I highly recommend the Asus PA329Q. I have two of these - one in landscape mode with the other in portrait mode. It's a very capable monitor in terms of color accuracy, completeness. Also, it's big enough (32") to run in 4k mode with zoom level at 100% (i.e. no need to make text bigger in order to be legible).
Funny - people will spend thousands upon thousands for gear that they never use but will go cheap with something that lies at the heart of their digital experience.
6K is less than buying a D5 or equivalent body.
For something I am going to look at for hours on end; for something that will profoundly affect my output?
Funny - people will spend thousands upon thousands for gear that they never use but will go cheap with something that lies at the heart of their digital experience.
6K is less than buying a D5 or equivalent body.
For something I am going to look at for hours on end; for something that will profoundly affect my output?
I have no problem spending the money.
As I stated above - if you can afford it.....
And I thought NEC's 4K Spectraview offering was overpriced as hell at 3.2K...
Funny thing is, my Spectraview developed a dead pixel after 3 years. This was a second replacement unit after original having multiple stripes on solid gray colors and first replacement had a buzzing power source, which made unbearable whinning noise at anything than 100% brightness. My cheap office HP TN display went on for 9 straight years (more than 30K hours) without any hiccup.
So the question of money is not invalid. Many people simply turn their attention to cheaper brands like Dell or Asus, True, they do not have the outstanding paper specs as Eizo and NEC, but after calibration they are "close enough" for a lot less money.
The 32” BenQ SW320 is an outstanding candidate from a price/performance ratio standpoint. I have had it for several months and the performance has been stellar. I considered the NEC 4K but it was somewhat dated technology.
I can afford it, but that's not my question. I'm genuinely curious as to what warrants the price tag. Is it the uniform backlight? Wide color gamut over the Adobe RGB color space? Integrated color calibration? Sexy good looks? "it works really. really well" isn't very clear, particularly given that most of the imaging world (myself included) seem to be trudging by on monitors costing a mere $1000 or $1500.
I don't dispute that you like the display and that it works well for you, but I expect that having (or not having) a camera and lenses would more profoundly affect your output than the difference between, say, a $1000 monitor and a $6000 monitor. That display costs more than a lot of things - 2 D850-caliber bodies, a camera and 1-2 excellent lenses, 2-4 very powerful computer systems, taking a trip to do some photography - you could even throw that cash towards a decent off-road vehicle to get you to inaccessible places. So aside from the usual "you spend so much money on everything else in your camera bag so why not this" canard used to justify significant expense on all things connected to photography, I'm really curious to understand what makes the display $6000 great.
DaveFP wrote:
It works really. really well.
Funny - people will spend thousands upon thousands for gear that they never use but will go cheap with something that lies at the heart of their digital experience.
6K is less than buying a D5 or equivalent body.
For something I am going to look at for hours on end; for something that will profoundly affect my output?
Generally speaking, in engineering design, we can get to within 99.8% of the idealized spec with reasonable effort. This isn’t to say it is a trivial feat (also, the % number I use is to simply make the point). It is squeezing out that last tenth of an ounce of performance to get within the epsilon neighborhood of the idealized spec that takes a significant jump in resources, intellectual and hardware. Tolerances become much tighter, manufacturing costs increase substantially, and so on. Examples of the latter are the Zeiss Otus lenses and the Eizo display.
The second part of the answer is, is that jump in price worth it for me? As we know, for most, it isn’t, for a variety of reasons that I need not repeat here.
How about switching to Apple? - Just kidding of course
First, things first. You don't need a 4K monitor to edit/export your videos. Also, even if you share your 4K footage, it still won't be viewable as a 4K if a person watching it does not have a 4K monitor/TV. Simply put, 4K monitor is only for your viewing pleasure - Also, don't forget that you need a somewhat powerful graphic card to "run" a 4K monitor - but I bet you already knew that.
Arka wrote:
I can afford it, but that's not my question. I'm genuinely curious as to what warrants the price tag. Is it the uniform backlight? Wide color gamut over the Adobe RGB color space? Integrated color calibration? Sexy good looks? "it works really. really well" isn't very clear, particularly given that most of the imaging world (myself included) seem to be trudging by on monitors costing a mere $1000 or $1500.
