Recommended Monitor

[Melbourne Park]

That's not a great way to adjust things. Apple's "calibration" screen is quite rudimentary.

Of course. That's why one buys a calibration tool. Some of which are cheap.

However, the Dell text was poor, at factory default settings.

I also tried this advise, from a thread:
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=11479442#post11479442

The last thing I expected was a screen that performed much worse, than an old 24" iMac - a white one.

It is going back.

However, I did turn the new Mac Pro off, and put another monitor on ... but then realised I had no power transformer for the old monitor. So I reconnected the Dell back, and restarted the computer. It had not been shut down before (I'm old fashioned and foolishly perhaps believe in burning in an M/B). The monitor text looked better. Hmm ...

I receive a Pitpass F1 email concerning F1, and its black(ish) text is set on a grey background. I could not read the text at all - it was all broken up with white.

I also find that for instance, if I zoom into this website, the post reply button, quote button etc have very un-even and crude text. Same with web site icons - they seem quite uneven around the edges. On normal zoom mode, white text is quite uneven ... for instance, the Forums heading above, the white text appears a mixture of grey with various white blotches in it. The smaller text - such as the Forum Spy New Posts Search headings in grey - appear extremely soft without clarity.

But I'll try another calibration using the site I referenced.

I hope I can get the text better, because if I can, then the 30" Dell makes sense for me.

Otherwise, I think I may have to get a 24" of some flavour. Unfortunately all the good 24" monitors cost more than than a 30" Dell ... quite a pain.

I also noted that there is now a USB-3 27" Dell ... but I am not sure if its colour calibrated. I need to get the U2711 back ASAP, since perhaps, its been replaced.

 

[thekev]

Of course. That's why one buys a calibration tool. Some of which are cheap.

However, the Dell text was poor, at factory default settings.

I also tried this advise, from a thread:
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=11479442#post11479442

The last thing I expected was a screen that performed much worse, than an old 24" iMac - a white one.

I'll admit I'm a little surprised given the popularity of the Dells. Display screen treatments are an are that could definitely benefit from improvements in technology. I've found the i1 display pro to be reasonably predictable. The colormunki display is probably fine too. This means the newer colorimeter, not the low end spectrophotometer. If you're going to use a spectrophotometer to calibrate a display, it should be one of high quality. Here is a good reference for colorimeter tools. A few people on here suggested the colormunki design spectrophotometer for profiling a display, and it's just a bad idea. The theory comes from the issue of using older colorimeters that were mostly designed in a crt dominant era with some of the led and adobe rgb ccfl displays where they really aren't suitable. They're still not really within suitable tolerance levels. X-rite can be a bit confusing as they keep using the term "colormunki" on different devices simply to designate them as consumer grade devices.

 

[derbothaus]

Dell text can be poor. On my U2311 it has to do with the obscene AG coating. It almost looks jagged. Ot could have something to do with 6-bit dithered vs 8-bit as I could also see a red cast when reading text while moving windows. In the background their is a red halo. Default profile or calibrated i1/ Spyder 3. Either their included softwares or Color Eyes pack. Can't get rid of it.

 

[Melbourne Park]

I'll admit I'm a little surprised given the popularity of the Dells. Display screen treatments are an are that could definitely benefit from improvements in technology. I've found the i1 display pro to be reasonably predictable. The colormunki display is probably fine too. This means the newer colorimeter, not the low end spectrophotometer. If you're going to use a spectrophotometer to calibrate a display, it should be one of high quality. Here is a good reference for colorimeter tools. A few people on here suggested the colormunki design spectrophotometer for profiling a display, and it's just a bad idea. The theory comes from the issue of using older colorimeters that were mostly designed in a crt dominant era with some of the led and adobe rgb ccfl displays where they really aren't suitable. They're still not really within suitable tolerance levels. X-rite can be a bit confusing as they keep using the term "colormunki" on different devices simply to designate them as consumer grade devices.

If the printer one uses comes out predictably from one's monitor, then that is all that is needed.

