Screen suggestions for the Mac Studio?

[jdb8167]

Well, I' m not too sure about 5k or 4k for my specific goal (photography). At the moment on 27" 5k iMac (2019). I' m thinking about a Mac Studio later this year. And then there' s the monitor ofcourse. Thinking about an Eizo CG monitor. This year there will be 2 new models; CG2700S (1440p) and 2700X (4k). Both 27". I still haven' t decided on the right resolution for photography; some seem to prefer 4k, while others say 1440p is the ideal resolution for a 27" screen. Especially for photography (no scaling necessary and I scale my 5k iMac to 1440p /"normal" on screen settings in iMac anyway). So, would a 4k monitor (scaled to 1440p), be preferable to an 1440 monitor? I've read a lot on the internet, but still cannot decide.
Maybe someone can chime in and give an advice?
Thank you.

For me Retina resolution is all about text. I use my 24” 4K at 1920x1080 (2x) because that gives the clearest text.

For your needs it seems that color accuracy is more important than resolution. Even scaling a 4K at 2560x1440 shouldn’t matter since your photo software should render at full 4K resolution anyway without scaling. Use zoom functions to scale up and down as needed. Maybe I’m missing something as I’m not a photog.

 

[FSmertz]

If you are interested in colour accurate DCI-P3 or Adobe RGB (100% coverage of each gamut), the Lenovo Thinkvision P27U-20 is a 4k 27” monitor with Thunderbolt4+DisplayPort+HDMI inputs, and built in KVM including rj45 Gbe.
100W charging through TB4.
Adjustable height, tilt, swivel, full pivot support and VESA mountable.

I use it with a Studio and a PC permanently connected, leaving me with one more ”guest” input.

Immediatey recognized by the Studio when connected with the included Thunderbolt cable. Very straightforward screen, comes with a factory calibration sheet for both DCI-P3 and Adobe RGB (DE<1) but you can do your own calibration as well of course.

It Does The Job.
At roughly a third the price of Apples offering, which in terms of connectivity, doesn’t.

Thanks again. This morning I ordered the Lenovo at a very sweet price of $570 US & tax. My Mac Studio arrives tomorrow & I look forward to testing everything.

 

[Dutch60]

OMG, I love this. ❤️
It puts the finger on the most important point - these things are used. For different things. By human beings. Who are different. There is no ”one size fits all”.
But try to magine hearing the presenters on an Apple event bring this particular benefit up. 🤣

When it comes to 27” 4k vs. 2560x1440 for photography specifically, well I’d say that good colour reproduction and backlight uniformity is the most important for the overall impression, but higher resolution is definitely noticeable up to the limits of your visual acuity and dependent on your viewing distance. When it comes to pixel level editing or evalution of noise reduction results however, that resolution difference is somewhat irrelevant. You’ll have to enlarge the image under any circumstance, and you’ll do it to a comfortable level independent of the panels native resolution. I have both kinds of screens available and overall prefer the 4k one, but honestly that is mainly for overall usage, text rendering is nicer for instance.
Simply put YMMV. It’s probably a good idea to rent or borrow a colour calibration tool regardless of screen res.

Thnxs for your reaction.
I agree with colour accuracy and uniformity being most important for photography. Strong points of all wide gamut Eizo monitors. I already use a colour calibration tool with my iMac. In case of all CG Eizo monitors there's "automatic" hardware calibration anyway; could still use my i1 Display Pro if, I would want to, ofcourse.
Isn' t it true that on 5k screen I would have to enlarge up to around 200% to get the same enlargement as 100% on a 1440k monitor....for editing images/evaluation of noise reduction?
In short, if text is not an issue and less important for me, wouldn' t 1440k then suffice?

 

[Dutch60]

For me Retina resolution is all about text. I use my 24” 4K at 1920x1080 (2x) because that gives the clearest text.

