kwilliam8 wrote:
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....Show more →
I have a CG243W that I have owned for about five years. Not a single problem. Also gorgeous.
Or you can save about $4500 or more and get the almost as good BenQ SW320. In fact it does better in some areas. Eizo's are an absurd price. You could also get the Asus PA329Q.
Both are wide gamut 99-100% AdobeRGB, UHD 32" monitors and designed for professional use.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Or you can save about $4500 or more and get the almost as good BenQ SW320. In fact it does better in some areas. Eizo's are an absurd price. You could also get the Asus PA329Q.
Both are wide gamut 99-100% AdobeRGB, UHD 32" monitors and designed for professional use.
So now we have the inevitable parade of folks that have never used an Eizo and/or cannot afford one, telling us that their monitor, at 1/4 the price, is just as good.
DaveFP wrote:
So now we have the inevitable parade of folks that have never used an Eizo and/or cannot afford one, telling us that their monitor, at 1/4 the price, is just as good.
Joupp! Moreover: Settle for 27" and you can slash that price in half too... ;-))
PetKal wrote:
I have been very happy with my BenQ PV3200PT 32" 4k monitor, and I see no reason to go to much more expensive monitors such as NEC, Eizo etc.
(Several 5k/4k monitors by HP, ASUS and ACER I have owned have been disappointing re colour accuracy and adjustment features.)
Hi Peter
Have you got the beast calibrated without any problems?
Unfortunately Benq does not support my favorite calibration program Basiccolor
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Or you can save about $4500 or more and get the almost as good BenQ SW320. In fact it does better in some areas. Eizo's are an absurd price. You could also get the Asus PA329Q.
Both are wide gamut 99-100% AdobeRGB, UHD 32" monitors and designed for professional use.
My needs would be for it to be a general purpose monitor (e.g. surfing the Internet, occasional gaming, spreadsheet usage, etc.).
However, my primary needs would be photo and video editing (including 4K).
How close does one need to work to a 32" monitor when displaying text in 4K? Does 32" work well enough for that, or does one need to head towards 40"? TIA!
DaveFP wrote:
So now we have the inevitable parade of folks that have never used an Eizo and/or cannot afford one, telling us that their monitor, at 1/4 the price, is just as good.
Typical.
Well, there's also the review at Luminous Landscape by Joshua Holko. He has both displays, and had this to say (emphases are my own):
"Comparisons between the BenQ SW320 and the previously reviewed Eizo CG-318 4k DCI display are going to be inevitable, so lets get those out of the way (since I have both displays side by side in my studio). Firstly, and perhaps most importantly there is a huge price differential between these two monitors. The Eizo retails for approximately $6000 USD MSRP, and the BenQ will likely sell for under $1,500 USD when it goes on sale shortly. That difference alone is going to make a choice a no-brainer for most people. There are however some other important differences worth noting. Whether those differences are worth the $4,500+ USD hit to your hip pocket depends on your needs and circumstances...
The Eizo CG-318 also has its own built-in calibration device that can be automated and scheduled. The BenQ requires the use of an external colorimeter (like most displays including the NEC Spectraview range). This isn’t a big deal in daily use, although one could argue its awfully convenient to simply schedule the Eizo to calibrate itself once a week. The BenQ SW320 does include thoughtful nag warnings to remind you to calibrate the display on a regular basis. How often you choose to calibrate depends on your circumstances and how neurotic you want to be with your hardware. In general, I find every few weeks to be more than sufficient.
Measuring color gamut between the Eizo and the BenQ SW320 is a pointless exercise since for all intent and purpose they are identical in real world applications. Both produce 100% of the SRGB color space, and both produce 99% of the Adobe RGB space. Any subtle differences in gamut are a quibble. Regarding brightness uniformity the SW320’s exceptional uniformity is achieved through a delicate process involving the utilization of high precision apparatus to meticulously fine-tune hundreds of sub-regions on the entire screen. The results of this fine tuning is a noticeable and significant improvement in uniformity over the SW270, and outside of the extreme corners, it measures almost as good as the Eizo CG-318. This is remarkable performance, regardless of price and BenQ is to be commended for their efforts in obtaining this exceptional level of uniformity. You can check how your individual BenQ SW320 monitor performed in its uniformity test on the supplied Factory Calibration Report.