For Press, its likely a different issue.

For Pre-Press and graphic areas, they want more - they want customer viewing of images to be consistent, from monitor to monitor. That is where hardware calibration becomes mandatory.

The fact is though that RGB is the opposite of printing - one is additive colour, the other the opposite.

I'd have no issues with a lower cost calibrator, if it provided predictable results for the printing I am using, or for that matter, for video that came out predictably on screen. It just depends what one's requirements are.

With the 27" NEC, I think there must have been a card issue or connection issue, because the monitor improved 1000%. However, for text, there is not enough contrast and the screen is quite harsh for me.

I may still buy a 30" Dell, but I'll check one out before buying. And in Australia, I've yet to find a place that allows one to check out a Dell 30" monitor. And if they did, then I'd have to pay a few hundred more for there's, compared to Dell's special prices which come up every month or so.

Also, I suspect that two 24' may be better for me. I get the text resolution that suits me better, and such a combination is better value in many cases compared to a 30".

The problem is, one cannot safely buy a monitor from comments on internet forums. One has to actually view the product, in apps that one uses. Its not an easy process.

Shame apple dropped their top quality monitors. A 30" apple display is still said to be superb.

 

[scott.n]

HP has a nice line of displays. I'm very happy with my ZR24W and have considered upsizing to the ZR30W.

 

[d-m-a-x]

HP has a nice line of displays. I'm very happy with my ZR24W and have considered upsizing to the ZR30W.

yeah the zr24 is great. Be sure to get a high quality big fat hdmi cable for it, took me a month to figure out why the picture was bad

 

[Melbourne Park]

Value is also an issue for me

I know the HP monitors are said to be good, but their prices here often are not.

If one looks at B&HVideo's web site in the USA, they list monitors used for photo and video, and they list the prices. And they are mostly much cheaper than in Australia.

That does effect me a fair bit too.

I've also considered getting a lower end Eizo, but I want 24" rather than 23".

They have very fast refresh rates, evidently excellent quality as well.

However I read their optional colour calibration solution is not Mac OS compatible, for their low end monitor.

Their "paper" mode appeals as well ...

I still have more research to do. I have rejected 27" monitors though. Their text is IMO too small. Its either a 30", or a 24" for me.

 

[thekev]

I know the HP monitors are said to be good, but their prices here often are not.

If one looks at B&HVideo's web site in the USA, they list monitors used for photo and video, and they list the prices. And they are mostly much cheaper than in Australia.

That does effect me a fair bit too.

I've also considered getting a lower end Eizo, but I want 24" rather than 23".

They have very fast refresh rates, evidently excellent quality as well.

However I read their optional colour calibration solution is not Mac OS compatible, for their low end monitor.

Their "paper" mode appeals as well ...

I still have more research to do. I have rejected 27" monitors though. Their text is IMO too small. Its either a 30", or a 24" for me.

I like 24" displays. I've always liked that height. They are basically the same height that the 21" 4:3 displays previously used.

If the printer one uses comes out predictably from one's monitor, then that is all that is needed.

For Press, its likely a different issue.

For Pre-Press and graphic areas, they want more - they want customer viewing of images to be consistent, from monitor to monitor. That is where hardware calibration becomes mandatory.

The fact is though that RGB is the opposite of printing - one is additive colour, the other the opposite.

I'd have no issues with a lower cost calibrator, if it provided predictable results for the printing I am using, or for that matter, for video that came out predictably on screen. It just depends what one's requirements are.

With the 27" NEC, I think there must have been a card issue or connection issue, because the monitor improved 1000%. However, for text, there is not enough contrast and the screen is quite harsh for me.

