Get Eizo monitor OR Apple monitor with mini LED in future?

[CASMAS]

ColorEdge CG2700S | EIZO

EIZO is a visual technology company that manufactures high-end monitors and display solutions for business, graphics, home entertainment, healthcare, maritime, security/surveillance, ATC and defense/aerospace.

www.eizoglobal.com

I'm having issues with BenQ display especially since it's more than 5 years old. I have M1 Max MBP but I wonder if Eizo CG2700S with lack of mini LED and high brightness is enough or just wait for Apple display with mini LED and glossy finish? For both video and photo btw.

 

[kenoh]

Having seen the difference between a glossy screen and a matte screen. I would go matte screen. I only do photos as a hobby and my work (IT) is mainly spreadsheets and PowerPoint so YMMV but I get too much of a reflection on glossy screens where I use them.

If it helps, Eizo have been the benchmark for reference monitors for a long time. I don’t remember hearing anyone complain about brightness - I worked on a few medical diagnostic imaging systems previously and we put in Eizo monitors. They are very good.

@Apple fanboy is an expert in this space and worth getting his opinion.

 

[Adarna]

Just wait. I'll come to you sooner o later

 

[CASMAS]

Having seen the difference between a glossy screen and a matte screen. I would go matte screen. I only do photos as a hobby and my work (IT) is mainly spreadsheets and PowerPoint so YMMV but I get too much of a reflection on glossy screens where I use them.

If it helps, Eizo have been the benchmark for reference monitors for a long time. I don’t remember hearing anyone complain about brightness - I worked on a few medical diagnostic imaging systems previously and we put in Eizo monitors. They are very good.

@Apple fanboy is an expert in this space and worth getting his opinion.

I know that Eizo is great but I just hesitating and Apple's native display might be enough for photo and video with mini-led as I dont print. But having a built in calibration tool looks awesome that I dont need to mess up with my BenQ.

 

[kenoh]

I know that Eizo is great but I just hesitating and Apple's native display might be enough for photo and video with mini-led as I dont print. But having a built in calibration tool looks awesome that I dont need to mess up with my BenQ.

The mini-LEDs are an interesting solution to the illumination and true blacks challenges of displays in general, allowing greater granularity of lighting resulting in richer tones. I am sure it will look gorgeous. Unfortunately, I think this is a no wrong answer situation which makes it a case of gut feel. Can you see both of them in action and then decide? see which one you prefer?

 

[CASMAS]

The mini-LEDs are an interesting solution to the illumination and true blacks challenges of displays in general, allowing greater granularity of lighting resulting in richer tones. I am sure it will look gorgeous. Unfortunately, I think this is a no wrong answer situation which makes it a case of gut feel. Can you see both of them in action and then decide? see which one you prefer?

It's not really about preferring, it's about if mini LED is relevant to photo uses. Having a true black is great for video but my main focus is still photo.

 

[kenoh]

It's not really about preferring, it's about if mini LED is relevant to photo uses. Having a true black is great for video but my main focus is still photo.

Sorry, forgive me I haven’t asked what you do with your images. You stated you don’t print them.

I could argue it either way. On the one hand as you process your images, you will be able to process them in a greater degree of fidelity - with the caveat that you are still working within the same colour spaces that the EIZO and BenQ monitors are capable of showing.

On the other hand, unless everyone else who looks at them has mini-led screens and views at full resolution with the same settings in the same ambient light, then it will be lost on them so is it worth paying the “new gizmo” premium?

To be honest, I find it hard enough to process my images for the way Mac and Windows machines render the colours differently never mind anything else.

The other challenge is that again if you are showing people on their screens then you have no control over their settings or environment. Not everyone will be using a colour calibrated screen or looking at them in full resolution.

So it really is a personal preference decision. Do you prefer working on a mini-LED display or one with older lighting as the end user will pretty much see the same output rendered on their equipment pretty much regardless of what you saw when creating the image.

 

[CASMAS]

Sorry, forgive me I haven’t asked what you do with your images. You stated you don’t print them.

I could argue it either way. On the one hand as you process your images, you will be able to process them in a greater degree of fidelity - with the caveat that you are still working within the same colour spaces that the EIZO and BenQ monitors are capable of showing.

On the other hand, unless everyone else who looks at them has mini-led screens and views at full resolution with the same settings in the same ambient light, then it will be lost on them so is it worth paying the “new gizmo” premium?

To be honest, I find it hard enough to process my images for the way Mac and Windows machines render the colours differently never mind anything else.

The other challenge is that again if you are showing people on their screens then you have no control over their settings or environment. Not everyone will be using a colour calibrated screen or looking at them in full resolution.

So it really is a personal preference decision. Do you prefer working on a mini-LED display or one with older lighting as the end user will pretty much see the same output rendered on their equipment pretty much regardless of what you saw when creating the image.