For your needs it seems that color accuracy is more important than resolution. Even scaling a 4K at 2560x1440 shouldn’t matter since your photo software should render at full 4K resolution anyway without scaling. Use zoom functions to scale up and down as needed. Maybe I’m missing something as I’m not a photog.

thnxs for your input

 

[gshocked]

Well, I' m not too sure about 5k or 4k for my specific goal (photography). At the moment on 27" 5k iMac (2019). I' m thinking about a Mac Studio later this year. And then there' s the monitor ofcourse. Thinking about an Eizo CG monitor. This year there will be 2 new models; CG2700S (1440p) and 2700X (4k). Both 27". I still haven' t decided on the right resolution for photography; some seem to prefer 4k, while others say 1440p is the ideal resolution for a 27" screen. Especially for photography (no scaling necessary and I scale my 5k iMac to 1440p /"normal" on screen settings in iMac anyway). So, would a 4k monitor (scaled to 1440p), be preferable to an 1440 monitor? I've read a lot on the internet, but still cannot decide.
Maybe someone can chime in and give an advice?
Thank you.

I was watching a YouTube video which outlined that Apple choose a 5K 27” display because it‘s scalable from 1440p.
Also it they mentioned that although you’re purchasing a 5K display, the UI is being presented at at 1440p resolution, making the UI look larger. This is why I was asking about Mac screens and scaling.

 

[Dutch60]

Correct. In iMac settings (screen)...1440k is named as "standard". Same questions here.

 

[FSmertz]

Thnxs for your reaction.
I agree with colour accuracy and uniformity being most important for photography. Strong points of all wide gamut Eizo monitors. I already use a colour calibration tool with my iMac. In case of all CG Eizo monitors there's "automatic" hardware calibration anyway; could still use my i1 Display Pro if, I would want to, ofcourse.
Isn' t it true that on 5k screen I would have to enlarge up to around 200% to get the same enlargement as 100% on a 1440k monitor....for editing images/evaluation of noise reduction?
In short, if text is not an issue and less important for me, wouldn' t 1440k then suffice?

Few things: your requirements should drive tool choice. For photograph, there is a fork in the road that depends upon your output requirement. If online image presentation matters most, then a wide gamut monitor with even illumination, zero defecti pixel, hardware calibration is not important. A high quality sRGB screen from most of the popular brands (Dell Ultrasharp, ViewSonic, HP, even Benq, Eizo Flexscan) should work as the panels are all sourced the same. Printing, especially fine art printing, requires a color-managed workflow, and Adobe (1998) RGB gamut.

My art prints hang in fine galleries across the US & I do my own work including printing, when possible. I had a 5K iMac for a few years but compared with my hardware-calibrated 1440 NEC, it was inferior for editing. One cannot really calibrate an iMac because you only have control over brightness, it’s really like a giant laptop. Sure you create a profile, but it’s weak tea. Secondly 4/5K monitors at native resolution are sweet for consuming content but lacking for serious still image editing. Everything is rendered too sharpply and it’s tough to perceive subtle impacts of sharpening, NR, and lens characteristics. So scaling the 5K down to 1440 is useful, but one is still stuck with a monitor with limited accuracy.

 

[Gr1f]

Also, note there are a bunch of us who do not "just do photography" or "just read the web"... I'm a multimedia designer and I also do a lot of photography. So for me, 2 things are critical. Colour reproduction and space. I've used Dual 27" 2k monitors for as long as I can remember (well not really THAT long). With the pending arrival of the MS Ultra I'm going to try a 4k display. But 4k at 27" will be too small at native res so hence I'm trying a 32" 4k.

For colour accuracy without costing an arm and a leg, I'm going with the BenQ PD3220U along with a hardware calibrator. If I like it, I'll get 2. The only reason I'm not getting the older PD3200U is the lack of usb-c / thunderbolt.

 

[Dutch60]

Few things: your requirements should drive tool choice. For photograph, there is a fork in the road that depends upon your output requirement. If online image presentation matters most, then a wide gamut monitor with even illumination, zero defecti pixel, hardware calibration is not important. A high quality sRGB screen from most of the popular brands (Dell Ultrasharp, ViewSonic, HP, even Benq, Eizo Flexscan) should work as the panels are all sourced the same. Printing, especially fine art printing, requires a color-managed workflow, and Adobe (1998) RGB gamut.

