Anyone prefer 24 inch monitors over 27 inch?

[Kat D.]

<p>My 8-year-old Eizo CG19 (19-inch) monitor is dying. Will get another Eizo and am trying to decide between 24 and 27-inch. Most of what I read on net suggests 27-inch. But a few people say they don't like the way the smaller dot pitch and ppi reduces sizes of type (where you can't adjust size with the software).<br>

I've been using a 19-inch for so long, a 24-inch will seem spacious. But I wonder if I should go for the smaller dot pitch in the 27-inch for more clarity in photos and just adjust sizes of type in software as necessary? I don't mean change the native resolution of the monitor, just adjust icon sizes, etc. (I'm in OS 10.6.8 on Mac.)</p>

<p>Here are the three monitors I'm considering:</p>

<p>CX241 with Eizo EasyPix sensor, $1245 -- 94ppi, 0.27 dot pitch<br /><br />CX271 with Eizo EasyPix sensor, $1465 -- 109 ppi, 0.23 dot pitch<br /><br />CG247, $1900 -- 94ppi, 0.27 dot pitch<br /><br />Complete comparisons here:<br>

http://www.eizoglobal.com/support/db/comparison?m3=CG247&m5=CX271&m7=CX241</p>

<p>I know there are a lot of people in this forum who like NEC monitors, but I have been happy with my Eizo so want to stick with that brand.<br>

<br />I am also wondering if I should consider the CG 24-inch over the CX models? I can't see much difference that would affect photography work except that the CG is self-calibrating (doesn't need me to calibrate with a sensor, as I understand it).</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

[eric_brody]

<p>I know you said you want to stick with Eizo, an excellent brand, but rethink, save your money, get an NEC with the Spectraview software and calibrator. You'll have a monitor recommended and respected by many excellent photographers. The 24-27 question is clearly up to you. Look at them in a store if you can, if not get the 27. Screen real estate is like sensor or film real estate, bigger is usually better. I have the 27" NEC and it's the best monitor I've ever used, recommended by Andrew Rodney whose opinions I trust. Good luck.</p>

[lwg]

<p>I have a 30" NEC and it's great as far as color goes. I also have a Macbook Pro with the 15" retina display. The retina display is so much easier on the eyes. I would not buy a new monitor without a higher pixel density closer to the retina display. So I'd look for a quality 4K monitor with excellent color in the 24" to 30" range. <br>

Another factor to consider is the aspect ratio. I find the 16:10 more useful than 16:9 for most tasks.</p>

[Kat D.]

<p>LG: Thanks for your thoughts. A 4K monitor sounds nice, theoretically (I love the resolution on my ipad, for example), but this article in particular scared me off:<br /> http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-4k-monitor-doesnt-exist/</p>

<p>Also, I believe Andrew Rodney said in these forums that calibration capabilities for 4K monitors not up to snuff yet for photography.</p>

<p>[Later] I see Eizo has one or more 4K monitors, and I suspect those could be calibrated fine, but super-expensive.)</p>

<p>Eric Brody: I might reconsider NEC. Thanks.</p>

[Kat D.]

<p>I see the NEC PA272W (the one that seems closest to the Eizo CX271 in specs) is about $1200, so $265 less than the Eizo. Not a huge difference. As I remember, the NEC's used to be much less expensive than the comparable Eizo's.</p>

[eric_brody]

<p>Kat, $265 might not be much to you, but it will buy a fair amount of ink/paper and/or a weekend photo trip where you make an unforgettable image :-)</p>

[Kat D.]

<p>Eric: I don't sniff at $265 :) My point was that the difference in price between NEC and Eizo for similar monitors used to be much more. As I remember, when I got my CG19 for $1500, a similar NEC was about half the price.</p>

[howard_m]

<p>the NEC 272 is often on sale for $1K USD (it just was on sale and came w/ the hood ($100) too)</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>Thanks for the interesting link upon 4K screens. I had a cheapo Samsung running until my vid card died. - I really liked it for<em> viewing</em> photos. - The high ppi gives a nice impression. Reading text was still possible on that screen but a challenge compared to ordinary 19 & 24"s I had before. Pixel peeping also no longer seemed a real option or didn't feel like it used to do on other screens on the 27" 4K.<br>

My personal bottom line: in the end I am lusting after 3 screens: a not overly big fully calibrated Eizo (or alternative) to tweak colors, something 4K or a 5K iMac to view pictures and a conventional 24 - 27" (I am not aware of the difference between them.) for anything like office work web browsing etc and photo editing on the pixel level too.<br>

So yes for anything like "work" my preference would be a lower resolution, to have less eye strain / no need for dedicated correction (yet).</p>

[dag_fosse]

<p>The price difference between Eizo and NEC is a long-lived myth. </p>

<p>You cannot directly compare NEC PA242 with Eizo CG247. The corresponding Eizo model is the CX241 - and they cost roughly the same everywhere. In the US, NEC has chosen to not market corresponding models to CG - but in Europe there is the "Spectraview Reference" line, at exactly the price of Eizo CG.</p>

<p>The CG series has a lot of extras that a photographer may not need: Support for broadcast standards and other video related features, a hood, and an integrated calibration sensor. It also has a 3D LUT (which the NEC also has) - but aside from that CX and CG are identical. Panel technologies are the same. I have a CG246 and a CX240, and I can attest that in practical use for photography, the two behave absolutely identically.</p>

<p>Kat, don't even consider the edition with EasyPix calibrator. Get ColorNavigator. EasyPix is fine for what it does (a simple fool-proof calibrator for people who don't really want to be bothered with calibration), but it has only a fraction of ColorNavigator's power and versatility.</p>

<p> </p>

[Kat D.]