So it just a personal preference in photo industry that nobody cares but me?

 

[r.harris1]

So it just a personal preference in photo industry that nobody cares but me?

Lots of people care . I think a calibrated monitor with the ability to edit in a wide gamut (that then gets smushed of course) is important. It lets you make sure that a larger portion of your audience will see things as you intended (mostly anyway). I'd say gamut coverage + ability to calibrate effectively are two important things. There are a number of monitors on the market - including BenQ, Asus, Dell, Eizo, etc that can you pretty far. If you aren't printing and most of your target audience is people who will view online on varying quality displays (which may or may not be mini-LED ones), it's not clear to me that you specifically need a said mini-LED editing display. But... I don't see that it would be a negative to have one, especially if you're also doing video. It's probably debatable on brightness needs if it's not HDR video but that's just my perspective and others may have different opinions.

FWIW - Eizo are fantastic monitors and one of the industry standards for color-managed work so you can't go wrong.

 

[kenoh]

So it just a personal preference in photo industry that nobody cares but me?

Unless you are sending full size lossless image formats for people to look at then while that’s an extreme way of putting it, yes. JPEG exports and scaling for displaying on websites etc will likely remove the subtleties of your image.

When you produce your image you reduce it to a stream of bits that are then interpreted at the other end for display. The only place you can guarantee it will be interpreted and thus displayed exactly the same is if you display it on the monitor it was created on.

So while I think they may be mildly interested, I think in a blind taste test, they probably wont notice the difference on the their monitors in the same way that when looking at an image they cannot tell which camera you used.

For the “photo industry” yes they care mainly as they are printing for an expected output media - for billboards, magazines, fine art for galleries etc. In which case getting as close a rendition to how it will look on their target output media is a valuable exercise. Having said that, when preparing for printing on matte paper, typically you turn the brightness down rather than up. Brightness and saturated colours are more like the output for glossy magazines.

I think in short, people care, it just isn’t a game changer - yet. @r.harris1 puts it more eloquently than I am doing sorry.

 

[r.harris1]

Another way to put it is that at the end of the day, the only person who will know you've edited on a mini-LED display is you. The "photo industry", if it cares about monitors, cares about the ability to color manage for consistent output. The newer tech is great, don't get me wrong, but it's the output that matters. Back to your original question - An unannounced and unavailable Apple mini-LED monitor (unless you want the Pro XDR) or an existing, color managed but "normal" Eizo? The Eizo every day .

 

[CASMAS]

Another way to put it is that at the end of the day, the only person who will know you've edited on a mini-LED display is you. The "photo industry", if it cares about monitors, cares about the ability to color manage for consistent output. The newer tech is great, don't get me wrong, but it's the output that matters. Back to your original question - An unannounced and unavailable Apple mini-LED monitor (unless you want the Pro XDR) or an existing, color managed but "normal" Eizo? The Eizo every day .

Unless you are sending full size lossless image formats for people to look at then while that’s an extreme way of putting it, yes. JPEG exports and scaling for displaying on websites etc will likely remove the subtleties of your image.

When you produce your image you reduce it to a stream of bits that are then interpreted at the other end for display. The only place you can guarantee it will be interpreted and thus displayed exactly the same is if you display it on the monitor it was created on.

So while I think they may be mildly interested, I think in a blind taste test, they probably wont notice the difference on the their monitors in the same way that when looking at an image they cannot tell which camera you used.

For the “photo industry” yes they care mainly as they are printing for an expected output media - for billboards, magazines, fine art for galleries etc. In which case getting as close a rendition to how it will look on their target output media is a valuable exercise. Having said that, when preparing for printing on matte paper, typically you turn the brightness down rather than up. Brightness and saturated colours are more like the output for glossy magazines.

I think in short, people care, it just isn’t a game changer - yet. @r.harris1 puts it more eloquently than I am doing sorry.

So for photography, an old tech LCD/LED monitor or Eizo monitor without true black is totally fine then?

 

[kenoh]

So for photography, an old tech LCD/LED monitor or Eizo monitor without true black is totally fine then?

To be clear, you will never get true black with monitors. You cannot take light away, only add as little as possible. It doesn’t get any more black than off.

That Eizo you have referenced above is one of their top offerings. It is about as good a monitor that you get right now. With the exception of the CG2700X which is a 6K panel as opposed to 2 on the one you linked to. It is not old tech.

Eizo is the the de facto standard used by professionals and having seen the price of the Pro XDR from Apple, it represents a massive saving too.

So yes, the Eizo is fine. I have a Lenovo 27” 2K monitor right now and no one complains about my colour accuracy. That is a business monitor, not an imaging or gaming monitor and it is totally fine. Bear in mind though that you may very well be a more advanced photo editor than I am so pinch of salt with this one.