My art prints hang in fine galleries across the US & I do my own work including printing, when possible. I had a 5K iMac for a few years but compared with my hardware-calibrated 1440 NEC, it was inferior for editing. One cannot really calibrate an iMac because you only have control over brightness, it’s really like a giant laptop. Sure you create a profile, but it’s weak tea. Secondly 4/5K monitors at native resolution are sweet for consuming content but lacking for serious still image editing. Everything is rendered too sharpply and it’s tough to perceive subtle impacts of sharpening, NR, and lens characteristics. So scaling the 5K down to 1440 is useful, but one is still stuck with a monitor with limited accuracy.

I print. Canon imagePrograf1000. Hahnemühle fine art papers. No online presentation at all. I manage with my 5k iMac (and X-Rite i1 Display Pro colorimeter), like the results, but improvement is always welcome. Even brightness control on iMac is a bit rough; not very accurate. No hardware calibration ofcourse (as is possible with a good wide gamut monitor like Eizo).
So, yes photography is a very important part. Beside that I also surf the internet/do everyday work (nothing special). Shouldn't t be a problem with with 1440p screen, I guess). So yes, requirements mainly for photography ....and then some.

 

[spacedcadet]

Thnxs for your reaction.
I agree with colour accuracy and uniformity being most important for photography. Strong points of all wide gamut Eizo monitors. I already use a colour calibration tool with my iMac. In case of all CG Eizo monitors there's "automatic" hardware calibration anyway; could still use my i1 Display Pro if, I would want to, ofcourse.
Isn' t it true that on 5k screen I would have to enlarge up to around 200% to get the same enlargement as 100% on a 1440k monitor....for editing images/evaluation of noise reduction?
In short, if text is not an issue and less important for me, wouldn' t 1440k then suffice?

When working on an iMac 5k, I have to change the 100% zoom shortcut key in Photoshop to 200%. But then Photoshop is interpolating pixels. For pixel level editing, sharpness assessment, the DPI of the monitor is important.

The article linked below is worth a read on why 4k and 5k monitors "might" not be ideal, depending on your eyes and the kind of work you do. They are great in lots of ways!

"At 200%, one image pixel becomes a 2X2 block of screen pixels. Acutance is lost; the image looks soft and blurry."

Too-High Pixel Density on 5K, 8K, Retina Displays Impedes Image Sharpn

diglloyd.com

 

[Dutch60]

When working on an iMac 5k, I have to change the 100% zoom shortcut key in Photoshop to 200%. But then Photoshop is interpolating pixels. For pixel level editing, sharpness assessment, the DPI of the monitor is important.

The article linked below is worth a read on why 4k and 5k monitors "might" not be ideal, depending on your eyes and the kind of work you do. They are great in lots of ways!

"At 200%, one image pixel becomes a 2X2 block of screen pixels. Acutance is lost; the image looks soft and blurry."

Too-High Pixel Density on 5K, 8K, Retina Displays Impedes Image Sharpn

diglloyd.com

Thank you. Interesting article and exactly what I mean.
Saturday I' ll be able to use one of those new Eizo monitors (CG2700S...1440p). Hopefully I can use it for a few moments next to one of their 4k monitors, and see for myself. 1440p becomes more and more attractive (although, as you said 4k and 5k are also great in a lot of ways).
By the way, I' m not using Photoshop or any other Adobe products.

 

[gshocked]

A huge win to the Apple Studio Display...

I was hoping more people would back the 40" 5k2k LG display lol

 

[Psychicbob]

I don’t use Macs in my day job so, from a casual user perspective, my Benq Ex2780Q is a great monitor for my use case. 1440p with 144 refresh and great quality built in speakers. I have it vesa mounted. Really happy with original cost of £350 but it can be bought for £250 now, which is an absolute bargain.

 

[Gr1f]

OK so, I was about to push the button an a BenQ PD3200U for roughly €1200 and then I saw a a PD3205U for €800 and got that instead. Arrived today and so far I'm very happy.

