Mac mini late 2009 what monitor for age 50, I want to do photo editing lightroom, CS5 and that type of stuff, I guess I could wear glasses but have not gotten them yet, what monitor would work for me, I am looking for something around 300-500 range, color correct?
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.
Mac mini late 2009 what monitor for age 50!
- Thread starter belmardays
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Your age isn't too relevant. Your eyesight is. Most monitors will work fine, but make sure you have glasses/contacts (if needed) that are correct for the distance from your eyes to the monitor.
My guess is that you want a fairly low resolution but "big" screen due to your eyes. Something like a 24"+ monitor with a 1920 x 1080 resolution. I don't necessarily have a good recommendation, but even I switched recently to some 23" LCD IPS LG screens from my gorgeous 27" iMac because the resolution being so high it was hard on my eyes....
That would be great. I had a 24" iMac and now have a 24" HP monitor at that resolution, but a larger 27" screen at the same res would be great on the eyes.
Thanks for all the replies, I think I will scan amazon and newegg to find the best deal for one of these
----------
most I want to spend is $500 but $300 sounds so much nicer
----------
most I want to spend is $500 but $300 sounds so much nicer
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236049
Dont know if im too late, but I bought this monitor with my 2009 mini and currently use it on my 2011 mini. 5 star average rating with over 1000 reviews on newegg. Not sure if their is a better bang for your buck out there
Dont know if im too late, but I bought this monitor with my 2009 mini and currently use it on my 2011 mini. 5 star average rating with over 1000 reviews on newegg. Not sure if their is a better bang for your buck out there
As someone mentioned, the condition of one's eyesight is more important than age. But I get the drift of your original post. I'm 62, and don't see as well as I once did.
With displays vis-a-vis "aging eyes", the specification to look at is "dot pitch" (also referred to a "pixel pitch" or "pixel size").
It seems that with the coming of the "high definition" age, dot pitch is getting smaller on many displays. This isn't a problem for the younger folks who still have all their vision. It _is_ a problem for us older folks, though.
A possible solution might be for you to consider a display that has "less than modern" resolution -- call it "medium rez", for lack of a better term.
There are displays like this out there. One version that comes to mind are a small number of 27" displays that are 1920 x 1080. This is considered "standard resolution" for a _24"_ display (not 27"). So the overall effect is the same image you would see on a 24" display, just "blown up" a bit larger (because the pixel size is larger).
Here's an example of what I'm referring to:
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-P2770...NC00/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323959178&sr=8-1
There are a few others, as well. The one in the link above also comes with a built-in TV tuner (although it is not specifically designated to be a "tv").
Many younger folks would look at such an image and proclaim, "ugh -- it's too grainy". But for someone like myself, the image looks just right!
With displays vis-a-vis "aging eyes", the specification to look at is "dot pitch" (also referred to a "pixel pitch" or "pixel size").
It seems that with the coming of the "high definition" age, dot pitch is getting smaller on many displays. This isn't a problem for the younger folks who still have all their vision. It _is_ a problem for us older folks, though.
A possible solution might be for you to consider a display that has "less than modern" resolution -- call it "medium rez", for lack of a better term.
There are displays like this out there. One version that comes to mind are a small number of 27" displays that are 1920 x 1080. This is considered "standard resolution" for a _24"_ display (not 27"). So the overall effect is the same image you would see on a 24" display, just "blown up" a bit larger (because the pixel size is larger).
Here's an example of what I'm referring to:
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-P2770...NC00/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323959178&sr=8-1
There are a few others, as well. The one in the link above also comes with a built-in TV tuner (although it is not specifically designated to be a "tv").
Many younger folks would look at such an image and proclaim, "ugh -- it's too grainy". But for someone like myself, the image looks just right!
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
People wearing bifocal glasses have a viewing field or area that is narrower than that of a person with perfect vision. At close range such as the distance to a computer display, they do not have a clear view straight ahead, they have a clear view only at low angles from the face, which is why they typically must raise the head to get a focussed near view. Also at near distances there is a more narrow range of horizontal angles that are in focus.
For that reason people with bifocal glasses may need to move their head around considerably to take in the view of a big display such as a 27 inch. Although the Apple 27 inch displays are very high quality, I expect I would have a problem with them and I'd prefer a smaller one such as 20 to 23 inches.
I'm thinking of getting rid of my bifocals and getting two sets of single-vision glasses, one for long distance viewing such as when driving a car, and one for close distance such as for computer work. Single vision glasses provide a clear field of view over a wide range of horizontal and vertical angles, although they only work at one distance.
For that reason people with bifocal glasses may need to move their head around considerably to take in the view of a big display such as a 27 inch. Although the Apple 27 inch displays are very high quality, I expect I would have a problem with them and I'd prefer a smaller one such as 20 to 23 inches.
I'm thinking of getting rid of my bifocals and getting two sets of single-vision glasses, one for long distance viewing such as when driving a car, and one for close distance such as for computer work. Single vision glasses provide a clear field of view over a wide range of horizontal and vertical angles, although they only work at one distance.
Yeah. I can use my trifocals on my 27" U2711 and most of the time if I'm just surfing around they are fine. But when I have to do serious work, or if I know I'm going to be looking at the monitor for hours, I grab my single vision pair, that I had made to correct my eyes at 22" from the screen. I established that distance empirically; there's nothing magic or general about it.
The single vision pair are just great. I can look at text all day long (and often do) without getting into visual trouble.
Otherwise, the idea of a 27" that's only 1920 x 1080 is a good one.
For "normal" life I have trifocal glasses (with real glass Zeiss lenses, no plastic) and for working on the computer single strength "reading glasses" (I am nearsighted but am missing pieces of sight).
I cannot stand any glossy screens and have gone for a 1920 x 1080 21.5" LG screen a couple of years ago (from working on laptops for almost 16 years). Could not go back to a laptop sized screen, even the 17" are too small for me.
I guess if I want to edit my photos for large prinint 12x18 I better start wearing cheaters.. I do like the price and features for the samsung lcd/tv maybe that would work the price is sure right!