23" ACD vs 27" DELL (or comparable?)

[HiRez]

As a long time Apple die-hard I am having some issues posting this thread however I am looking to upgrade my 19" CRT with a new model. I am looking for a 1920x1600 display. Only comparable monitor I have found to the Apple Cinema Displays are those from DELL.

Since I live in Europe the price for the ACD = 1149 Euro
The DELL 27" = 1159 Euro

Advantages of the ACD: it's from Apple, has Firewire hub (don't really need it at the moment) and looks splendid
Advantages of the DELL: it's bigger (is that a true advantage?); higher specs (contrast at least 1000:1 vs 700:1 for Apple - brightness 450 vs 400 cd/m2) and seems better adjustable in terms of tilt and height although I might mount it on a VESA arm so that advantage might not be crucial.

Since I have nowhere to view the DELL I was wondering if anyone has worked with both and has an opinion on which is a better monitor. I know just specs alone should not be basis for a purchase. So if anyone has used or seen the Dell in action I would be anxious to read about their experience. The 23" ACD I have seen in real life and seems a beautiful monitor

Or should I wait until Apple introduces their own 27" ? Will the 23" be upgraded soon with LED backlights??

Thanks in advance for any advice...

HiRez

[chucker]

Whether bigger is better or worse is entirely up to you. With the resolution the same (you mean 1920x1200), the detail isn't any different, just its density.

I also wouldn't go by a company's given specs. If you really wish to buy based on contrast and brightness, have a third party (such as a magazine) perform those tests instead.

[MCQ]

Here's a review on the Dell 27", might help you out.

http://review.zdnet.com/Dell_2707WFP_27_inch_LCD_monitor/4505-3174_16-32306445.html

[alcimedes]

While I haven't used this monitor in particular I've had good luck and experiences with Dell monitors in the past.

[Brave Ulysses]

Go for one of the Gateways.... they look better than Dell, are likely cheaper, available at CompUSA and have terrific quality and specs. They blow apple out of the water

[Kraetos]

Be wary!

The ACD uses S-IPS technology for its panel. The Dell 27" uses S-PVA.

S-IPS technology maintains color consistency at much wider angles, and also will calibrate more accurately. S-PVA will give you a higher contrast ratio, but loses color consistency after only a few degrees!

Bottom line: What are you using the monitor for? If you are doing any kind of serious photoshop work, web design, graphic design, or any other creative professional work, then the ACD is for you. Doing this kind of work with an S-PVA monitor will drive you bonkers (I am, unfortunately, suck in this situation because I didn't know this when I bought my monitor), because colors on the screen will look signifigantly different than colors on paper. Hell, colors on the left or right of the screen wont even be the same as the colors in the center!

If you are a casual user (web surfing, email, word processing) or a gamer, then color consistency probably means nothing to you and you can roll with the Dell, as it will seem brighter and more vivid. I will also point out that the Dell LCD line is inconsistent - some use S-IPS, and some use S-PVA. The 27" uses S-PVA.

Finally, MOST large monitors use S-PVA because its cheaper. This is where Apple stands out, by using S-IPS, and not cutting any corners. Sometimes, "you get what you pay for" isn't just an overused cliché.

(To the mods: given how much this topic turns up, I would be more than happy to write a comprehensive overview of the differences between panel technologies and have it stickied.)

[alcimedes]

Go for it!

[Dorian Gray]

What are you planning to use the display for? If you are doing any colour-critical work such as preparing photographs for printing or online publishing you should get the Cinema Display. The Dell UltraSharps that I've used have all been way too bright, even at minimum brightness (where unfortunately the whites are no longer actually white). This means you need to reduce the dynamic range (i.e. contrast) to achieve calibration, which results in awful flat-looking colours that are nothing remotely like the print. Apple's Cinema Displays are also very resistant to colour and brightness variations across a moderate range of viewing angles, while the UltraSharps that I've used have had severe variations in the corners of the screen. But I've never used any of the really big UltraSharps and they may be better in this regard.

A high-quality backlight is crucial for accurate colour (this is why the high-end NEC screens have expensive LED backlights). A pixel in an LCD panel filters the light from the backlight, so it can only transmit light that exists in the backlight. If the spectral distribution of the backlight is such that a particular wavelength is only present in small intensities, then even the best LCD panel in the world could not display that colour. This limits the colour gamut. Apple Cinema Displays have some of the best backlights in the industry, excepting products like NEC and EIZO. However, even a Cinema Display cannot ensure accurate colour in the workflow unless your room is neutrally coloured.

The other nice thing about the Cinema Displays is of course their design. They feel high quality in every sense. This is not your typical plastic abomination that squeaks and creaks when adjusted (of course it helps that the Apple displays can't actually be adjusted very much ;) ). Apple's monitors look a million dollars and adjust with a quality feel that just isn't there on Dells, etc.

On the other hand, the Cinema Displays have less than great response times and could do with a price cut.

[neiltc13]

Apple's Displays are disappointing for the price you pay. You only get a single DVI input, whereas the Dell one includes a variety of inputs.

[rasmits]

Apple's Displays are disappointing for the price you pay. You only get a single DVI input, whereas the Dell one includes a variety of inputs.Yes, there are several products where the Apple Tax just isn't worth it (most of the time of course). Displays and routers come immediately to mind.