Comparing a sub $1,500 USD MRSRP display to one that costs around $6000 USD MSRP might seem a bit unfair, but the results illustrate just how good the SW320 is and just how much bang it offers for the buck. Quite honestly, its ground breaking performance at this price point."
So.... yeah. I think I'd buy the BenQ and spend the extra $4500 on a trip to take some pictures ... or another Summilux or two... or on some FAANG stock... or lots of other things. I think I can handle the occasional hardware calibration and the loss of 7% screen resolution for all other meaningful experiences that $4500 could facilitate. I'll leave the last 1% pf performance to the 1%. :-p
Arka wrote:
Well, there's also the review at Luminous Landscape by Joshua Holko. He has both displays, and had this to say (emphases are my own):
"Comparisons between the BenQ SW320 and the previously reviewed Eizo CG-318 4k DCI display are going to be inevitable, so lets get those out of the way (since I have both displays side by side in my studio). Firstly, and perhaps most importantly there is a huge price differential between these two monitors. The Eizo retails for approximately $6000 USD MSRP, and the BenQ will likely sell for under $1,500 USD when it goes on sale shortly. That difference alone is going to make a choice a no-brainer for most people. There are however some other important differences worth noting. Whether those differences are worth the $4,500+ USD hit to your hip pocket depends on your needs and circumstances...
The Eizo CG-318 also has its own built-in calibration device that can be automated and scheduled. The BenQ requires the use of an external colorimeter (like most displays including the NEC Spectraview range). This isn’t a big deal in daily use, although one could argue its awfully convenient to simply schedule the Eizo to calibrate itself once a week. The BenQ SW320 does include thoughtful nag warnings to remind you to calibrate the display on a regular basis. How often you choose to calibrate depends on your circumstances and how neurotic you want to be with your hardware. In general, I find every few weeks to be more than sufficient.
Measuring color gamut between the Eizo and the BenQ SW320 is a pointless exercise since for all intent and purpose they are identical in real world applications. Both produce 100% of the SRGB color space, and both produce 99% of the Adobe RGB space. Any subtle differences in gamut are a quibble. Regarding brightness uniformity the SW320’s exceptional uniformity is achieved through a delicate process involving the utilization of high precision apparatus to meticulously fine-tune hundreds of sub-regions on the entire screen. The results of this fine tuning is a noticeable and significant improvement in uniformity over the SW270, and outside of the extreme corners, it measures almost as good as the Eizo CG-318. This is remarkable performance, regardless of price and BenQ is to be commended for their efforts in obtaining this exceptional level of uniformity. You can check how your individual BenQ SW320 monitor performed in its uniformity test on the supplied Factory Calibration Report.
Comparing a sub $1,500 USD MRSRP display to one that costs around $6000 USD MSRP might seem a bit unfair, but the results illustrate just how good the SW320 is and just how much bang it offers for the buck. Quite honestly, its ground breaking performance at this price point."
So.... yeah. I think I'd buy the BenQ and spend the extra $4500 on a trip to take some pictures ... or another Summilux or two... or on some FAANG stock... or lots of other things. I think I can handle the occasional hardware calibration and the loss of 7% screen resolution for all the things that $4500 will get me. ...Show more →
Your massive "wall of text" would suggests that you are emotionally invested in proving that the BenQ is "just as good" and that is fine by me.
Quite frankly I don't care what monitor you use.
Let me introduce what might be a novel thought for you:
The kinds of amateur photographers that buy 6K monitors don't face the choices that you face.
They tend to be the kind of people that enjoy lifestyles that allow them to buy the monitor and then go on to do all the other things you alluded to.
Sorry if you find that reality offensive but that is what the real world looks like.
My recommendation was directed to the OP.
I don't understand why you are so desperate to weigh-in in order to diminish the Eizo.
I am going to enjoy my Eizo and wish you a joyous experience with your BenQ.
Um no. They're monitors and we're having an equipment discussion on the internet. "Emotion" isn't really a issue (at least not for me), but unpersuasive reasoning is. And offensive is the drip of condescension evident in your latest missive ("Let me introduce what might be a novel thought for you ... Sorry if you find that reality offensive but that is what the real world looks like" - Golly, thanks for schooling us on what the world is really like Professor Dave - I'd have never thunk there were rich people in it who could buy everything they ever wanted!)
