What would you buy in a 27" monitor now?

[Peter McLennan]

And how about typing (or copy/paste) the answer to the question about color/colour accuracy?

I considered that a rhetorical question.

[Rhossydd]

Turns out my new PC ......... does not have HDMI, but rather Display Port.

Same here, another reason I went for the Eizo. A lot of the budget screens now don't have that option.

[digitaldog]

I considered that a rhetorical question.

To a meaningless statement about color accuracy. Got it.

[Peter McLennan]

To a meaningless statement about color accuracy. Got it.

Not made nor verifiable by me.

[digitaldog]

Not made nor verifiable by me.

Just passed along here and again meaningless.
"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
-Bertrand Russell

[BobShaw]

The big question is, how much editing of the image do you do?

Look at it this way, most cameras will produce a JPG file. If you pulled that card out of the camera and plugged it into a printer that takes cards and pressed print, how much influence would your monitor have? The answer of course is absolutely nothing. The monitor is not in the output path, and it never is.

If you only shoot portrait then you will never exceed sRGB anyway, and almost any monitor can do that. (Some better than others obviously)
If you are producing for the web, then again you only need sRGB.

If you shoot product then the colour is critical, but not on the monitor. You calibrate the camera and the colour is right, and the output will be right, regardless of what the monitor looks like. I export a TIF out of Phocus and its gets no further adjustments, because it's right. I very quickly got over the temptation to adjust.

I have an Eizo monitor attached to my iMac, but most times I just look at the iMac. I probably would not buy another Eizo because I don't need it.

However if you edit the colours a lot then the monitor is important. It is up to you.

[Kadsura]

I bought this . https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1176775-REG/benq_sw2700pt_27_photographer_monitor_with.html

Mostly great reviews and highly recommended by two folks at BH I spoke to. Has the specs I want, and I decided I do not want or need 4K in a monitor any time soon, especially a 27". Revoke my cool photographer card if need be.  I also do not even own a printer, and sometimes I even say "screw it" when it comes to exposing to the right. And, the extra 600$ the EIZO would cost is not nothing to me. I spend my money more on travel--France last year, Ireland in 2017, and lots of trips up to the SF Bay area and environs to escape the horror of living in SoCal. If anything, I prioritize opportunity and capture over post-processing at this point in my life (And I'm probably going to CaptureOne after 14 years with LR, cause I'm not going to pay for CC every month). When I'm an old geezer, I won't be able to trek around the world as I (my wife and I) can now. (In case you are curious, I use a Nikon D7200 as my main rig and an Oly TG-5 for when things get really wet/messy)

In addition, I do about an hour of image editing per week at most in the last several years. Most of the work I'm known for (to the extent I'm known at all) is my grayscale electron micrography, which has been featured on a dozen journal, book, and magazine covers, and in five museum/gallery exhibits. For those cases, no matter how effort I expend on my image editing, most of of the downstream editing, production/printing is out of my control. And even then, color accuracy is not an issue (provided printers do not introduce a color cast). Sure, if I did hours of post-processing a day, I would certainly buy the EIZO. But, just like the guy who needs a fun car (e.g., a Miata) that will also serve mostly as a commuter, I also do not need to shell out 100$K to get 700 HP.