I need a 23" monitor. Help please

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

10/31/2010 11:44:03 PM · #1

Which of these should I choose for photo work?

Message edited by author 2010-10-31 23:44:19.

hanserik

Nikon D700

11/01/2010 06:49:50 AM · #2

If I were a professional photographer, I'd choose an Eizo ColorEdge.

But of the three you have to choose from, I'd stay away from LED backlight. Too much problems with uneven lighting. The NEC has a display port, which is a good thing, your next graphics card will probably have one too. The Dell is a tad brighter. I think you'll be happy with either one.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/01/2010 10:59:20 AM · #3

Originally posted by hanserik:

NEC, Eizo and LaCie offer monitors made for photo editing. The cost of a decent mid-range monitor starts at about $ 1.000. The best ones are over $ 3.000. LED backlight, particularly the brighter displays, can pose a problem, when the ambient light cannot be sufficiently subdued.

Whatever you do, and if you can only afford the cheaper monitors, choose ISP technology and stay away from the older TN panels!

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/01/2010 01:09:16 PM · #4

I cant afford an Eizo. I'll stay away from the LED backlit screens. I see viewsonic has an IPS as well and the Dell does indeed have the display port.

Wonder when the big sales start.

Techo

Canon EOS-7D

11/01/2010 01:10:05 PM · #5

I'm currently also in the market for my first Pro LCD. 23" is about the size I want as well. It's currently between an Eizo and NEC for me. I've heard the Lacie is a rebranded NEC. Will post back if I find any Eizo or NEC alternatives. Samsung generally make very good consumer LCD's. I'm happy with the basic LCD they provide but need more for photo and video editing. HP has some good prosumer models too. I've always been a fan of Viewsonics pro series of CRTs, and NEC-Mitsubishi. Currently working on one but it's showing signs of flicker now and then. Probably a sign that I need to get working on finding a replacement for it.

ETA: Some recent discussions on LCDs here
//forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1004&message=36777898

Message edited by author 2010-11-01 13:17:08.

11/01/2010 01:49:17 PM · #6

THat IPS viewsonic looking more and more attractive $$$ :)

yelopq

11/01/2010 10:14:47 PM · #7

Eizo ColorEdge is a good choice!

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

11/01/2010 11:57:11 PM · #8

Originally posted by yelopq:

Eizo ColorEdge is a good choice!

$350 is as high as I'm willing to go. But I'll gladly accept the Eizo christmas present thanks :)

JacksonGariety

Sony DSC-RX1

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/02/2010 12:00:20 AM · #9

I'd go with the Ultrasharp. The stats may nto be as pleasing, but I just love how the UltraSharp monitors look and feel.

efrazier

Sony Alpha a7R

11/02/2010 12:16:23 AM · #10

I know your looking for 23" but have you considered this HP ZR22w They also make a 23" version here

I have the 21" version and LOVE...LOVE..LOVE it!

velocityvisual

Sony DSLR-A700

11/02/2010 10:22:42 AM · #11

Aren't most good quality monitors from good reputable manufacturers good enough at this stage of technology? I've been doing visual FX for quite a few years...we use various types of monitors...and as long as the monitor is calibrated for color correctness you are 100% good to go? Maybe you'd be better served buying a monitor calibration device and a normal awesome (Sub $500) monitor.

Maybe I'm not pro enough...but seems to work for a lot of companies I work for. I do lighting "in the computer" so my output must be 100% color accurate or my renders will look bad when they are printed to the film....

Just a suggestion.. I got an LG, that seems bright as hell, is 23" widescreen..and I keep it pretty calibrated. If you aren't calibrating regularly, then your big expensive monitor is worthless anyhow...

I got my monitor from New Egg, I think it was about 220 bucks on sale...

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/02/2010 11:23:36 AM · #12

Originally posted by velocityvisual:

Aren't most good quality monitors from good reputable manufacturers good enough at this stage of technology? ... Maybe you'd be better served buying a monitor calibration device and a normal awesome (Sub $500) monitor...

I think you make a good point, calibration and ambient light measure are absolutely essential, and if you intend to print, you need to calibrate your printer as well (install paper appropriate icc profiles). The cost of the hardware to do this effectively, is well beyond the cost of a cheap monitor.

As far as "good quality monitors from good reputable manufacturers are good enough" is concerned, it depends what you consider good enough. I'd say, even if you view and edit files for web and email use only, would you be content to know that just about everyone, even users with perfectly calibrated high-end monitors would see something quite different from that which you think you created?

I use a white (non-glossy) iMac screen (considered a mid-range IPS monitor) for editing myself. It's still a little too saturated and bright with factory calibration, but after calibration and ambient light measure with a good spectrophotometer (colorMunki, in my case) it renders reasonably well. My two Mac laptops are another story. Even after careful calibration, these will still render more washed out images than the desktop. Laptops and lower end monitors also tend to be prone to more frequent color shifts across the screen...

Message edited by author 2010-11-02 11:36:08.