Indeed, your own contributions here suggest that there is no small degree of "emotion" on "display" from someone who spent $6000 on a 32" monitor and is explaining to the Internet why that choice makes sense. Remember who brought it up in the first place. I hadn't really heard of or carefully considered either screen until I saw this thread. But many of your comments basically boil down to "I'm rich, many of y'all ain't, and my choice of monitor is über alles." That's fine, but saying that the marginal value of $4500 (in this context anyway) isn't that high to you doesn't really explain why the Eizo is a good value for others.
BTW, the "wall of text" you refer to isn't even my writing... it's the opinion of a person who owns both the Eizo and BenQ and offered up his perspective on whether spending the extra money makes sense... if you read it you'd realize it's quite balanced, though it weighs slightly in favor of saving one's money with what is clearly a very close second. It's just an internet opinion like mine or yours, but I thought it informative because it comes from someone who uses both products for photo post processing. It certainly wasn't reproduced to "diminish the Eizo" or the ego of anyone who has the means to purchase one and also do whatever the heck else they want.
Heck, my own monitors are admittedly crappier than Eizo and BenQ and yet I'm able to still get a lot of visual art done on them. But the conversation discussing the options has at least been interesting to me, in that now I know the BenQ exists and is actually quite affordable for what it offers (which appears to be about the 99% that Rajan was talking about in his excellent post in this thread).
DaveFP wrote:
Your massive "wall of text" would suggests that you are emotionally invested in proving that the BenQ is "just as good" and that is fine by me.
Quite frankly I don't care what monitor you use.
Let me introduce what might be a novel thought for you:
The kinds of amateur photographers that buy 6K monitors don't face the choices that you face.
They tend to be the kind of people that enjoy lifestyles that allow them to buy the monitor and then go on to do all the other things you alluded to.
Sorry if you find that reality offensive but that is what the real world looks like.
My recommendation was directed to the OP.
I don't understand why you are so desperate to weigh-in in order to diminish the Eizo.
I am going to enjoy my Eizo and wish you a joyous experience with your BenQ.
DaveFP wrote:
Your massive "wall of text" would suggests that you are emotionally invested in proving that the BenQ is "just as good" and that is fine by me.
Quite frankly I don't care what monitor you use.
Let me introduce what might be a novel thought for you:
The kinds of amateur photographers that buy 6K monitors don't face the choices that you face.
They tend to be the kind of people that enjoy lifestyles that allow them to buy the monitor and then go on to do all the other things you alluded to.
Sorry if you find that reality offensive but that is what the real world looks like.
My recommendation was directed to the OP.
I don't understand why you are so desperate to weigh-in in order to diminish the Eizo.
I am going to enjoy my Eizo and wish you a joyous experience with your BenQ.
Nobody said that Eizo is crap and BenQ is better! Read all responses again, and if you wish, quote them to prove me wrong... We simply think that there are monitors that display "similar" quality picture for much lower price. BenQ happens to be one of them.
Arka asked a simple question to which you failed give a sensible answer to: "Why is this monitor worth a $6000?" Do you think that your answer was helpful? -> DaveFP wrote:
"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... For something I am going to look at for hours on end; for something that will profoundly affect my output?" - Seriously? What kind of helpful information was that?!? Also, as you can see, you started all this drama with offending other people.
Sorry to hear that you spend "hours upon hours" at the front of your monitor. I would rather be spending this much time outside, photographing! And this is where my money goes to.
Let me ask you this, how do you like your $6000 4K monitor when viewing others work online or other websites? Is it a good experience? I bet NO. Why? Because at the moment, barely anyone shares images at this resolution! Even you:https://www.flickr.com/photos/dfpanno/ Your photos aren't of a proper resolution to be displayed at 4K and be admired at their highest detail! Same goes for your monitor and a camera. You are not using them properly/to their fullest potential. Let me summarize this for you in your own words: DaveFP wrote : "Funny - people will spend thousands upon thousands for gear that they never use" - So you were speaking about yourself from the beginning, weren't you?
Feel enlightened finally? You're welcome
Let's put this thread back on track and give OP some useful information!!!