<p>Dag: Thank you so much for your input. VERY helpful.</p>

<p>Interesting about the NEC/Eizo comparisons and the "Spectraview Reference" line.</p>

<p>Thank you for pointing out that the Eizo EX sensor only works with the Easy Pix software. I was thinking it would work with Color Navigator. I use Color Navigator now on my CG19, with an Optix XR (DTP 94). The Optix is rather old, so I thought I would get the Eizo sensor to replace it, and at only $100, it would be cheaper than an i1 or similar device. Good thing you pointed out that it won't work with Color Navigator. That would've been a waste of money.</p>

<p>A while ago, before I noticed the EX sensor, I wrote to Eizo about my Optix XR compatibilities, and they said it will work with Navigator 6.4.7 which I can use on the CX241 in my current OS 10.6.8. When I upgrade my OS, I will have to use a newer Color Navigator and the Optix won't work anymore.</p>

<p>Thank you also for confirming that the CG and the CX are identical, except for the video functions, hood, and integrated sensor in the CG. That's how it looked from the specs, but hearing from someone who has both CG and CX monitors is very reassuring.</p>

<p>So I plan to order the CX (<em>probably</em> the 24-inch), without the EX sensor, use my Optix XR until I upgrade to newer OS.....and be back in business. My CG19 screen is quickly turning purple!</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

 

[dag_fosse]

<p>Actually the EX sensor works with both Easypix and Colornavigator. But you specifically said Easypix in your initial post, so I assumed you were referring to the software and not the sensor.</p>

<p>Sorry for the confusion. So to confirm - yes, go ahead and get ColorNavigator and the EX-2 sensor!</p>

[Kat D.]

<p>Thanks for the further clarification!</p>

<p>After your first post, I went to the B&H site, and the text for the CX241 with EX2 sensor <em>did</em> suggest the sensor only works with EasyPix. No mention of Color Navigator in relation to the EX2. But after your second post, I found this at the Eizo site, which confirms what you said, that it indeed works with Color Navigator (in case anyone wants this confirmation):</p>

<p>http://www.eizo.be/products/accessories/software-measuring-devices/EX2.html</p>

<p>Thanks again!</p>

[dag_fosse]

<p>The Eizo sensors are rebranded Spyders, and given the bad reputation the Spyders have for poor accuracy and consistency (probably justified), some people are concerned that the EX sensors aren't quite up to the standards of the monitor. I don't think they need to worry.</p>

<p>I've used a number of sensors over the years, including a couple of Spyders, a couple of Eizo EXs, and the i1 Display Pro that I now use for the CX240. For the CG I use the internal sensor, correlated to match the i1D3 (yes, you can do that).</p>

<p>My experience is that the Spyders are...not all over the place, exactly, but not entirely consistent either. But the Eizo sensors have always been spot on with perfect inter-unit match. Clearly they have been made to tighter specs and with much better quality control.</p>

<p>One of my co-workers, a graphic designer with whom I work very closely, just got a CS240 with EX2 sensor - somewhat by mistake; the plan was for her to borrow my i1D3 until she got her own. But now that she has the EX, there's clearly no need. It performs splendidly and matches the i1 perfectly.</p>

<p>Still, the i1 does have some inherent advantages and that's why I use it. For one thing it has dichroic glass filters, not plastic, so there's no risk of fading. It's also constructed with a lens and a long light path, which at least in theory should make it much less vulnerable to stray light or the infamous "IPS off-angle white glow". The latter, BTW, is eliminated completely in the Eizos with a polarizing film. Black is dead black even from a steep angle.</p>

[Kat D.]

<p>Hi Dag. You read my mind. After, my last post, I starting digging around on net about the EX2 sensor (which I mistakenly called by the software name EasyPix in my earlier post). Found what you are saying about them being rebranded Spyder sensors. Interesting that you and your friend find the EX2 to work well. I could also just use my Optix XR until I update my OS, then get the i1. The EX2 isn't a huge investment, though, just $90 when bought with monitor....</p>

<p>Here's the last thing: 24 or 27 inch. I like the idea of 109 ppi of the 27 inch for photos, but I'm a little concerned about having to enlarge things with type in order to read them easily. Last night, I did some screen grabs of various things, then viewed in Photoshop as they would appear on the 24 and 27 monitors. My CG19 is 86 ppi, so the 24 inch's 94 ppi would be 91%, the 27 inch's 109 would be 79%. I do see that in Firefox, you can zoom in on a page. And, in InDesign, you can make the page whatever size you want. But there would be things that couldn't be zoomed in on, such as tool bars. Would be nice if I could just try both monitors but there isn't any place where I can do that around here.</p>

<p>Anyway.....is that why you have 24 inch monitors? Or is it because you like to work with two at a time and 24 makes more sense for that purpose?</p>

<p>I'm probably at the point where I just have to order something and see how I like it and exchange if necessary. But packing something up and hauling to UPS is such a pain....</p>

<p>Thanks for your help.</p>

[dag_fosse]

<p>I don't think you'll notice any big difference in pixel pitch. These are all within the same order of magnitude, you'll probably just lean a little bit closer. A true 4K / UHD screen, however, would be a different story, but none of these are.</p>

<p>I haven't thought much about screen size. I'm comfortable with 24 and don't feel the need for anything bigger. At the moment I'm holding out on 4K. I'm sure it's the future, but I'm in no hurry. Actually I like to be able to get really close at 100% view, which you don't on 4K.</p>

[Kat D.]

<p>Thanks, Dag.<br>

I went to Best Buy today, which is only place in my city where I can look at monitors. Didn't have relevant brands or size/resolution combinations, of course, but I could see 24 and 27 inch monitors in real life. Decided 27 would feel too big to me, so I will get the 24. Helps to see something as physical reality :)</p>