I mean your current BenQ monitor, is it calibrated? And is there anything lacking in it other than it is getting old? How many complaints have you had from people about the colours in your images? As long as it is wide gamut and is compliant with the colour space you are using, that is all you need. Also note that I haven’t found anyone using the full P3 colour space. Most use sRGB or Adobe 1998 colour spaces. Further the calibration is done for colour accuracy when output for printing. If you aren’t printing, then don’t pay a premium for something you don’t need.

 

[CASMAS]

To be clear, you will never get true black with monitors. You cannot take light away, only add as little as possible. It doesn’t get any more black than off.

That Eizo you have referenced above is one of their top offerings. It is about as good a monitor that you get right now. With the exception of the CG2700X which is a 6K panel as opposed to 2 on the one you linked to. It is not old tech.

Eizo is the the de facto standard used by professionals and having seen the price of the Pro XDR from Apple, it represents a massive saving too.

So yes, the Eizo is fine. I have a Lenovo 27” 2K monitor right now and no one complains about my colour accuracy. That is a business monitor, not an imaging or gaming monitor and it is totally fine. Bear in mind though that you may very well be a more advanced photo editor than I am so pinch of salt with this one.

I mean your current BenQ monitor, is it calibrated? And is there anything lacking in it other than it is getting old? How many complaints have you had from people about the colours in your images? As long as it is wide gamut and is compliant with the colour space you are using, that is all you need. Also note that I haven’t found anyone using the full P3 colour space. Most use sRGB or Adobe 1998 colour spaces. Further the calibration is done for colour accuracy when output for printing. If you aren’t printing, then don’t pay a premium for something you don’t need.

But mini LED can achieve true blacks tho. I have M1 Max MBP and can confirm it.

BenQ SW2700PT is outdated and there are several issues and bugs with their hardware calibration software so I'm really not using it. Even Eizo monitors have a warranty up to 5 years. Btw, I have another BenQ SW2700PT but their calibration software broke mine so I no longer using it. I really dont like BenQ as I suffered several issues for a long time with their software. Because of that, I rarely calibrate my monitor which is a huge problem. So I do need to get a new monitor soon whether it's Apple display or Eizo around $1300.

 

[r.harris1]

But mini LED can achieve true blacks tho. I have M1 Max MBP and can confirm it.

BenQ SW2700PT is outdated and there are several issues and bugs with their hardware calibration software so I'm really not using it. Even Eizo monitors have a warranty up to 5 years. Btw, I have another BenQ SW2700PT but their calibration software broke mine so I no longer using it. I really dont like BenQ as I suffered several issues for a long time with their software. Because of that, I rarely calibrate my monitor which is a huge problem. So I do need to get a new monitor soon whether it's Apple display or Eizo around $1300.

I can guarantee you that if you edit your image on a monitor where you can claim a true black ("off") and send it to me, I won't be able to tell and if I were to send an image to you where I thought certain areas were true black, you (probably) couldn't tell either. I don't have such a monitor to determine an "off" level black. Most people don't. If it's FOMO or personal preference, then that's cool. And I mean that - the gods know I purchase things that way all the time. But, it won't make your edits better, in general. It may make a difference if the dynamic range you're working with includes pure black and I have a monitor that can show it and my monitor is set to show it. I really truly wouldn't worry about it, though that's your call. If you don't need a monitor now and want to wait for whatever Apple presents and wait for it's availability, why not? But if you need one now, and you're trying to decide between something that exists in the market and something that hasn't even been announced yet, go for the Eizo. Or an updated BenQ or ASUS ProArt monitors. You really truly can't go wrong.

 

[kenoh]

But mini LED can achieve true blacks tho. I have M1 Max MBP and can confirm it.

BenQ SW2700PT is outdated and there are several issues and bugs with their hardware calibration software so I'm really not using it. Even Eizo monitors have a warranty up to 5 years. Btw, I have another BenQ SW2700PT but their calibration software broke mine so I no longer using it. I really dont like BenQ as I suffered several issues for a long time with their software. Because of that, I rarely calibrate my monitor which is a huge problem. So I do need to get a new monitor soon whether it's Apple display or Eizo around $1300.

The way mini-LED works is that you have an array of LEDs behind the panel. They are then used to illunminate the panel from behind. The Mini-LED setup refers to there being an array of many of them. Giving greater control over the amount of light added to each pixel site on the panel. The way they get “true black” is that the panel is made to be as close to black as possible when not illuminated they then try to get as close to the absence of light in each pixel local that they can. True black is the absence of all light - a black hole in space for example.