I recently purchased the BenQ SW320. Am on my 30 day trial period with it and am 99% sure that I am going to return it. While it is very nice I am not blown away. Image quality is good, not great. I was so underwhelmed that I made the trip into B&H so I could compare it side by side against the NEC. They have both on display and are separated by 2 or 3 other monitors. Neither was running with a 4k feed so it is not a fair test of the 2, but from the low res video they were running the NEC was much better. The blacks were blacker, the colors were richer and the image was just nicer and more consistent. I am quite sure that if money were no object that there would not even be a discussion as to which would be the monitor that I would choose. But of course money is always an important factor for me and most others. I think the same type of rules can be applied to most things. You can view a bird through an $800 pair of Nikon binoculars and then through a $2,500 of Swarovskis. Both may be 10x but both images are not the same. One is clearer and brighter, one performs better in low light, one is more durable, etc. A 7d2 is a great camera but it will never be a 1dx2. You can buy a honda and drive 100mph but it is not the same as driving 100 in a mercedes. Not the same feel, same control. The Benq is nice, but for me it is not an NEC. I do not think the NEC is twice as good, but it is better. And that is what you are paying for. For accuracy, dependability and true output. I have a good friend who shoots with a 600 f4 Nikon, version 2, a d810 and d850, a 300 2.8 and many other lenses and accessories. Yet processes his images on a mid line at best monitor. I give him the business about that every time I see him.
With regards to Windows 10, it is a big issue. Not sure which version you have but I have 10 pro with the 1703 (creators) update. They have taken away the ability to adjust the font size independent of the scaling resulting in crazy small font size. Apparently there is a hack that can be done by downloading a REG file. The result is that I have to zoom in and out often if I need to read something. The scaling can be set in PS so that does not bother me.
Long story short, I will save for the NEC because I think it is better. Would probably save for the Eizo but reality is that I will probably never be able to afford that after what I have spent on cameras and lenses already. Plus that whole college thing coming up for my 2 boys. I spend a great deal of time and effort in the field and in the elements and I want to view, process and enjoy my images on the best possible monitor. I think will most technology you spend a lot more for incremental improvements. You just need to decide how much those improvements are worth to you.
aboutthelight wrote:
I recently purchased the BenQ SW320. Am on my 30 day trial period with it and am 99% sure that I am going to return it. While it is very nice I am not blown away. Image quality is good, not great. I was so underwhelmed that I made the trip into B&H so I could compare it side by side against the NEC. They have both on display and are separated by 2 or 3 other monitors. Neither was running with a 4k feed so it is not a fair test of the 2, but from the low res video they were running the NEC was much better. The blacks were blacker, the colors were richer and the image was just nicer and more consistent. I am quite sure that if money were no object that there would not even be a discussion as to which would be the monitor that I would choose. But of course money is always an important factor for me and most others. I think the same type of rules can be applied to most things. You can view a bird through an $800 pair of Nikon binoculars and then through a $2,500 of Swarovskis. Both may be 10x but both images are not the same. One is clearer and brighter, one performs better in low light, one is more durable, etc. A 7d2 is a great camera but it will never be a 1dx2. You can buy a honda and drive 100mph but it is not the same as driving 100 in a mercedes. Not the same feel, same control. The Benq is nice, but for me it is not an NEC. I do not think the NEC is twice as good, but it is better. And that is what you are paying for. For accuracy, dependability and true output. I have a good friend who shoots with a 600 f4 Nikon, version 2, a d810 and d850, a 300 2.8 and many other lenses and accessories. Yet processes his images on a mid line at best monitor. I give him the business about that every time I see him.
With regards to Windows 10, it is a big issue. Not sure which version you have but I have 10 pro with the 1703 (creators) update. They have taken away the ability to adjust the font size independent of the scaling resulting in crazy small font size. Apparently there is a hack that can be done by downloading a REG file. The result is that I have to zoom in and out often if I need to read something. The scaling can be set in PS so that does not bother me.
Long story short, I will save for the NEC because I think it is better. Would probably save for the Eizo but reality is that I will probably never be able to afford that after what I have spent on cameras and lenses already. Plus that whole college thing coming up for my 2 boys. I spend a great deal of time and effort in the field and in the elements and I want to view, process and enjoy my images on the best possible monitor. I think will most technology you spend a lot more for incremental improvements. You just need to decide how much those improvements are worth to you. ...Show more →
aboutthelight wrote:
I recently purchased the BenQ SW320. Am on my 30 day trial period with it and am 99% sure that I am going to return it. While it is very nice I am not blown away. Image quality is good, not great. I was so underwhelmed that I made the trip into B&H so I could compare it side by side against the NEC. They have both on display and are separated by 2 or 3 other monitors. Neither was running with a 4k feed so it is not a fair test of the 2, but from the low res video they were running the NEC was much better. The blacks were blacker, the colors were richer and the image was just nicer and more consistent....Show more →
Are you sure both were calibrated optimally? Because my experience is different. I have the BenQ SW320 and my earlier 27” PA271 NEC (not 4K) that is now mostly idle. Resolution difference notwithstanding, I see virtually no difference in picture quality when both are calibrated.
