I purchased a MP shortly after their release. I am an amateur photographer and, while the MP was definitely overkill for me, I recently retired and decided to go all out with an MP as retirement present to myself with the intention of moving to 4k as part of my photography hobby. Like many here, I have been waiting on Apple to release a 4k monitor and was really counting on one today. Since that didn't happen, I am tired of waiting and expect to buy a monitor by the end of this year. The price of Dell's 32 inch 4k monitor has dropped to $1,800 and is tempting me. Alternatively, Dell's soon to be released 27 inch 5K monitor is even more tempting to me. Which of these two monitors would you go with assuming the price difference is not the deciding factor? Alternatively, would the Sharp or Asus 32 inch monitors be better than the Dell in your opinion. Thanks for any info.
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.
Should I go with 32 inch 4k or 27 inch 5k?
- Thread starter jggann
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've been having the same dilemma. I'm actually very fond of dual monitors for parking things or having a couple things with large windows visible at once.
So while either of the options you suggest probably offer plenty of real estate, I think the 4K native at 32" probably provides the most screen real estate. However, I would not buy the current Dell based on the Sharp IGZO panel. A few new displays based on IPS technology are due out any time now that will be much better specs and value.
On the other hand, the 5K at Retina res will look the sharpest but offer no more realestate than an old school 27incher. Scaling the 5K is an option, but things are going to get tiny quickly on a 27" screen as you scale it. The problem with this is driving it with the nMP. We don't even know if it will be possible or supported. So I would just forget about this option. If you really want 5K, buy the iMac... It comes with a damn good computer for free
Another option I am considering is the possibility of a pair of 24" 4K displays run in some scaled HiDPI mode to offer more real-estate while still being usable and sharp... And satisfy my desire to have dual monitors.
there's now an alternative to the SHARP/ASUS 32" 4K LCD: the EIZO EV3237.
the thing is: screen real estate at 4K is not very interesting because it's just 1920x1080 in HiDPI. or you could run the 3840x2160 as native resolution but then everything would be way too small (menus etc).
I really hate the iMac form factor: absolutely NO upgradeability whatsoever apart from the RAM and the screen is not anti-glare. on the other hand: 5K is what I'm after! this does not give you more real estate than any other 27" with 2560x1440, but it's Retina. just compare an iPad with and without Retina display. you'll never want to go back to non-retina. and, just as VirtualRain mentioned: it comes with a free computer...
the thing is: screen real estate at 4K is not very interesting because it's just 1920x1080 in HiDPI. or you could run the 3840x2160 as native resolution but then everything would be way too small (menus etc).
I really hate the iMac form factor: absolutely NO upgradeability whatsoever apart from the RAM and the screen is not anti-glare. on the other hand: 5K is what I'm after! this does not give you more real estate than any other 27" with 2560x1440, but it's Retina. just compare an iPad with and without Retina display. you'll never want to go back to non-retina. and, just as VirtualRain mentioned: it comes with a free computer...
If you are a photographer, you should look at the 32" 4k NEC display getting prepped for December release
I am in the exact same dilemma...
After Apple's DISAPPOINTING lack of introducing a 4K monitor, I have come to the conclusion that I need to look elsewhere. I don't think we ever will be able to run 5K monitors using our nMP 2013s, so we'll have to "settle" for 4Ks.
Hence I am looking for the right two 4K monitors for photographic work. Quality over price. I do require a webcam as well though, and can't find any decent 4K monitors with that built-in. Any suggestions?
After Apple's DISAPPOINTING lack of introducing a 4K monitor, I have come to the conclusion that I need to look elsewhere. I don't think we ever will be able to run 5K monitors using our nMP 2013s, so we'll have to "settle" for 4Ks.
Hence I am looking for the right two 4K monitors for photographic work. Quality over price. I do require a webcam as well though, and can't find any decent 4K monitors with that built-in. Any suggestions?
Most 4k monitors are 30 bit color depth. Apple's 5k iMac is still 24 bit color depth. I would choose 4k in 30 bit color depth. Now deciding which of the 30 bit color monitors is better, well that is a tough decision.
You might want to research this more. In reading about the iMac 5k, it said that it could not be used as a monitor because the display standard was not robust enough to carry the signal. I also read that a 5k would not work with the Mac Pro for the same reason, which leaves you with 4k.
There's a lot to consider in a high-res display...
Most retina displays are around 200 PPI so when running at a x2 HiDPI setting are effectively 100 PPI in terms of real-estate and chrome size. While incredibly sharp, this results in a desktop that's too small and chrome that's too big for my liking.
I currently run my 13" Retina MBP at a scaled HiDPI setting which offers an effective desktop of 1680x1050 (150 PPI). For me, that offers an ideal balance of real-estate, legibility, and sharpness.
So I think my next display would ideally be a 32" 4K Cinema display running natively at 4096x2160 which would offer 144 PPI.
Alternatively a pair of 24" UltraHD 4K displays at 3840x2160 scaled to a HiDPI setting to effectively provide pair of 2560x1440 desktops would offer a 122 PPI which would be a bit easier on the eyes. I'd get more pixels (5K total) horizontally, but less (1440 effectively) vertically compared to the 4K at native resolution.
Most retina displays are around 200 PPI so when running at a x2 HiDPI setting are effectively 100 PPI in terms of real-estate and chrome size. While incredibly sharp, this results in a desktop that's too small and chrome that's too big for my liking.
I currently run my 13" Retina MBP at a scaled HiDPI setting which offers an effective desktop of 1680x1050 (150 PPI). For me, that offers an ideal balance of real-estate, legibility, and sharpness.
So I think my next display would ideally be a 32" 4K Cinema display running natively at 4096x2160 which would offer 144 PPI.
Alternatively a pair of 24" UltraHD 4K displays at 3840x2160 scaled to a HiDPI setting to effectively provide pair of 2560x1440 desktops would offer a 122 PPI which would be a bit easier on the eyes. I'd get more pixels (5K total) horizontally, but less (1440 effectively) vertically compared to the 4K at native resolution.
isn't 4k still good enough? man..i mean..whenever i go to the computer store..i see these 4k monitors...and i'm like DAMN!!