[turtle]

Threads like this make me want to cry. I was perfectly content to buy a Dell until I found that color consistency is an issue. :\ As a photographer, this just can't be allowed. :( I guess I'll have it added to my "Must save up money for and bit the bullet on this one" list. I know it's worth it in the end though.

[alcimedes]

Threads like this make me want to cry. I was perfectly content to buy a Dell until I found that color consistency is an issue. :\ As a photographer, this just can't be allowed. :( I guess I'll have it added to my "Must save up money for and bit the bullet on this one" list. I know it's worth it in the end though.

Probably not as hard as you'd cry if you dropped $800 on one only to find out it's not usable for what you wanted. :)

[chucker]

Threads like this make me want to cry. I was perfectly content to buy a Dell until I found that color consistency is an issue. :\ As a photographer, this just can't be allowed. :( I guess I'll have it added to my "Must save up money for and bit the bullet on this one" list. I know it's worth it in the end though.

As a photographer, you should be used to the idea that output quality is a matter of how much money you've invested. A Dell screen certainly gives you a good result, especially since you'll be sitting right in front of it (rather than an angle) most of the time anyway. The more you want some extra refinement, however, the more the price of the monitor you'd have to buy is gonna increase. Apple's displays are far better in that regard, but if you really want some high-end color accuracy, you're gonna have to look at brands such as EIZO and NEC. Much like a $500 compact camera can indeed give you nice shots, but for that extra notch, there is no avoiding an SLR.

(edit) upon rereading, I sense a bit of a harsh tone in my post which wasn't intended at all. :)

[turtle]

You both are right about knowing I need the right stuff and all. This is why I haven't moved from my CRT. It's a Sony CPD-G520 (http://www.amazon.com/Sony-CPD-G520-Trinitron-CRT-Monitor/dp/B000058ALT) that is wonderful. Now granted, I think it raises the temp in my office about 10DegF, but at least my image color and sharpness is displayed accurately.

I would just like to get a smaller form factor that the LCD's offer. This is actually why I haven't just moved over to them yet. There doesn't seem to be anything to compete with this monitor in terms of quality and price. I got this thing about 2 years ago for $200 and it has been worth every penny. I've thought of getting another one but I don't think I can handle the 4" bezel that would put between screens.

I've thought of getting a lower budget LCD to use for main viewing and then keeping the CRT for actual editing. Still dual monitor, but then I have two huge screens on my desk that won't match in color half the time anyway. For now I'll just enjoy my CRT I guess and just enjoy the fact that it does work so well. I actually cut the back panel out on my desk so I could push the monitor farther back to give more desk area in front of it. This monitor really is huge. :eek:

[chucker]

Realistically, though, many photographers happily do use Apple Cinema Displays, so I don't think it's generally much of an issue.

[Dorian Gray]

I think photographers are the only people in the world still plodding along with their ancient CRTs. :D I used a Sony Trinitron too when I worked in printing a few years ago.

To be honest there is a fair degree of debate over which monitors are best suited to photography. It depends first and foremost on how fussy/demanding you are, but other issues also affect people's preferences. For example, everyone's room is different (colour temperature and brightness of the room lights, the wall colours, etc.). Cheap calibration hardware isn't as accurate as a GretagMacbeth Eye-One and may not show minor mismatching. Not all monitors of a given model are identical, due to age and quality control issues (the 23-inch Cinema Display had some major problems with magenta "whites" at one point). And of course reasonable people may still disagree on what is best. However, Apple's Cinema Displays are the first LCDs that have really got mainstream photographers to dump their CRTs. The price, while not cheap, is doable for many, and the quality is pretty impressive if not quite as good as the best CRTs.

It might be worth noting that the majority of the print shops and photo labs here in London use Apple Cinema Displays, including many that rely predominantly on Windows workstations (a Dell hooked up to a Cinema Display is not a pretty sight, but I guess it gets the job done - if you have no taste! ;)). Most of these also keep at least one CRT or high-end LCD around for ultra-demanding work or problem cases, but the fact that most of the work is done on Cinema Displays should be indicative of their quality. But this is not to say that you can't get good results with cheaper LCDs. You can, but it's a more painful experience involving lots of "retouch-by-numbers" work in Photoshop and plenty of wasted prints. And if you're publishing on the web your colours will be a bit hit or miss.

Here are a few threads on other forums that might be interesting. Some of these people are knowledgeable enthusiasts or pros but some aren't so take everything you read with a grain of salt (as with everything you read, of course). :)

Apple Cinema 20 inches and PC (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Gunf)

apple cinema display (http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Iae3)

24" Dell 2405FPW or 20" Apple Cinema Display for new G5? (http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DyHR)

Dell 2407WFP vs Apple Cinema display 23" (http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00J2zy)

And here is the mother of all colour profiling threads (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15008) for your interest.

And here (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KIfk), finally, is a very useful explanation of what went wrong in the previous thread. This is a good read, with useful colour-space diagrams. Pay particular attention to Eugene's posts, which are excellent.

Edit: added another link.

[turtle]

Great links Dorian, thanks!

[HiRez]

As the topicstarter: Thanks to all for the overwelming response and advice. Got some reading to do but it looks like I will go for the ACD 23" ....

Thanks again.

[washington mac user]

my advice is read the other thread called New Monitor