I don't dispute that you like the display and that it works well for you, but I expect that having (or not having) a camera and lenses would more profoundly affect your output than the difference between, say, a $1000 monitor and a $6000 monitor. That display costs more than a lot of things - 2 D850-caliber bodies, a camera and 1-2 excellent lenses, 2-4 very powerful computer systems, taking a trip to do some photography - you could even throw that cash towards a decent off-road vehicle to get you to inaccessible places. So aside from the usual "you spend so much money on everything else in your camera bag so why not this" canard used to justify significant expense on all things connected to photography, I'm really curious to understand what makes the display $6000 great.
Yes; ultra-high quality, integrated calibration, etc, etc.
I don't own it because I need it. I own it because it produce a drop-dead gorgeous image both for processing and viewing.
I don't need my Sony A7R II either but I really enjoy shooting with it.
NEC makes comparable monitors but they do not seem to hold up as well.
Dozens of good reviews out there; you might want to take a look.
Check out the link above to Martin's review. He is known to be very picky when it comes to printing and color profiling. He was also using Eizo monitors until he got a BenQ. I know, it is hard to believe it but BenQ monitors are really good especially at their price.
Eizo monitors used to be an industry standard, for highest image quality/color rendering, but recently competition is "eating their lunch". Similar things are happening with Sony and their newest full frame cameras which are crushing Canon and Nikon offerings...
Generally speaking, in engineering design, we can get to within 99.8% of the idealized spec with reasonable effort. This isn’t to say it is a trivial feat (also, the % number I use is to simply make the point). It is squeezing out that last tenth of an ounce of performance to get within the epsilon neighborhood of the idealized spec that takes a significant jump in resources, intellectual and hardware. Tolerances become much tighter, manufacturing costs increase substantially, and so on. Examples of the latter are the Zeiss Otus lenses and the Eizo display.
The second part of the answer is, is that jump in price worth it for me? As we know, for most, it isn’t, for a variety of reasons that I need not repeat here.
For the non-professional (moi) it is silly to try and justify this kind of purchase. You buy it because it brings you pleasure and you are in a position to afford it.
The Eizo really needs very little justification for someone that has used it; it's just gorgeous.
The self-calibration is a joy; push a button and done.
kosin wrote:
Check out the link above to Martin's review. He is known to be very picky when it comes to printing and color profiling. He was also using Eizo monitors until he got a BenQ. I know, it is hard to believe it but BenQ monitors are really good especially at their price.
Eizo monitors used to be an industry standard, for highest image quality/color rendering, but recently competition is "eating their lunch". Similar things are happening with Sony and their newest full frame cameras which are crushing Canon and Nikon offerings...
I'm sorry but BenQ are not the equal of Eizo monitors; not by any measure.
Eizo remains the "platinum standard" by which monitors are judged and the notion that BenQ is "eating their lunch"; well I'l leave it there....
My guess is that most pros can't justify such a monitor because that money is better spent putting food on the table.
That's not a put-down; just an economic reality for them.
I am happy with my Benq SW320. It is a 32" monitor, but they also have it in 27". The focus of the SW320 is photography, but I think they also have a model that is tuned for video. I took two professional 27" NEC monitors out of service when I picked up the Benq. Good luck.
DaveFP wrote:
I'm sorry but BenQ are not the equal of Eizo monitors; not by any measure.
Eizo remains the "platinum standard" by which monitors are judged and the notion that BenQ is "eating their lunch"; well I'l leave it there....
My guess is that most pros can't justify such a monitor because that money is better spent putting food on the table.
That's not a put-down; just an economic reality for them.
Martin B. owned the Eizo monitor for years so there must have been a reason that he switched to BenQ, don’t you think? If Eizo was the Platinum Standard as you said, he would have kept it or upgraded it to the newest model. He can afford it. When you get a chance, take a look at the newest line of BenQ premium monitors in the store. I wouldn’t be surprised if in a “blindfold” test, you would have a hard time finding your Platinum Standard
I can not speak to Eizo's latest models, but I can speak to the Eizo ColorEdge CG241W that I have had for over 8 years. I did have one small glitch at nearly three years of ownership (several flickering lines on the display). Eizo service was a pleasure to interact with. I paid to ship my monitor back to them, and I had it back in about two weeks (they fully covered the repair and the return shipping). It has worked perfectly for the last five years. It has been turned on almost continually for over 8 years. The color calibrated Eizo monitor is a pleasure to use. The large prints from my Epson Stylus Pro 7900 come out nearly identical to how I see them on my Eizo monitor. That is just my experience, for your consideration. Good luck with your decisions!
Keith W.
- Also, don't forget that you need a somewhat powerful graphic card to "run" a 4K monitor - but I bet you already knew that.