NEC is sometimes subject to long standing bugs. I like Eizo better, but in some countries NEC's pricing is much much cheaper, and I still feel comfortable suggesting NEC over Dell or Apple when the three are reasonably close in pricing. What you're going into with prepress features has a lot more to do with software. I'm aware of some of the dedicated/certified hardware + software systems that are out there. Some of the display matching has made its way into the NEC and Eizo packages. Eizo has been reasonably easy to match for years, and their default software does have validation options. In terms of low cost colorimeters, if it's a bad match, it is not fun. While it's not reasonable to attempt to identify a perfectly neutral profile against an arbitrary black body temperature, it's easier to tell when something has a definitive cast when isolated. If your blacks are going reddish because of a poor shadow value measurement, that is just incredibly irritating. Some of the older designs just aren't equipped to deal with features of newer displays, so you're better off sticking with stock profiles than using them. If you try to profile one of the LED backlit or Adobe RGB displays with something like an i1 display 2 (older one that originated with gretag macbeth) or one of datacolor's older devices such as the spyder2, or the the pantone huey, you are unlikely to get visually satisfactory results.

I agree matching prints is a good measure for photography. The problem is that the gains don't necessarily match perfectly. The software will usually measure the quarter tones, white point, maximum primary values, and however many odd patches in order to generate some description of the display behavior. The rest is interpolated data. While you can lock in some similarities to a degree, the behavior is unlikely to completely synch up in terms of the progression of shadows and in some of the odd color combinations. Assuming well written software, the patches should be ones that aren't likely to present bad data, but I find it impossible to precisely match behavior. It's mostly a game of close enough. You can definitely get closer with RIP software meant to normalize printer behavior to a degree. Anyway I usually highlight that a profile does nothing more than describe a device. The arbitrary changes to match a print are more of a hack that comes up due to imperfections in the way these things are measured and set. The tolerances just aren't there to get everything to behave perfectly without some tweaks.

 

[Melbourne Park]

I like 24" displays. I've always liked that height. They are basically the same height that the 21" 4:3 displays previously used.



NEC is sometimes subject to long standing bugs. I like Eizo better, but in some countries NEC's pricing is much much cheaper, and I still feel comfortable suggesting NEC over Dell or Apple when the three are reasonably close in pricing. What you're going into with prepress features has a lot more to do with software. I'm aware of some of the dedicated/certified hardware + software systems that are out there. Some of the display matching has made its way into the NEC and Eizo packages. Eizo has been reasonably easy to match for years, and their default software does have validation options. In terms of low cost colorimeters, if it's a bad match, it is not fun. While it's not reasonable to attempt to identify a perfectly neutral profile against an arbitrary black body temperature, it's easier to tell when something has a definitive cast when isolated. If your blacks are going reddish because of a poor shadow value measurement, that is just incredibly irritating. Some of the older designs just aren't equipped to deal with features of newer displays, so you're better off sticking with stock profiles than using them. If you try to profile one of the LED backlit or Adobe RGB displays with something like an i1 display 2 (older one that originated with gretag macbeth) or one of datacolor's older devices such as the spyder2, or the the pantone huey, you are unlikely to get visually satisfactory results.

I don't understand any of that. If one buys Eizo or NEC, then you buy their calibration hardware and software along with them. The NEC AP series have an SV after them, and for a small premium, they get a calibration system. Same too with Eizo. A step beyond those is their hardware calibration systems.

If one buys Eizo or NEC, then one would be very foolish to use a 3rd party calibration system.

 

[derbothaus]

If one buys Eizo or NEC, then one would be very foolish to use a 3rd party calibration system.

Eizo and NEC sell you 3rd party calibration systems. They just rebrand from the major players and slap a decal on it. Spyder SW suite is the pits. i1 was kind of weak as well. I bought ColorEyes and use it with any puck. Way better results and tweaking.

 

[chiefroastbeef]

Eizo and NEC sell you 3rd party calibration systems. They just rebrand from the major players and slap a decal on it. Spyder SW suite is the pits. i1 was kind of weak as well. I bought ColorEyes and use it with any puck. Way better results and tweaking.

Yea, my Spyder 3 software was crap, not accurate at all.

I then tried the coloreyes, and it looks much better. Still on the trial, thinking about buying it.

