of Leica, in particular, most of the owners are amateurs, and those owners, if they want an Eizo, are not going to be deterred by the price.
I am myself an amateur, and I am writing this on an Asus ProArt 32" PA32UC. Taking into account the fact that you refer to Euros, the lowest European price that I can find is 2.198,94€. If that shocks you, I suggest that you price Leica M, Hasselblad and the higher end Nikon and Canon cameras. While you're at it, add two or three lenses that aren't "kit lenses". Price a quality printer and work out the cost of good paper and ink. Make and print some photographs. Then tell me, in your opinion, what amateurs need and don't need.
I said the following in another post, I meant it, and the underlying idea applies regardless of format and whether I am shooting film or digital:
I don't go to the expense of shooting 8x10 film, and having it professionally scanned, so that I can be hobbled by a monitor that happens to have a lot of pixels.
Beyond that, I've said what I've got to say (post #435).
* Speak of the devil, here's a thread started today, in this very Mac mini forum, in which the first two posters talk about their Eizo monitors: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...daptor-causing-bluetooth-wifi-issues.2160926/
Last edited:
Also known as the Dell UltraSharp 31.5" 3840x2160. Apparently an excellent monitor if you want the DCI-P3, sRGB and Rec. 709 colour spaces, even if the "monitor experts" in this thread wouldn't approve.
Last edited:
You can’t let it go, can you? Is it so hard to imagine that people have different preferences? Seems to be a fine monitor. Unless you’re looking for pixel density.
Out of the box it is superb.
The uniformity of the screen is incredible and screen resolution is outstanding.
Gonna love working in Lightroom & Mac Mini on this versus my 2012 iMac 27” non-retina display.