2007 monitor vs.12/2015 monitor better for photo editing?

<p>I've been using a monitor manufactured in 2007 for my photo editing, and am thinking of getting a new monitor (man. 12/15). I compared specs on a site that has hundreds of monitors and you can select two and get a side by side comparison. I left out a lot of the info that I didn't think was important. The<strong> bold</strong> info is the old monitor; regular type is the new monitor. If there's --- a line, it means one model didn't have the info. I understand that my monitor is 9 years old now, and I've been using it steadily for 7 years. But I can't judge if the image has changed during the time. I left out brand & model #.<br>

Another interesting thing would be to learn if there's really been much of a change in image/color quality. Both monitors are in the same price range, so I understand that neither may be "high end."<br>

Is there anything here that stands out as making one better than the other for photo editing. </p>

<p>Panel Technology: <strong>TN</strong> IPS<br>

Screen Size:<strong> 24,0 Zoll (inch)</strong> 23,8 Zoll (inch)<br>

Pixel Pitch:<strong> 0,270 mm</strong> 0,274 mm<br>

Response Time (g-2-g): <strong>2 ms</strong> 6 ms<br>

Native Resolution: <strong>1920 x 1200</strong> 1920 x 1080<br>

Brightness: <strong>400 cd/qm</strong> 250 cd/qm<br>

Contrast Ratio: <strong>--- </strong> 1000:1<br>

Dynamic Contrast:<strong> 3000:1</strong> 8000000:1<br>

Color depth: <strong>16,70 Mio.</strong> 16,70 Mio.<br>

Net dimensions (WxHxD):<strong> 579 x 455-580 x 240 mm</strong> 556.6 x 423.1 x 179.9 mm<br>

Input Video Signal:<strong> D-Sub (analog) DVI-D (digital) HDMI (digital)</strong> D-Sub (analog) HDMI (digital) <br>

Color management: <strong>RGB sRGB</strong> RGB sRGB<br>

Color Temperature Interpolation settings:<strong> no</strong> yes<br>

VESA Mount: <strong>yes</strong> yes<br>

TCO compliance:<strong> TCO03</strong> TCO 6.0<br>

Power consumtion:<strong> 85 Watt</strong> 20 Watt</p>

<p>The newer IPS monitor will work better for photography because the image stays accurate when viewed at different angles.</p>

<p>I would, however, recommend you purchase a monitor that delivers higher resolution. At 1920x1080 this new IPS monitor offers less detailed resolution than the near-ancient one. Consider saving money up for an IPS monitor that offers around 2560 x 1440. Just make sure your computer can handle that increased output.<br>

<br />ME</p>

<p>Relevant questions include... do you use hardware calibration and if so, does your old monitor calibrate? If you don't use hardware calibration, you should if you're trying to do accurate color photography. The current champion brands for accurate color are NEC and Eizo. It's nice to have a monitor that equals or exceeds the Adobe RGB color space. Budget for a calibration device. My NEC does wonderfully with Spectraview software and the Spectraview sensor. </p>

<p>you might consider a 4K monitor as well such as the LG 31MU97 for about $900 or<br>

The Dell 32 in equivalent (about $1300) - apologies forgot the model # of the Dell</p>

<p>One thing you should check are your eyes. Do you have normal color vision? </p>

<p>I am color deficient and can not not see certain color shades no matter which monitor displays them. Why pay $1k for a monitor if you can't see the variations anyway?</p>

<p>I can't see there is much difference between the two you are considering except the newer one uses less power (presumably due to LEDs). The differences in brightness and response time are not really relevant to still photo editing, as usually monitors are too bright if anything for accurate matching of prints. You are not looking at video (I assume) so the response time is not important. I would hold onto your money and pass.</p>