 

[thekev]

I don't understand any of that. If one buys Eizo or NEC, then you buy their calibration hardware and software along with them. The NEC AP series have an SV after them, and for a small premium, they get a calibration system. Same too with Eizo. A step beyond those is their hardware calibration systems.

If one buys Eizo or NEC, then one would be very foolish to use a 3rd party calibration system.

Here Eizo bundles Color Navigator by default. NEC sells spectraview (US version) for a nominal fee. They have a package with an oem colorimeter with slightly tweaked firmware, or they can use an off the shelf one. Outside the US I recall it being a rebranded basicolor. I know Eizo has some features for matching various displays, and validations are built into Color Navigator. Spectraview has picked up some similar features in more recent versions. I can't remember all of them. What you're referring to as hardware calibration is what I'm referring to now. Even the self calibrating units use other colorimeters for display correlation.

 

[nanofrog]

They have a package with an oem colorimeter with slightly tweaked firmware, or they can use an off the shelf one. Outside the US I recall it being a rebranded basicolor.

NEC's colorimeter in the US is a Graytag McBeth unit, possibly supplied by i1 (I use an i1 Display 2 unit with NEC's Spectraview software, as it adjusts the monitor, not the GPU's output as i1's software does).

 

[thekev]

NEC's colorimeter in the US is a Graytag McBeth unit, possibly supplied by i1 (I use an i1 Display 2 unit with NEC's Spectraview software, as it adjusts the monitor, not the GPU's output as i1's software does).

I know. Their oemed one has custom firmware, which was a workaround as they trended toward Adobe RGB displays.

Note some of the data below. NEC has migrated to the i1 display pro for their latest kits, and Eizo has been going more toward the built in self calibrating sensor design with external colorimeters used primarily for correlation. The difference is quite significant. Shadow values are always tough, and they're usually not perfect. The other common method of using a spectrophotometer to measure such display types wasn't that great either in terms of measuring subtle shadow values. I'm also well aware of the LUT system, although it's still limited by the addressable output values written to the gpu and those that the hardware can actually produce. There is also a certain amount of interpolation to post factory measurement data. If you've ever watched a display calibrate (yes I'm that nerdy, I wanted to see what values would be measured), it's not like it measures every value, and the measurement instrument may not have the tuning to set that properly anyway.

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/Calibration/MonitorCalibrationHardware.html

Accuracy testing

We evaluated sensor accuracy (referenced to a PR-730 lab grade spectroradiometer) on a variety of display panels. The results from two of the displays illustrate the main points. One monitor was a standard-gamut (measured 96% sRGB coverage, 66% Adobe RGB), CCFL backlight, e-IPS panel — a basic, low cost 24-inch display capable of reasonable graphics editing. The second monitor was a wide-gamut model having an p-IPS panel and RGB LED backlighting. This monitor measured in at 115% Adobe RGB gamut coverage, aims at the pro-level market, and is priced accordingly.

Looking at the average accuracy at both a 6500K, 150cd/m2 white point and at a minimum usable black point (0.19cd/m2 for the standard-gamut display; 0.11cd/m2 for the wide gamut) shows the strengths and weaknesses of each sensor.
Instrument Mean sensor error dE-2000
Standard Gamut Wide Gamut
White Black White Black
BasICColor DISCUS 0.8 1.8 1.3 2.1
X-Rite i1Display Pro/ColorMunki Display 1.1 2.0 1.7 2.8
X-Rite Eye-One Display 2 4.5 5.3 6.5 5.3
OEM Eye-One Display 2 (wide-gamut calibrated) 7.6 4.9 1.8 3.9
Datacolor Spyder 3 Elite 4.2 5.9 3.7 5.7
X-Rite DTP-94 3.4 4.3 9.7 4.4
X-Rite ColorMunki Photo/Design 4.9 10.6 6.1 15.9
X-Rite Eye-One Pro 4.4 9.6 2.3 10.7
GretagMacbeth Spectrolino 2.1 7.8 2.2 7.6