My biggest concern was how it would look scaled to 3008 x 1692 as the UI is just that bit small at native and to be honest? It still looks great. So very happy and I'll probably get a second.

 

[memo90061]

Which display has high PPI?
I really love the iMac display.

 

[theluggage]

Which display has high PPI?
I really love the iMac display.

If you really want the full PPI of a 5k iMac on a 27" screen then the LG Ultrafine 5k, the Apple Studio Display and the Apple Pro Display XDR are about the only games in town (there were a couple of other 5120x2880 displays on the market but AFAIK they're all discontinued or very hard to find). You'll pay for the privilege (and get nickel-and-dimed on features like no height-adjustable stand, captive power cables and only a single computer input - or an uninspiring black plastic case for the LG) but they are the kings of PPI.

I guess a 24" 4K UHD monitor (there are a few) would get you the next best PPI, but in a smaller screen.

For many people, 4k UHD is a very good compromise - and if you want real estate you can get multiple, decent 4k displays for the price of a single 5k and/or displays with better colour calibration/gamut options for specialised tasks.

There are issues & compromises with scaling 4k to get your preferred UI size - but they are sometimes exaggerated here and there's a lot of misinformation (or, sometimes, unintentionally misleading information) floating around.

At the end of the day, though, 4k is not 5k (and 5k "ultrawide" displays are, mostly, only the same 4k as PPI) and, mostly, only Mac users are interested in 5k, so there's little choice.

 

[memo90061]

If you really want the full PPI of a 5k iMac on a 27" screen then the LG Ultrafine 5k, the Apple Studio Display and the Apple Pro Display XDR are about the only games in town (there were a couple of other 5120x2880 displays on the market but AFAIK they're all discontinued or very hard to find). You'll pay for the privilege (and get nickel-and-dimed on features like no height-adjustable stand, captive power cables and only a single computer input - or an uninspiring black plastic case for the LG) but they are the kings of PPI.

I guess a 24" 4K UHD monitor (there are a few) would get you the next best PPI, but in a smaller screen.

For many people, 4k UHD is a very good compromise - and if you want real estate you can get multiple, decent 4k displays for the price of a single 5k and/or displays with better colour calibration/gamut options for specialised tasks.

There are issues & compromises with scaling 4k to get your preferred UI size - but they are sometimes exaggerated here and there's a lot of misinformation (or, sometimes, unintentionally misleading information) floating around.

At the end of the day, though, 4k is not 5k (and 5k "ultrawide" displays are, mostly, only the same 4k as PPI) and, mostly, only Mac users are interested in 5k, so there's little choice.

Thank you so much!! I'll look into the LG Ultrafine 5K. I've seen it go around 800 used. My Mac Studio will be arriving soon.

 

[theluggage]

Thank you so much!! I'll look into the LG Ultrafine 5K. I've seen it go around 800 used. My Mac Studio will be arriving soon.

I'm expecting my second Huawei Mateview (3840x2560 3:2 format) today, so I'll mainly be using two of those on my Mac Studio. Not quite 5k quality but the 3:2 aspect ratio outweighs that for me (and the bonus is that the design is a near-perfect match for the Mac Studio until you touch it and realise it is plastic). What I'm finding is that the extra height partly compensates for the "real estate" penalty of working in "looks like 1920x1280" mode and although it's no objectively as "good" as 5k, I'm actually finding it easier on the eyes.

NB: I've tried to expound on the 4k resolution worm-can - which is confusing a lot of people - here:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/psa-4k-display-resolutions.2345906/

 

[Mac Hammer Fan]

