Bought my first Eizo (CG2730). It was high time, but didn't figure I had much to lose for $160.
It didn't blow me away intially, and is lower resolution that the consumer LG 4k, that I thought was well calibrated. Then, I had to process many photos from the local frou-frou car show, where the vechicles are all displayed on nicely manicured lawns. Didn't help that color temperature swung wildly during the day, from heavy overcast to sun. Started with raws and everything processed in aRGB. I simply could not get the green grass to look correct in most of the images, when viewed on the LG. Other colors were not as affected. After tearing my hair out for a bit, I examined the same images on the EIZO. Suddenly, all was right with the world.
Pull up one of the many plots that show both the aRGB and sRGB color boundaries on the same plot. Note that the greatest differences are in the green-yellow to green to green-blue color range. For color critical work, a good monitor can absolutely make a difference.
EB-1 wrote:
I'm partial to Eizo displays, especially for the autocalibration, but any high grade display for photo images should be 98-100% for aRGB and probably DCI-P3. The displays mentioned above that are not even 90% measured would be a poor choice IME. The calibration software should show you the actual color space on a 2D or 3D chart.
EBH