Topic: Monitor purchase 2560x1440 vs 3840x2160 (Read 3256 times)

CindyFlood · « **on:** May 25, 2020, 12:07:11 pm »

I have been studying up on monitors in anticipation of replacing my old NEC 2690 with Spectraview. I have decided on a 27" Eizo, but can't figure out if I should spend the extra $500 for a 27" with 3840x2160 (vs 27" with 2560x1440). I will be using this monitor for my personal photography. Does anyone have any insight?

Peter McLennan · « **Reply #1 on:** May 25, 2020, 02:34:58 pm »

My 27" works at 2560x1440, the lower of those two resolutions. I see no pixels, ever.

IMHO, the only reason to go with more screen pixels is if you have a very large monitor (32" plus) or if you have superhero closeup vision.

Bear in mind, with the higher res monitor, the user interface will be scaled smaller unless the software can be adjusted to suit. That's not always possible.

I'd spend the $500 on a second monitor. Displaying the user interface on one monitor and the image by itself on the high priced screen has major benefits.
In fact, even a $200 27" secondary monitor for the interface (and for file management) will suffice. My second 27" monitor cost me exactly that.

The only downside to two monitors is the desk space required. The upside is great.

Jim Kasson · « **Reply #2 on:** May 25, 2020, 02:53:42 pm »

Quote from: CindyFlood on May 25, 2020, 12:07:11 pm

I have been studying up on monitors in anticipation of replacing my old NEC 2690 with Spectraview. I have decided on a 27" Eizo, but can't figure out if I should spend the extra $500 for a 27" with 3840x2160 (vs 27" with 2560x1440). I will be using this monitor for my personal photography. Does anyone have any insight?

For photo editing, I think the differences are unimportant. For big spreadsheets and having a lot of windows open at the same time, 4K makes a big difference to me. Text is crisper, too.

The user interface problems of 4K monitors are things of the past, at least with the software I use.

Jim

CindyFlood · « **Reply #3 on:** May 25, 2020, 04:50:49 pm »

Quote from: Peter McLennan on May 25, 2020, 02:34:58 pm

My 27" works at 2560x1440, the lower of those two resolutions. I see no pixels, ever.

IMHO, the only reason to go with more screen pixels is if you have a very large monitor (32" plus) or if you have superhero closeup vision.

Bear in mind, with the higher res monitor, the user interface will be scaled smaller unless the software can be adjusted to suit. That's not always possible.

I'd spend the $500 on a second monitor. Displaying the user interface on one monitor and the image by itself on the high priced screen has major benefits.
In fact, even a $200 27" secondary monitor for the interface (and for file management) will suffice. My second 27" monitor cost me exactly that.

The only downside to two monitors is the desk space required. The upside is great.

Thank you for your response, Peter. I do have two 27" monitors and I will only be replacing the old NEC that I use for photo editing. I keep my tools on the other.

CindyFlood · « **Reply #4 on:** May 25, 2020, 04:54:14 pm »

Quote from: Jim Kasson on May 25, 2020, 02:53:42 pm

For photo editing, I think the differences are unimportant. For big spreadsheets and having a lot of windows open at the same time, 4K makes a big difference to me. Text is crisper, too.

The user interface problems of 4K monitors are things of the past, at least with the software I use.

Jim

Thank you for your thoughts, Jim.
I'm conflicted because it is for photo editing. I would rather not spend the $500, but I don't want to be sorry later that I didn't (since either way, it is a big, expensive purchase for me.) I used the NEC for 10 years, so if this one lasts 10 years, then $500 spent now will not mean much.

Jim Kasson · « **Reply #5 on:** May 25, 2020, 05:04:52 pm »

Quote from: CindyFlood on May 25, 2020, 04:54:14 pm

Thank you for your thoughts, Jim.
I'm conflicted because it is for photo editing. I would rather not spend the $500, but I don't want to be sorry later that I didn't (since either way, it is a big, expensive purchase for me.) I used the NEC for 10 years, so if this one lasts 10 years, then $500 spent now will not mean much.

I have a Eizo CG319X and a BenQ SW271, in addition to a few old Spectrascans. If you're trying to save money, you might consider the BenQ. The (per monitor, with results included in the box) calibration appears to be very good, it's cheaper than the equivalent Eizo, and it's 4K. It doesn't calibrate itself like the CG 319X, and it doesn't the profile saving flexibility, but for a budget monitor it's very good, and the hood that ships with it is nicer than either the Eizo or NEC hoods.

Jim

CindyFlood · « **Reply #6 on:** May 25, 2020, 06:02:40 pm »

Quote from: Jim Kasson on May 25, 2020, 05:04:52 pm

I have a Eizo CG319X and a BenQ SW271, in addition to a few old Spectrascans. If you're trying to save money, you might consider the BenQ. The (per monitor, with results included in the box) calibration appears to be very good, it's cheaper than the equivalent Eizo, and it's 4K. It doesn't calibrate itself like the CG 319X, and it doesn't the profile saving flexibility, but for a budget monitor it's very good, and the hood that ships with it is nicer than either the Eizo or NEC hoods.

