Apple's in-bread thinking seems to regularly miss the target from many users' perspectives. Granted they attempt to manage tier offerings but that really interferes what a number of us would like to see.
PIOK wrote:
Any comments about buying Apple Display ? (I was expecting more with 2026 version for $1599 - disappointment for me)
A few thoughts:
I have a pair of the previous model. You can get cheaper monitors that will possibly give you the same IQ performance for photography purposes, but (beyond the Apple name) you are paying for a few other things with the Apple displays: the greatest ease and consistency of profiling (due to integration with the OS), high quality and well-integrated integrated cameras and microphones, lots of the fastest ports, and so forth. (I’ve used less-expensive third party monitors in the past and encountered compatibility issues, specifically regarding monitor calibration.)
If you are interested in getting many of these features, it might be a great time to look for price deals on the previous generation Apple monitors. They really work well for photography in my experience. (One small caveat: if you have a dual monitor system, in a sense you aren’t getting full value from the second monitor since some features end up assigned to the primary monitor only — e.g. those speakers and microphones in monitor #2 aren’t doing much.)
You can get some very fine displays from third parties if you go for the stuff designed for pro-level use rather than the discount models.
I have a pair of the previous model. You can get cheaper monitors that will possibly give you the same IQ performance for photography purposes, but (beyond the Apple name) you are paying for a few other things with the Apple displays: the greatest ease and consistency of profiling (due to integration with the OS), high quality and well-integrated integrated cameras and microphones, lots of the fastest ports, and so forth. (I’ve used less-expensive third party monitors in the past and encountered compatibility issues, specifically regarding monitor calibration.)
If you are interested in getting many of these features, it might be a great time to look for price deals on the previous generation Apple monitors. They really work well for photography in my experience. (One small caveat: if you have a dual monitor system, in a sense you aren’t getting full value from the second monitor since some features end up assigned to the primary monitor only — e.g. those speakers and microphones in monitor #2 aren’t doing much.)
You can get some very fine displays from third parties if you go for the stuff designed for pro-level use rather than the discount models....Show more →
I’ve used Calibrite Display Plus HL to seamlessly calibrate four monitors. The software allows for various panel types. I suspect the only issue might arise should you not be able to properly set the initial brightness within the software range. I’m suggesting that calibration should not be an issue with other high quality monitors. Regarding ports, I believe they only have two available Thunderbolt 5 ports, but the HDR models will provide up to 140 watts of power. I currently use six external Thunderbolt 4/5 ports. Personally, I don’t care about the camera. If I need to Face Time, I use my iPad, or iPhone. Now the positives. The peak brightness, along with the resolution and panel type, greatly narrow the competition and I believe this, along with brand loyalty, allow Apple to set a somewhat unreasonably high price. I might be encouraged to buy the HDR model if it was discounted, but that isn’t going to happen.
I’ve only used the glossy screen of the MacBook Pro. What is the advantage, or disadvantage of the “nano” textured screen for photo editing?
bwcolor wrote:
I’ve only used the glossy screen of the MacBook Pro. What is the advantage, or disadvantage of the “nano” textured screen for photo editing?
The theory is that reflections won’t bother you as much. I thnk this might be true if you work in a location with bright lights or windows behind you. A downside in my experience (I have used such displays in the past) is that while the reflected light is diffused (instead of reflecting the actual image of those distracting lights), which is good, the screen still is affected by the lights and you might feel that blacks are not quite as black.
I stopped using those screens since I don’t have any sources of reflections behind my position in my studio.
The thing I don't like about any texture on a screen is it makes it harder when trying to achieve some level of critical detail. I went glossy for the first time ever with my Studio Display and have it in a windowless room, so I get the full benefit. It's been eye opening.
RoamingScott wrote:
The thing I don't like about any texture on a screen is it makes it harder when trying to achieve some level of critical detail. I went glossy for the first time ever with my Studio Display and have it in a windowless room, so I get the full benefit. It's been eye opening.
Unfortunately, my only windowless room is only slightly wider than the toilet. You live in Texas, so I’m sure that you understand what I mean. I believe that reduced detail on a large screen due to a Nano coat would be of less concern, but for 27” it seems quite relevant. I do get glare on my present monitor and it is crazy noticeable on my MacBook. So, Nano does provide quite an advantage, but for the Nano up-charge, I can change my window coverings to filter out more light and this might provide a better option than going Nano.
At home you can arrange lighting to deal with reflections, but on a laptop you are often stuck with whatver room lighting there is. I don't like glossy displays since there are most always some reflections.