After hesitating for a long time, I cancelled the Apple Studio Display and bought a Dell 32-inch U3223QE ultrasharp. The larger screen is a real joy and I can use it at a resolution of 3008x1692 px, which provides a lot of workspace - a world of difference compared to a 27 inch. Despite the fact that the resolution is scaled down, text and image remain sharp and there is no significant loss of performance. The screen fits the Mac Studio perfectly in terms of design. I don't need speakers since I use the Mac Studio's speakers in combination with a Sonos, which produces a very good spatial sound. Unfortunately there is no micro and webcam, but I can live with that, I still have a MacBook Pro which I can use for that. A big advantage of this screen is that I can connect it to my Mac Studio (via USB-C) and my MacPro 2009 (via Display Port) and the image appears automatically at startup. So I don't have to change cables anymore. Thus, I actually only need one screen. Other advantages of the screen are the high contrast, the excellent colour rendering, the fact that it is in height adjustable, can be turned and tilted and that it is robustly built. However, the joystick on the back is not easy to operate and the refresh rate of 60Hz is low. But it is a very solid display, which in terms of price/quality ratio is more interesting than Apple's Studio Display.
Hereby I give another interesting link for the decision of my purchase.
Dell U3223QE vs Apple Studio Display Side-by-Side Monitor Comparison says it all. My reasons for not buying the Apple Studio Display included the high price for what you get (60Hz, no HDR, smaller and not height adjustable or rotatable) and the stuck power cable.

 

[StudioMacs]

Dell U3223QE vs Apple Studio Display Side-by-Side Monitor Comparison says it all. My reasons for not buying the Apple Studio Display included the high price for what you get (60Hz, no HDR, smaller and not height adjustable or rotatable) and the stuck power cable.

Since the Apple Studio Display reaches 600 nits, EDR on the ASD actually provides a wider dynamic range than HDR10 on the 400 nit U3223QE.

Most non-Mac focused reviewers don’t mention EDR, since it’s an Apple-only tech, but YouTube videos will play HDR versions on the Apple Studio Display.

Apple’s “EDR” Brings High Dynamic Range to Non-HDR Displays — Prolost

Update 2021-06-11 For WWDC 2021, Apple has posted an excellent video on EDR.

prolost.com

Explore HDR rendering with EDR - WWDC21 - Videos - Apple Developer

EDR is Apple's High Dynamic Range representation and rendering pipeline. Explore how you can render HDR content using EDR in your app and...

developer.apple.com

 

[Basic75]

Even scaling a 4K at 2560x1440 shouldn’t matter since your photo software should render at full 4K resolution anyway without scaling

If you have a 24" inch 3840x2160 running in "looks like 2560x1440" then everything will be rendered in 5120x2880 and then scaled down to 3840x2160. With macOS you will not get pixel-perfect rendering unless you run @1x "looks like 3840x2160" or @2x "looks like 1920x1080" since it is incapable of true user interface scaling to anything in between.

 

[Ray&Paula]

Take a look at the following..... It was quite enlightening for me especially for 4k video editing / photo editing . I'm currently looking for a great monitor for my Late 2021 MacBook Pro M1 Max. After seeing this, I ruled out 1440 all together. I'm just speaking for myself but, I thought I'd throw in the following video.

 

[Dutch60]

Take a look at the following..... It was quite enlightening for me especially for 4k video editing / photo editing . I'm currently looking for a great monitor for my Late 2021 MacBook Pro M1 Max. After seeing this, I ruled out 1440 all together. I'm just speaking for myself but, I thought I'd throw in the following video.

Happy you made your choice. Since a couple of months I have the Eizo CG2700S (2560x1440p) next to my 5k iMac, and I like it very much. Way better for photography/editing...and preparing for print. I don' t do video at all(shooting/editing) and with my images I now can actually see what I do. Editing/noise reduction/sharpening/etc. And ofcourse colour accurate for printing. For viewing iMac is very nice (like watching those 4k videos from internet). But for accurate photo editing...Eizo beats it hands down. Ofcourse if there' s no need for this, then the iMac is superb. I feel I have the best of both worlds now.
Congratulations on your choice.

 

[Shazaam!]

For me, the visual delight of a 5K iMac or Studio Display trumps all other considerations regarding storage, RAM, cores, display size etc. Once you use a 5K screen, you can't go back. My advice to the OP is to make due using your current screen with the Mac Studio — until you can afford a new or refurb Studio Display.

 

[Dutch60]

@Shazaam! Agree about the visual delight of a 5k iMac. For photography (editing/working on files for printing), I went a step forward and bought the Eizo (2560x1440p).