Jim

I started out with BenQ in mind, but I read so many negative reviews that I decided to bite the bullet and go for an Eizo. I don't want to buy again for a few years and I don't want to have to send anything back (fingers crossed!)

texshooter · « **Reply #7 on:** June 03, 2020, 03:18:15 am »

Since the 27" 4K monitor looks sharper than the 27" 2K (most people say this is true), wouldn't then the 4K help you to edit images with greater precision? I would think more precision is better than less.

Jim Kasson · « **Reply #8 on:** June 03, 2020, 12:06:21 pm »

Quote from: texshooter on June 03, 2020, 03:18:15 am

Since the 27" 4K monitor looks sharper than the 27" 2K (most people say this is true), wouldn't then the 4K help you to edit images with greater precision? I would think more precision is better than less.

I've found it doesn't make much difference for image editing. The 4K monitor allows you to see more at once, but 2500 pixels or so wide is plenty. But I use 4K monitors, because they're better for some other things.

Jim

texshooter · « **Reply #9 on:** June 03, 2020, 06:29:30 pm »

Quote from: Jim Kasson on June 03, 2020, 12:06:21 pm

I've found it doesn't make much difference for image editing. The 4K monitor allows you to see more at once, but 2500 pixels or so wide is plenty. But I use 4K monitors, because they're better for some other things.

Jim

I guess it comes down to preference. Here is a good review by one user who swears 27" 4K is better than 27" 2K with regards to photo editing. My head says 2K, but my heart says 4K.

https://youtu.be/pD7JtLkWIcw

texshooter · « **Reply #10 on:** June 03, 2020, 10:21:49 pm »

Here is something interesting.

According to this calculator Link

For a 27" monitor, you must sit closer than 32 inches to benefit from 4K sharpness.

CindyFlood · « **Reply #11 on:** June 06, 2020, 09:50:46 am »

Thanks for the insights. I have decided on the Eizo ColorEdge CS2740 27" but I haven't purchased it yet. It seems to be my best option for value vs cost.

Alan Klein · « **Reply #12 on:** June 06, 2020, 10:31:35 am »

Quote from: CindyFlood on May 25, 2020, 04:54:14 pm

Thank you for your thoughts, Jim.
I'm conflicted because it is for photo editing. I would rather not spend the $500, but I don't want to be sorry later that I didn't (since either way, it is a big, expensive purchase for me.) I used the NEC for 10 years, so if this one lasts 10 years, then $500 spent now will not mean much.

Be happy. Spend the $500, Cindy. It seems you won't be satisfied if you buy the cheaper one and will complain for the next ten years about how you should have gotten the better one. Anyway, you deserve it.

CindyFlood · « **Reply #13 on:** June 06, 2020, 11:23:55 am »

You are right, Alan. I am going to spend the additional $500. I don't know if I deserve it, but I am going for it!

I have decided on Eizo ColorEdge CS2740 27".

Alan Klein · « **Reply #14 on:** June 06, 2020, 11:30:44 am »

Good luck. Looks like a great unit.

CindyFlood · « **Reply #15 on:** June 06, 2020, 09:47:20 pm »

Thanks Alan!

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #16 on:** June 11, 2020, 01:45:01 pm »

Quote from: texshooter on June 03, 2020, 03:18:15 am

Since the 27" 4K monitor looks sharper than the 27" 2K (most people say this is true), wouldn't then the 4K help you to edit images with greater precision? I would think more precision is better than less.

Higher resolution means less magnification and therefore a sharper image, that is if you work with actual pixels.

Best regards
Erik

CindyFlood · « **Reply #17 on:** June 15, 2020, 08:01:05 pm »

I took a detour and upgraded my computer first. I finally got the new monitor installed and am so happy that I went for the 3840x2160 4K Eizo CS2740. Thank you to all of you who helped me make the decision.

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #18 on:** June 18, 2020, 08:05:46 am »

Quote from: texshooter on June 03, 2020, 03:18:15 am

Since the 27" 4K monitor looks sharper than the 27" 2K (most people say this is true), wouldn't then the 4K help you to edit images with greater precision? I would think more precision is better than less.

Hi,

4K looks sharper because it yields less magnification. Less pixels may be better for critical work.

Best regards
Erik

kers · « **Reply #19 on:** June 18, 2020, 08:13:26 am »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr on June 18, 2020, 08:05:46 am

Hi,

4K looks sharper because it yields less magnification. Less pixels may be better for critical work.

Best regards
Erik

I still work on my old Dell - it still works as day one- colours do not drift.
It is 2560 x1600px display.
I love the size and pixel dimensions. It is a pity most displays are 1440px high these days.
+ i bought a very good and cheap 43 inch 4K TV to see how my 4k video and photos look at 4K ( LG - IPS television)
For me that works.
My reference is my HPz3100 printer- colour is rock steady. 13 years old and after some maintenance ready for another 10.

Author Topic: Monitor purchase 2560x1440 vs 3840x2160 (Read 3256 times)