 

[twiggy0]

These are great dell monitors if you take into account bang for the buck. (Semi-Professional quality)

http://www.amazon.com/Dell-UltraSha...UTF8&qid=1344625233&sr=8-2&keywords=dell+2410

 

[rantingrich]

I Once was Blind but now i see

Well after spending waaaaay tooo much scratch on a new MACPRO SETUP! Still to be delivered, and the ADOBE MASTER SUITE Still to come and RAM and a SSD from OWC I did got my 3011 Dell! MY GAWD! The most beautiful and LARGE AZZ Monitor i have ever used. I don't think I am even gunna have to calibrate it. It is absolutely stunningly beautiful I think I am in 2560 x 1600 love!

AND its built well!

Now this is what I remember working on a APPLE monitor was like years ago.

I was scared to death about the aggressive anti glare screen and have no idea what so many were talking about looking like glitter or sandpaper. It's no more aggressive than my old APPLE CINEMA 23 inch.

If I had one complaint is that it is TOO BIG! But when I get to working on some After effects files I am sure it will be too small!

It wasn't cheap right at $1350 TT&L and if you can afford it I highly recommend it. Got a 4 year extended amazon warranty that I HOPE is worth more than the paper its written on!

Speaking of which! I am a firm believer in NOT BUYING ANYONE'S EXTENDED WARRANTY EXCEPT! EXCEPT for Ink-jet Printers and a big arse Monitor!

I was on the fence over this Del land almost bought the same one over a year ago and wish i had gotten it then!

NOW ON TO THE PORNO!

 

[Melbourne Park]

Calibration hardware from original suppliers certainly seems to make sense, at least for individuals. I've learnt a lot there - thanks guys. If I was a business, I reckon I'd still go the hardware setup backed by a factory solution though ... at the end of the day, with leased equipment that is tax deductible, time costs money and it would be cheaper to get a screen calibration system that just worked and hence avoid admin overheads and also of course by-pass having to waste time and money on printing proofs.

My main issue though seems to lie in the mark-ups from many Monitor brands.

It seems that Australian distributors are running very high margins for quality monitors.

For example:

B&H: Eizo S2433WFS-BK 24.1" Widescreen LCD Computer Display (Black) $US 789.00 (transport to Australia is over $200)
Local price: (Our dollar is worth a bit more than the $US): Eizo S2433W 24 Inch Widescreen FlexScan LCD Monitor Price (inc. GST): $1,680.00

B&H: NEC MultiSync PA241W-BK 24" Widescreen LCD Monitor with Wide Color Gamut $US 779 + Trans (about $200 plus perhaps 10% for GST but if landed for under $1,000 it would not apply)
Local Australian price: Just Monitors : Your Price: $1449
Insured Delivery: $24 (Some net dealers have it for $1,300)

Our power is 240 volt/50 cycles though. Not sure which monitors would handle our power. Of course, there would be no warranty here if the monitor was imported from the USA.

As for Dell, the prices here are much closer to those in the US. Typically they are more, but Dell often has factory direct specials which result in sales much the same as US prices.
Our typical price for a Dell U2711 Ultra Sharp 27" Monitor is $755 if you ask for it, with a three year warranty. B&H quote $862 for the same monitor. The ultra fine 27" is a very big seller here, and I guess the prices show why. A 27" Samsung 805 costs under $800 here too. It seems equivalent, although it does have USB-3. Dell have introduced a new 27" monitor here too, with USB-3, but it does not have the colour gamut of the U2711 according to the specs. But its $100 less in price, and I guess it will sell strongly due to the price and USB-3. Who knows?

So ... while Dell is quite affordable here, many "photographers" monitors are much more expensive.

But if one goes up the scale in quality, prices might become close. I still have to check all the models and prices.

Has anyone tried to HP LP2475 and the HP ZR2740? They sometime get sold off cheapy by HP, but typically they cost around $1,000 here.

