Alan321 wrote:
Calibrating my Eizo CS-2740 takes just a few minutes and yet I find it so easy to forget to do it because the calibrator is hiding in a cupboard, and the screen never actually looks bad. A CG monitor with built-in calibrator can be fully automatic. The problem is that monitors change over time but they do it very gradually and imperceptibly until one day you recalibrate and discover the change is both noticeable and beneficial.
The Eizos let you store several different calibrations for different purposes, accessible at the push of a button on the monitor. These could have different contrast ratios, colour gamuts, maximum brightness. This allows you to easily preview what a print might look like in different lighting conditions or on different papers. You can edit your pictures for on-screen display or for as-printed display. I wish the monitors could store more calibration sets.
The Eizos have an excellent anti-reflective matte screen, so you see little or nothing of youself and your background on the picture you are trying to see and edit. Another thing about Eizos is their excellent uniformity of colour and tone even without sacrificing colour bit-depth. A high-dpi Dell monitor that I had years ago could do reasonably good uniformity at 8 bits per colour channel, or much poorer uniformity at 10bpcc.
A 27" 4K monitor displays great quality text with hardly any noticeable pixelation. It works for lines and pictures too. Sure, higher dpi causes a smaller display of pictures but these days most camera pictures have a lot more pixels than a screen can handle. And the on-screen picture size is still a lot bigger than any 300ppi print. Adobe s/w let you tweak the s/w interface size without spoiling the displayed photo quality because it wrote the pixel data directly to the screen. However, I wish the Eizo could do closer to 200ppi than its 167ppi. For my eyes a 4.5k 27" monitor would be even better than their "4k" (actually 3840px or 3.75k on my Eizo). Better still would be a monitor with the old 4:3 screen ratio to allow a lot more image height to be displayed without making the screen unnecessarily wider, but some not so clever marketing types think we only need wide format screens these days. A third more screen height probably equates to a half more photo height for the same size program interface.
Agree with (almost) everything you say. The advantages of a Eizo CG screen vs a Eizo CS screen (or any other monitor without built-in tool), are very obvious. It's fast, very accurate and without the hassle of using an external tool. And, according to Eizo: "…..the CG range has a greater contrast ratio and a retardation film, providing a more even black level across the screen and reducing the effect of light leakage….". (https://www.eizocolour.com/spotlight/coloredge-cs-or-cg/). That could be just advertising and nothing more (don't know, because I never used a CS model).
For me and my usage, a 2560x1440p /WQHD on a 27" screen is perfect for editing and prepare for printing. For viewing, my 27" 5k Mac Studio Display is nicer. I also sometimes use the Mac display when I want to share images digitally.
But….. for accurate editing (and prepare for printing), the 5k Mac cannot compete with the 2k (2.5k I think) Eizo.
Beside the whole resolution discussion, I find color accuracy and evenness of brightness and color even more important anyway.
Very happy with my 2 monitor setup.
Nov 16, 2025 at 05:20 AM
Previous versions of Mujabad123's message #16929800 « Monitor for editing. »
