Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: New monitor NEC pa271q Vs eizo cg279x  (Read 668 times)

mbridge87

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
New monitor NEC pa271q Vs eizo cg279x
« on: December 17, 2018, 02:48:53 PM »

Hey everyone,

I'm in the market for a new monitor and on paper the NEC PA 271Q and Eizo CG279X seem very similar. The biggest difference being that the NEC is far cheaper (and that the Eizo isn't actually out yet).

I've spoken with both NEC and Eizo and predictably both say their monitors are great. I'd love to hear the thoughts of everyone here on these two monitors. I was almost ready to order the PA271Q until I spoke to someone at Color Confidence who said Eizo are much better. Now I'm confused!

I primarily need the monitor for photography, producing videos for clients and the occasional YouTube video is a secondary requirement. My most important feature is colour accuracy and uniformity.

Really look forward to hearing what you all think.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 15032
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: New monitor NEC pa271q Vs eizo cg279x
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2018, 03:17:02 PM »

I absolutely love my PA271Q but that's hardly evidence not to go Eizo. The monition detecting on/off feature (Human Sensor) feature is great. I'm coming from a 272W (the wife's got that now). These are the big differences in the newer unit:

- better black levels / improved contrast
- more connectivity (DP, mDP, HDMI x2, USB-C) and DP out
-  doubled the amount of picture modes (10 instead of 5)
-  the SpectraView Engine & backlight sensor performance is now very visible. You can see on the OSD when it is measuring and what the results are in real time
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

mbridge87

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
Re: New monitor NEC pa271q Vs eizo cg279x
« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2018, 04:09:34 PM »

Thanks for your thoughts Andrew. Your view echoes all that I can find online, albeit a very small number of opinions/reviews. It's quite surprising how little there is about professional monitors.

I shoot in a lot of studios and use just about every Eizo made in the last decade on a regular basis. They're great but I'm pretty sure NEC are just as good. The Eizo rep mentioned they have the in-built calibrator but, given it's inferior to a hardware calibrator like the i1, that feature doesn't matter to me.

Can anyone confirm that the colour accuracy and uniformity of the displays are of equal quality? Again, the Eizo rep said they were better than NEC but I don't think he was being impartial which is understandable.
Logged

elliot_n

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 768
Re: New monitor NEC pa271q Vs eizo cg279x
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2018, 04:51:01 PM »

The Eizo rep mentioned they have the in-built calibrator but, given it's inferior to a hardware calibrator like the i1, that feature doesn't matter to me.

What makes you think that it's inferior?

I use an Eizo CG275 - an earlier version of the display you are considering - and the built in calibrator is really handy and it is still producing excellent results after 7 years of use.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 15032
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: New monitor NEC pa271q Vs eizo cg279x
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2018, 05:27:51 PM »

Again, the Eizo rep said they were better than NEC but I don't think he was being impartial which is understandable.
If he wants a sale, he should provide some colorimetric proof. Colorimetric data is always impartial  :D
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Czornyj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1833
    • zarzadzaniebarwa.pl
Re: New monitor NEC pa271q Vs eizo cg279x
« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2018, 06:00:26 PM »

he should provide some colorimetric proof. Colorimetric data is always impartial  :D

...from NIST traceable spectroradiometer with FWHM resolution less or equal 5nm.

Anyway i'd rather save time and money, as there's little to no chance that CG279X will be better than PA271Q.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 15032
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: New monitor NEC pa271q Vs eizo cg279x
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2018, 06:11:34 PM »

...from NIST traceable spectroradiometer with FWHM resolution less or equal 5nm.
I don't understand the context.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

mbridge87

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
Re: New monitor NEC pa271q Vs eizo cg279x
« Reply #7 on: December 18, 2018, 03:16:32 AM »

What makes you think that it's inferior?

I use an Eizo CG275 - an earlier version of the display you are considering - and the built in calibrator is really handy and it is still producing excellent results after 7 years of use.

I'm afraid I don't know the technical reasons behind this, however, I have read on other forums that the built-in calibrator is not as accurate as using a dedicated calibrator. I also said this to the Eizo rep when he mentioned it as an advantage over the NEC and he confirmed that the in-built calibrator is not as good. He essentially said that it's useful for those that don't have the technical knowledge and/or time to sit and calibrate their monitor once a week or month. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice feature but as accuracy is top of my priorities it's not a deal breaker.
Logged

mbridge87

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
Re: New monitor NEC pa271q Vs eizo cg279x
« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2018, 03:18:33 AM »

...from NIST traceable spectroradiometer with FWHM resolution less or equal 5nm.

Anyway i'd rather save time and money, as there's little to no chance that CG279X will be better than PA271Q.