Incidentally, I rand a computer monitor retail outlet, and a saleslady rang me back. She suggested for her "man" (ie the chap she lives with), she was not able to supply the right monitor for him. He bought a Dell 30". But ... he is a gamer - and I suspect its not the best gamers monitor anyhow. But ... it appears to me so far, that top monitors are typically over priced here. Of course, we do not have the economy of scale that the US provides.

The Eizo supplier, said that Eizo get the top quality displays, which have totally different characteristics to those that - for instance - Dell would get. And that the electronics are superior as well (I think that is true, some Eizo have 16 bit technology underneath, and many more modes, such as accelleration modes for gaming, etc).

The 27" Dell I had for a few days (its the second time I have returned something by the way, the first was a Costco purchased set top box which had bad colour) was originally extremely poor. But on restarting, it improved ... but I still found it harsh. However for photography, I think that such monitors should be run at much lower brightness levels. I guess that is where a calibration system will pay its dues. I am not yet sure how overpriced they might be here. Some may not be overpriced at all.

Also I found the 27" text size a bit challenging ... hence for me, its going to be either a 24", or a 30".

 

[Smithers2]

Best Monitor for the buck

So I am a value shopper and for the money this Viewsonic is about as good as it gets. Has all the needed inputs and the screen is beautiful. Check out the reviews:

http://www.amazon.com/Viewsonic-VX2453MH-LED-24-Inch-Ultra-thin-Widescreen

 

[thekev]

B&H: Eizo S2433WFS-BK 24.1" Widescreen LCD Computer Display (Black) $US 789.00 (transport to Australia is over $200)
Local price: (Our dollar is worth a bit more than the $US): Eizo S2433W 24 Inch Widescreen FlexScan LCD Monitor Price (inc. GST): $1,680.00

B&H: NEC MultiSync PA241W-BK 24" Widescreen LCD Monitor with Wide Color Gamut $US 779 + Trans (about $200 plus perhaps 10% for GST but if landed for under $1,000 it would not apply)
Local Australian price: Just Monitors : Your Price: $1449
Insured Delivery: $24 (Some net dealers have it for $1,300)

I'd be tempted to go with the NEC in that situation. They aren't bad. You won't get the US version of spectraview unless you buy that configuration or add the kit. They used to sell the software separately. It started at $180 and was dropped to $99 later. As I noted earlier in the thread, the oem colorimeters do test better with these, but these may not work properly with non NEC displays. I had some issues with some of their older ones, and their software used to be full of bugs. From what I've seen they have improved, and the PA series has been quite popular.

Our power is 240 volt/50 cycles though. Not sure which monitors would handle our power. Of course, there would be no warranty here if the monitor was imported from the USA.

You can usually find this under the specifications. Most electronics can use a certain range so that they don't have to ship more than a different plug for different countries. If that's the case a simple adapter or a different cord should work. It should be noted that this would be considered grey market and may not be eligible for warranty service there. I have no idea whether you'll have to pay customs.

The Eizo supplier, said that Eizo get the top quality displays, which have totally different characteristics to those that - for instance - Dell would get. And that the electronics are superior as well (I think that is true, some Eizo have 16 bit technology underneath, and many more modes, such as accelleration modes for gaming, etc).

Eizo is very good, but this applies mostly to their CG displays. While they may pay more for panels and obviously wouldn't accept any A- grade panels, the tightest tolerance is seen within their CG line. They actually do publish their reference specs, and the units come with a certificate indicating the results of their factory testing over 28 regions. I don't think this is present in the Foris/Flexscan displays even though some of them use comparable panel numbers.

 

[designer22]

I recently bought a pair of 24" NEC PA241W displays and they are absolutely excellant for photo work. Couldn't be happier, especially after calibration with the Spectra Sensor Pro.

 

[Melbourne Park]

I've done some more research and will post; but have not had time. Will try to do so in a few hours or so.

 

[Melbourne Park]

Concerning "Grey Market" monitors in Australia, a self imported one from the USA would certainly have that status. ie for servicing, it would have to be sent back to the USA, or serviced locally by non NEC service I'd imagine.