The panels employ light filters to prevent leakage into adjacent sites. It is a great technology don’t get me wrong but it is going to come at a price. You will hear talk of 1,000,000:1 contrast and P3 colour space representing xx% more colours. The reality is that while that may be true, no one at the receiving end is using a $5,000 (assuming it will be same as XDR Pro) monitor.

The other way to do it - this is how I do it but again, I am not an expert though I do like my black and white images - I load an image into Lightroom and I use the histogram when setting the black point. When I get clipping in the shadows I can see where black should be. I then adjust my monitor brightness down until that is black but I can still see tonal range around it. I know it is counter intuitive to turn the brightness down but it works.

EIZO monitors are measured against the DCI standards and have a contrast ratio of 16000:1 to give them “true black” also. For editing images you want 1000:1 or more.

I am sure the Apple monitor will be gorgeous when it arrives in the future but by the sound of it your budget would allow you to get an EIZO now and when the Apple one is released, sell it and get the Apple one IF you are not happy with the EIZO.

This is an example of Do you buy a Porsche Turbo or a Bugatti Chiron because it is faster. Yes, the Bugatti is faster but the Porsche is not slow either and still a monster of a machine

 

[Dutch60]

Late to this "party" (I just noticed this thread). I'm also interested in (maybe) one of these newly announced Eizo screens (CG2700s and-x). At the moment on a 2019 27" iMac. And, I print.Using X-Rite i1 Display Pro. No video at all.
A combination of a Mac Studio Max + Eizo seems like a very nice setup for photography. I don' t think I'll wait for any mini led mini XDR; Eizo should do it. But, I do think about a 4k screen (so maybe that CG2700X which is 4k.....and not 6k as mentioned by kenoh above, I think).
Now, at the moment there are no prices yet for these new Eizo monitors. If these are too high for me, I' ll probably go to Eizo CS2740. Also 4k and very good reviews/user reports.
I guess we'll just have to wait.

 

[Fravin]

Hey folks, I'm sorry to reach this so late.

I think Apple is doing something weird with M1 Macs. It's difficult to keep a display running color management software on M1 Macs.

I'm having so much troubles that if I would pick a new display today it will be an Apple one...

 

[Dutch60]

That' s what I am afraid of also. Although I've also read user reports with no problems at all with the Eizo CS2740. I' ll certainly contact Eizo...and try myself whenever I decide on a specific type.

 

[citysnaps]

Hey folks, I'm sorry to reach this so late.

I think Apple is doing something weird with M1 Macs. It's difficult to keep a display running color management software on M1 Macs.

I'm having so much troubles that if I would pick a new display today it will be an Apple one...

I'm also thinking about the new Apple 5K.

That it has an A13 processor and extra storage makes me wonder if some day they'll release a calibrator that will plug into one of the display's ports, prompt the user to move the puck in different areas of the screen, and after a minute you'd have a calibrated display.

I imagine there are other interesting features that might be released in the future taking advantage of the display's processor.

Thoughts?

 

[th0masp]

Eizo and NEC are the brands I'd personally be looking at first. It's also what most studios used that I have worked at.

Unless you are knee deep in the Apple ecosystem with no PC in sight at all then Apple monitors don't seem like such a wise choice in the long term - 'nano'-texture or not. They always seem to come with some gimmick or nonstandard behaviour that makes them less versatile to connect to non-Apple computers.

 

[Fravin]

I imagine there are other interesting features that might be released in the future taking advantage of the display's processor.

I'm very excited to what Apple should do with the hardware inside it.

 

[sunny5]

I'm also thinking about the new Apple 5K.

That it has an A13 processor and extra storage makes me wonder if some day they'll release a calibrator that will plug into one of the display's ports, prompt the user to move the puck in different areas of the screen, and after a minute you'd have a calibrated display.

I imagine there are other interesting features that might be released in the future taking advantage of the display's processor.

Thoughts?

It's another 5K display with 8bit + FRC. Eizo has 10 bit which is way better.

 

[Dutch60]

It's another 5K display with 8bit + FRC. Eizo has 10 bit which is way better.

Agree. If true 10-bit it should be better. That' s why I' m considering a 10-bit Eizo (not all of them are 10-bit, so that leaves out some models ....I don't think the CS2740 is 10-bit maybe, but both the CG2700S and the CG2700X are said to be true 10-bit panels).
Now I' ve read somewhere (cannot remember where), that Eizo has switched from Panasonic to LG panels for these new monitors. Does anyone have any information about this?

 

[Ray2]

So it just a personal preference in photo industry that nobody cares but me?

Perhaps a delusion that we all have calibrated monitors, equal sight and ambient lighting when viewing. It did have merit pre web when we all looked at the same print. Not being harsh and not suggesting calibration is not important for certain narrow applications. But being realistic, it's a bit unrealistic.