Note that I actually agree with your basic point: premium products ARE better. Which is why I love the high quality Zeiss primes. Yet in the field these days, I find myself reaching for the newer Canon zooms, which come very close to (but do not equal) the performance of the Zeiss glass, for the flexibility they offer. The advances in these newer zoom designs have significantly narrowed the gap, to a point where the final output - in most instances - is indistinguishable. Yet, I still carry with me and recruit the Zeiss or a Canon prime in certain special situations. There is no denying the subtlety of design and the pleasure to be had using these premium products. I totally get why aficionados delight in a Leica or a Porsche.
DaveFP wrote:
So now we have the inevitable parade of folks that have never used an Eizo and/or cannot afford one, telling us that their monitor, at 1/4 the price, is just as good.
Typical.
I have used Eizo's at my work for Canon, and I'll stand by that. Absurd pricing and in no universe are they worth the money and in no universe are they worth 4x as much. Next you'll tell me Leica lens is worth 4x as much as an L lens.
Have you got the beast calibrated without any problems?
Unfortunately Benq does not support my favorite calibration program Basiccolor
Jarmo
Jarmo, to my eye the BENQ PV3200PT sGRB calibration was quite good right out of the box. I could not improve it with my X-rite Pro calibrator. Ironically, I am running a couple of other 4k/5k monitors in parallel, and I can not get them calibrated right, whatever I try, which is probably a limitation of the monitors themselves, and not a problem of the colour calibrator used.
I have my eye on that 8k 32 " Dell monitor, yet I am leery of its colour response. High resolution is great, but colour accuracy (calibration range) is equally important.
DaveFP wrote:
Let me introduce what might be a novel thought for you:
The kinds of amateur photographers that buy 6K monitors don't face the choices that you face.
They tend to be the kind of people that enjoy lifestyles that allow them to buy the monitor and then go on to do all the other things you alluded to.
This kind of "thought" isn't novel in any way to any educated and mature person on this site, and that's probably represented by an area at least 2.5 standard deviations in breadth under a normal distribution curve for the audience cohort for this thread.
Let me introduce what might be a novel thought for YOU:
One doesn't have to be a clinical psychologist to very easily see that you're possibly less interested in contributing to this thread and possibly more interested in "projecting" your own ego and socioeconomic standing on to others. Perhaps here and perhaps also in your daily life.
We "train others" how we are treated and regarded. Comments like those that you made above (and in other parts of this thread) will most assuredly not help your cause or make your case with group like we have represented here at FM (see my comment above about this cohort).
With respect to equipment, tell us the real-world differences using real-world use cases as it applies to YOUR OWN photography. That approach would be far more germane to this topic and better fit the purpose of this site.
(I know you don't care what others think), but you reap what you sow.
PetKal wrote:
Jarmo, to my eye the BENQ PV3200PT sGRB calibration was quite good right out of the box. I could not improve it with my X-rite Pro calibrator. Ironically, I am running a couple of other 4k/5k monitors in parallel, and I can not get them calibrated right, whatever I try, which is probably a limitation of the monitors themselves, and not a problem of the colour calibrator used.
I have my eye on that 8k 32 " Dell monitor, yet I am leery of its colour response. High resolution is great, but colour accuracy (calibration range) is equally important.
It might surprise you, but the well known lanscape photographer Hougaard Malan (used to post here as well) recently "instagrammed" that he was diching his 5K iMac and going back to 1440p Dell screen. He said that at 5K is extremely difficult to judge the sharpness and noise levels on his photos, editing at 1:1. I'm inclined to believe this to be true. The file from my camera could fit into the 5K iMac without any ability to zoom in. If I zoomed in any way, I woul'd be going past 1:1 and we know how that goes. So while 8K might sound badass, it might actually not be all that great. The files from 1DxII would most likely look like postcards on that.
Your photos aren't of a proper resolution to be displayed at 4K and be admired at their highest detail! Same goes for your monitor and a camera. You are not using them properly/to their fullest potential. Let me summarize this for you in your own words: 