Thanks for that info. Sadly, I'm not exactly sure what it means. Could you elaborate? I'm assuming it states that the PA271Q is equal or better but I'd love it if you could explain a little more.
Logged

elliot_n

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 768
Re: New monitor NEC pa271q Vs eizo cg279x
« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2018, 06:19:59 AM »

I'm afraid I don't know the technical reasons behind this, however, I have read on other forums that the built-in calibrator is not as accurate as using a dedicated calibrator. I also said this to the Eizo rep when he mentioned it as an advantage over the NEC and he confirmed that the in-built calibrator is not as good. He essentially said that it's useful for those that don't have the technical knowledge and/or time to sit and calibrate their monitor once a week or month. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice feature but as accuracy is top of my priorities it's not a deal breaker.

This is the first time I've heard that Eizo's in-built calibration puck is inaccurate. Can you provide any links to those discussions on 'other forums' to back this up?

I calibrated my previous monitors with an i1 Display 2 puck, but I got rid of it when I bought the Eizo. Using such a device requires no technical knowledge. But you do need to plug it in, let it warm up, slide open the monitor's hood, and dangle it over the monitor's screen. Not the most taxing of tasks, but something I'm glad I no longer have to do. However if, as you suggest, I am sacrificing the accuracy of my monitor's calibration, then it's something I should reconsider.
Logged

Czornyj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1833
    • zarzadzaniebarwa.pl
Re: New monitor NEC pa271q Vs eizo cg279x
« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2018, 08:18:44 AM »

I don't understand the context.
I meant that colorimetric proof should be made with reference grade sensor, and BTW it's simple in this case, as both displays are factory calibrated with Konica-Minolta spectroradiometers and color analyzers, and have certificates with validation results in the box. So it's extremely  easy to prove, that both CG279X and PA271Q are both perfectly calibrated and offer virtually identical accuracy. They also both feature Panasonic panel (best on the market AFAIK) with same specification which in both cases is driven by high bit LUTs and 17x17x17 3DLUTs, so they're simply twin similar in every respect. The only difference I had noticed is that NEC has better response time (4ms vs 13ms in EIZO), but it's also rather unnoticeable and unimportant.

The only difference that is really easily noticeable is the price tag.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2018, 08:30:34 AM by Czornyj »
Logged

mbridge87

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
Re: New monitor NEC pa271q Vs eizo cg279x
« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2018, 09:19:43 AM »

I meant that colorimetric proof should be made with reference grade sensor, and BTW it's simple in this case, as both displays are factory calibrated with Konica-Minolta spectroradiometers and color analyzers, and have certificates with validation results in the box. So it's extremely  easy to prove, that both CG279X and PA271Q are both perfectly calibrated and offer virtually identical accuracy. They also both feature Panasonic panel (best on the market AFAIK) with same specification which in both cases is driven by high bit LUTs and 17x17x17 3DLUTs, so they're simply twin similar in every respect. The only difference I had noticed is that NEC has better response time (4ms vs 13ms in EIZO), but it's also rather unnoticeable and unimportant.

The only difference that is really easily noticeable is the price tag.

Thanks! This is all very helpful. I'm 99% persuaded by the PA271Q. I'll sleep on it for one more night and then decide.
Logged

mbridge87

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
Re: New monitor NEC pa271q Vs eizo cg279x
« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2018, 09:23:23 AM »

This is the first time I've heard that Eizo's in-built calibration puck is inaccurate. Can you provide any links to those discussions on 'other forums' to back this up?

I calibrated my previous monitors with an i1 Display 2 puck, but I got rid of it when I bought the Eizo. Using such a device requires no technical knowledge. But you do need to plug it in, let it warm up, slide open the monitor's hood, and dangle it over the monitor's screen. Not the most taxing of tasks, but something I'm glad I no longer have to do. However if, as you suggest, I am sacrificing the accuracy of my monitor's calibration, then it's something I should reconsider.

I think inaccurate is going a little far, sorry if I gave you that impression. It's just not as accurate as using a dedicated calibrator.

I can't remember which forums I've seen this in, it wasn't recently. If I had to guess it was probably someone talking about it on LiftGammaGain but I can't be sure. If you want to confirm it, call Eizo. The drop-down calibrator is more for a quick daily check. Your monthly (or weekly) full calibration is better done with something like the i1 Display Pro. Most studios I work in have a second external calibrator for this purpose.
Logged

elliot_n

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 768
Re: New monitor NEC pa271q Vs eizo cg279x
« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2018, 09:37:00 AM »

The drop-down calibrator is more for a quick daily check. Your monthly (or weekly) full calibration is better done with something like the i1 Display Pro. Most studios I work in have a second external calibrator for this purpose.

I've no idea how you would use it in the manner you're describing. It doesn't make sense. You either calibrate with the built-in device, or with a third party device. If you do your 'full calibration' with an i1 Display, and then the next day do a 'daily check' with the built-in device, then surely the profile/LUT created by the built-in device will supplant the one created by the i1 Display? I can't see how you can usefully juggle the two devices.

Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 15032
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: New monitor NEC pa271q Vs eizo cg279x
« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2018, 10:52:38 AM »

I meant that colorimetric proof should be made with reference grade sensor, and BTW it's simple in this case, as both displays are factory calibrated with Konica-Minolta spectroradiometers and color analyzers, and have certificates with validation results in the box. So it's extremely  easy to prove, that both CG279X and PA271Q are both perfectly calibrated and offer virtually identical accuracy. They also both feature Panasonic panel (best on the market AFAIK) with same specification which in both cases is driven by high bit LUTs and 17x17x17 3DLUTs, so they're simply twin similar in every respect. The only difference I had noticed is that NEC has better response time (4ms vs 13ms in EIZO), but it's also rather unnoticeable and unimportant.

The only difference that is really easily noticeable is the price tag.
Agreed and the OP should ask the Eizo rep to reply with colorimetric facts about accuracy after providing him the above comments. If he wants a sale....
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

mbridge87

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
Re: New monitor NEC pa271q Vs eizo cg279x
« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2018, 03:59:40 PM »

Agreed and the OP should ask the Eizo rep to reply with colorimetric facts about accuracy after providing him the above comments. If he wants a sale....

Honestly, there were a couple things the Eizo rep said that made me think twice. It's nice to hear that everyone here thinks the monitors are equal.
Logged

mbridge87

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
Re: New monitor NEC pa271q Vs eizo cg279x
« Reply #16 on: December 18, 2018, 04:04:59 PM »

I've no idea how you would use it in the manner you're describing. It doesn't make sense. You either calibrate with the built-in device, or with a third party device. If you do your 'full calibration' with an i1 Display, and then the next day do a 'daily check' with the built-in device, then surely the profile/LUT created by the built-in device will supplant the one created by the i1 Display? I can't see how you can usefully juggle the two devices.

Good point! Someone said to me that the in built colorimeter would check that the profile remained accurate, however, now you mention it, i agree it makes little sense. Whatever the case may be I'm pretty certain that the in built colorimeter is inferior.
Logged

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 490
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Re: New monitor NEC pa271q Vs eizo cg279x
« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2018, 06:14:37 PM »

Good point! Someone said to me that the in built colorimeter would check that the profile remained accurate, however, now you mention it, i agree it makes little sense. Whatever the case may be I'm pretty certain that the in built colorimeter is inferior.

When I bought my Eizo a few years back, there was a model that had a full on calibration device, and my model that has what is essentially just a white point adjustment device.  The idea being that one would use an iOne Display Pro to perform the actual calibration, and one could set the internal device to keep the white point consistent between calibrations.  And I found that the white point adjustment wasn't all that consistent anyways, so I don't use it and just recalibrate with the iOne Display Pro device.

I've also been told by an Eizo representative at a trade show, that with the newer displays, an iOne Display probe will, in general, be the better choice for calibration, but he didn't say why.  It is possible though, that models that store a real 3D LUT in the display will be more accurate than displays that do not.

When I purchased my Eizo, I chose it over NEC because I needed it's frame rates for video work.  For still photography this is irrelevant. I think now, the only advantage for the Eizo, are the models that let you calibrate with non-Eizo software and load the resulting 3D LUT into the display memory. This is far more useful for video workflows than still photo workflows. IOW, for still photography, the displays will probably be almost identical, so choose the less expensive. brand.
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

elliot_n

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 768
Re: New monitor NEC pa271q Vs eizo cg279x
« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2018, 08:41:39 PM »

When I bought my Eizo a few years back, there was a model that had a full on calibration device, and my model that has what is essentially just a white point adjustment device.  The idea being that one would use an iOne Display Pro to perform the actual calibration, and one could set the internal device to keep the white point consistent between calibrations.  And I found that the white point adjustment wasn't all that consistent anyways, so I don't use it and just recalibrate with the iOne Display Pro device.

Thanks for posting. This clarifies the workflow described by mbridge87. What model Eizo was this?
Logged

mbridge87

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
Re: New monitor NEC pa271q Vs eizo cg279x
« Reply #19 on: December 19, 2018, 02:57:53 AM »

When I bought my Eizo a few years back, there was a model that had a full on calibration device, and my model that has what is essentially just a white point adjustment device.  The idea being that one would use an iOne Display Pro to perform the actual calibration, and one could set the internal device to keep the white point consistent between calibrations.  And I found that the white point adjustment wasn't all that consistent anyways, so I don't use it and just recalibrate with the iOne Display Pro device.

I've also been told by an Eizo representative at a trade show, that with the newer displays, an iOne Display probe will, in general, be the better choice for calibration, but he didn't say why.  It is possible though, that models that store a real 3D LUT in the display will be more accurate than displays that do not.

When I purchased my Eizo, I chose it over NEC because I needed it's frame rates for video work.  For still photography this is irrelevant. I think now, the only advantage for the Eizo, are the models that let you calibrate with non-Eizo software and load the resulting 3D LUT into the display memory. This is far more useful for video workflows than still photo workflows. IOW, for still photography, the displays will probably be almost identical, so choose the less expensive. brand.

Thanks for clearing that up. Very useful.

Given that i do edit video on occasion and it's concievable I'll have more video work in the future, are there negatives between the pa271q and the cg279x? Are there still frame rate advantages or are these monitors pretty much identical in that regard as well?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up