The anti-reflective screens don’t really reduce the level of detail, per se. Though the fact that they diffuse reflected light (rather than reflecting in coherently so that you actually see the light sources) lowers apparent contrast and can make the image on the screen seem less distinct. The effect is most noticeable at the darker end of the luminosity scale. (The analogy isn't perfect, but it is a bit like comparing matte and glossy/lustre papers. Come to think of it, if you print a lot on matte that could be a reason to favor the anti-reflective screen?)
I think there are situations in which either could be the best option. If you don’t have to deal with problematic reflections in your workspace, or if you just don’t notice them, the regular screen is fine and a bit less expensive. If you do have to deal with sources of reflective light in your workspace environment then the anti-reflective screens may be a better bet.
I agree that the anti-reflective coating may be a wise choice on laptops.
I urge people who aren’t sure to go to a store and take a look.
My previous Apple MBPs had the glossy display. My current MBP has the nano textured glass. I find it an overwhelming improvement as I'm working in a variety of environments. But if you are always in a controlled lighting environment, it may not be desirable as gdanmitchell suggested. BTW, I did compare the MBPs when the two displays at the Apple store prior to finalizing my decision. At the Apple store, it may not be so easy to see the displays in a darker environment or shielded from lights. I do recall that Apple has a no question 14 day return policy if you buy direct.
Since we're on the topic of monitors, are there non-Apple displays that people recommend for photography? I am not interested in video-editing, strictly photo editing. The monitor needs to be 5K or so and I should be able to accurately calibrate it. A curved would be nice.
What are most folks using these days? I currently have a dated dual monitor setup that is way past due for replacement.
I use a Phillips OLED 27” monitor with 650 nits of brightness and I’m quite happy with how it calibrates, but who in their right mind would buy a Phillips monitor for high end editing. I did, knowing that it would be easy to return to B&H. Calibrite Display Plus HL did a great job calibrating the monitor and I’ve been quite happy with it. I was considering the new Apple Studio Monitor XDR for HDR editing, but I can also just use my 16” MBP screen. In researching other 5K monitors, I found that Dell and LG were the most recommended, but only the Apple does 5K / 120Hz / 2000 peak nits. That said, if you can live with 60Hz and you mentioned that it was exclusively for photo editing, you can save $1500 or so with third party monitors..that is third party if you swim in the Apple ecosystem. You have to give up at least one of the three characteristics of the XDR monitor listed above. I found other 5K/60Hz/400-600 nit brightness monitors. The only advantage over my present monitor, which actually has a large color space, is the higher resolution.
Thank you! This is exactly what I needed. I don't do video so the refresh rate is not important to me. 5K though is, and so is the brightness. I will check on the LG and Dell for monitors and I have no intention of forking $3.5K + CA taxes on the Apple monitor as I feel it is an overkill for me.
For others reading this thread, if you have any specific model recommendations for me I would truly appreciate it. I have the Spider calibrator and so the first thing I will do is calibrate the monitor.
Thanks again @bwcolor.
bwcolor wrote:
I use a Phillips OLED 27” monitor with 650 nits of brightness and I’m quite happy with how it calibrates, but who in their right mind would buy a Phillips monitor for high end editing. I did, knowing that it would be easy to return to B&H. Calibrite Display Plus HL did a great job calibrating the monitor and I’ve been quite happy with it. I was considering the new Apple Studio Monitor XDR for HDR editing, but I can also just use my 16” MBP screen. In researching other 5K monitors, I found that Dell and LG were the most recommended, but only the Apple does 5K / 120Hz / 2000 peak nits. That said, if you can live with 60Hz and you mentioned that it was exclusively for photo editing, you can save $1500 or so with third party monitors..that is third party if you swim in the Apple ecosystem. You have to give up at least one of the three characteristics of the XDR monitor listed above. I found other 5K/60Hz/400-600 nit brightness monitors. The only advantage over my present monitor, which actually has a large color space, is the higher resolution....Show more →
The whole reason I got a Studio Display was to obviate the need to calibrate it. These are excellently calibrated straight out of the box, throw it on the Photography display profile and rock.
RoamingScott wrote:
The whole reason I got a Studio Display was to obviate the need to calibrate it. These are excellently calibrated straight out of the box, throw it on the Photography display profile and rock.
Does such a monitor exist, where it arrives calibrated and stays calibrated?
bwcolor wrote:
Does such a monitor exist, where it arrives calibrated and stays calibrated?
It's highly likely I buy a new Studio display before I ever need to calibrate this one
That said, I'm not sure I've ever seen photography posted on this site at a level that would necessitate the concern for ongoing calibration of a display like this.
You're both probably right - not staying calibrated and also not necessitating constant calibration. My concern is more economics driven. I am not doing this for business but I do want to see my pictures well. So, I am willing to calibrate the monitor a few times over its useful life but don't want to pay the Apple pro tax.