Because the cost of shipping from the USA to Australia would be about $240, that means to obtain warranty via the USA, would cost two times $240, hence about $500. Which makes importing one myself somewhat risky.

Looking at the cost of landing an NEC monitor in Australia, there would be two extra costs: freight, and if valued - including freight - at over $1,000, then a 10% tax would be applied.

Hence (using B&H's current web prices and also their delivery costs) it would cost to land the following NEC monitors in Australia:

P241W-BK $705.76 Shipping $239.86 $945.62 = $945.62

P241W-BK-SV $934 Shipping $259.06 $1,199.05 Has tax => $1,318.96

PA241W-BK $779.00 Shipping $233.86 $1,012.86 = $1,012.86

PA241W-BK-SV $1,079.99 Shipping $241.66 $1,321.65 Has tax => $1,453.82

Their cost here from local dealers and hence with local warranty is a key issue for me.

The PA241W-BK here costs just under $1,300. So an extra $300 over importing it oneself. And considering it costs in the USA $780, that is an extra 28%. Without the over $1,000 extra Australian tax. Hence, the SV models cost 38% more than in the USA.

However, it is more complicated than that. I do not think there are "P" models available here - just PA models.

And only a few dealers sold (or sell) the SV versions here. Expert colour dealers here, now say that it is best to buy a PA monitor, and then buy the X-Rite i1Display Pro for $320.00 and the NEC SpectraView II Direct Hardware Calibration System Software for $160. That adds up to $480. From B&H, the same kit can be landed in Australia, the "NEC Color Sensor and SpectraView II Software Kit", for $330.

There are also it seems grey market PA241W monitors here, for around $900.

The dealers who are colour specialists, sell the NEC PA monitors here for:
24" - $1,520
27" - $2,000
30" $2,240

Other Australian retail sellers can sell the PA monitors (Australian supported from NEC Australia), for:
24" - $1,295 + $50 delivery
27" - $1,730 + $50 delivery
30" $2,030 + $50 delivery

B&H prices in the USA for the 27" and 30 these NEC PA monitors are:
27" - $1,730
30" - $1,925

So it seems our 30" NEC monitors are reasonably priced - not much more than in the USA. But the rest are overpriced, and most especially the 24" model, which costs just about double compared to the USA. Phewweeewww

As far as alternatives go, I have ignored the Eizo as their cost is even more than the NEC.

Our most popular monitors in Australia are the Dell monitors. Dell here sells their quality versions at higher than USA prices, but our dealers sell them Dell monitors for less than Dell's Web "free delivery" prices.

Dell also has specials prices, which can be much cheaper (I note later vis a vis the 3011)..

Typical available after asking for a price match from a dealer for the Dell are:
27" $755 - U2711
30" 1,450 - UltraSharp U3011

Dell also sells on specials, including delivery, the 30" for $1,200, which is the USA price. The 27" is cheaper than in the USA.

I suspect the 30" NEC is the best value here compared to the USA, but its still a lot of money IMO. Then again, it will last and last IMO.

The Dell is a lot cheaper though, and I guess that is the same issue for the USA. I've read too that the Dell does not have low luminance settings - ie it can be too bright, which may be a negative for me, as I felt the 27" was harsh, which may have been related to it being setup too bright.

I am not sure either about colour calibration setups for the Dell either.

 

[Melbourne Park]

Well, I am down to a few choices, for much the same price, excluding software for colour matching and excluding monitor colour calibration hardware devices.

For about the same price:

New Eizo S2433WFS (a run out that will not be replaced)
Demo ( several thousand hours) CG243W (has calibration software and a couple of years warranty left)

An 3011 (30") Dell, new

40% off the above prices: a Demo SX2462W with two dead pixels, almost half off the above two monitors

Add several hundred to the preceding prices (not the 40% off two dead pixels): an almost new CG243W.

45% expensive: a 30" NEC PA.