Computer conundrumsDigital photographers rely on the smooth running of their personal computers. Here's where to discuss problems and seek, as well as provide, advice.
I'm looking for advice on buying a new monitor. The usual requirements (cheap as possible but good colour accuracy) are the order of the day.
My budget is very limited (~£200) so I just want to be careful not to buy into a turkey.
I'm currently using an old 19" Philips 190S panel on one netbook, and an even older 15" Sharp LL-T1501A on the other netbook. From what I can tell, a widescreen 23" panel would actually be vertically smaller (physically) than my current 19" 4:3 monitor, so I'm probably looking at 24" (which, from what I can tell, would be like my current 19" just with a bit extra added on the side).
The models I'm currently looking at include:
Dell Ultrasharp U2412M ~£220
Dell Ultrasharp U2312HM ~£173
LG IPS235V-BN ~£130
LG E2770V-BF ~£220
and a number of Asus panels.
I've spent days reading up on what makes a good panel, but I'm left pretty much confused. From what little I know about monitors, the general rule of thumb is to always go with an IPS panel for best colour accuracy and best viewing angles. Is that generalisation still accurate? I've been reading a discussion of the LG E2770V-BF which was initially advertised as IPS (and still is on Amazon) but is apparently a TN-Film which the owners are claiming to be the best TN panel they've seen (better than previous TN). On the other side of the coin, there seem to be a dozen different "types" of IPS and many discussions suggest that IPS panels under £500 are low-rent ones when it comes to colour depth (eIPS or something I don't really understand).
So, given my limited budget, what would it be best to look at? Go for an IPS even if it is low-rent, or trust in the reviews of others about that LG? There's no point in me looking at anything over £250, much as I'd love to, because that kind of budget just isn't available to me and is not likely to be for some considerable time.
My purpose in upgrading is that I often print photos/graphics and it will be helpful to have an accurate representation of the colours on my screen to compare the printed output to. I don't do much in the way of photo/graphic editing/manipulation - just printing, and I don't play games. My other fiddle is doing CAD work (so the idea of the largest screen possible is always appealing).
I would like to be sure that I can calibrate the monitor with either my Spyder2 or my ColorMunki (I do that now but both my 19" and 15" panels look quite different to each other, which is why I'm dissatisfied with them). One minor difficulty is that my netbooks only have VGA ports, so while it would be useful to have DVI and/or HDMI for future-proofing, I would have to be using a regular VGA port in the short term.
So, given all of this waffle, I'd welcome any advice on which way I should be leaning.
I would say make sure it's an IPS panel. Unfortunately, some smaller independent brands source panels from several manufacturers even for the same model number, so it's a bit of a lottery sometimes.
I had a look at some AOC IPS monitors recently and these looked very good for just over £100. I understand that LG is the main (exclusive?) source of IPS panels.
I'm looking for advice on buying a new monitor. The usual requirements (cheap as possible but good colour accuracy) are the order of the day.
My budget is very limited (~£200) so I just want to be careful not to buy into a turkey.
I'm currently using an old 19" Philips 190S panel on one netbook, and an even older 15" Sharp LL-T1501A on the other netbook. From what I can tell, a widescreen 23" panel would actually be vertically smaller (physically) than my current 19" 4:3 monitor, so I'm probably looking at 24" (which, from what I can tell, would be like my current 19" just with a bit extra added on the side).
The models I'm currently looking at include:
Dell Ultrasharp U2412M ~£220
Dell Ultrasharp U2312HM ~£173
LG IPS235V-BN ~£130
LG E2770V-BF ~£220
and a number of Asus panels.
I've spent days reading up on what makes a good panel, but I'm left pretty much confused. From what little I know about monitors, the general rule of thumb is to always go with an IPS panel for best colour accuracy and best viewing angles. Is that generalisation still accurate? I've been reading a discussion of the LG E2770V-BF which was initially advertised as IPS (and still is on Amazon) but is apparently a TN-Film which the owners are claiming to be the best TN panel they've seen (better than previous TN). On the other side of the coin, there seem to be a dozen different "types" of IPS and many discussions suggest that IPS panels under £500 are low-rent ones when it comes to colour depth (eIPS or something I don't really understand).
So, given my limited budget, what would it be best to look at? Go for an IPS even if it is low-rent, or trust in the reviews of others about that LG? There's no point in me looking at anything over £250, much as I'd love to, because that kind of budget just isn't available to me and is not likely to be for some considerable time.
My purpose in upgrading is that I often print photos/graphics and it will be helpful to have an accurate representation of the colours on my screen to compare the printed output to. I don't do much in the way of photo/graphic editing/manipulation - just printing, and I don't play games. My other fiddle is doing CAD work (so the idea of the largest screen possible is always appealing).
I would like to be sure that I can calibrate the monitor with either my Spyder2 or my ColorMunki (I do that now but both my 19" and 15" panels look quite different to each other, which is why I'm dissatisfied with them). One minor difficulty is that my netbooks only have VGA ports, so while it would be useful to have DVI and/or HDMI for future-proofing, I would have to be using a regular VGA port in the short term.
So, given all of this waffle, I'd welcome any advice on which way I should be leaning.
Thanks.
My aprouch after reading reviews wold be to narrow your choice s as much as possible and then if you can see them working, possibly at PC worls or Currys.
I don't suggest you buy there just see them in action.
My personal opinion is forget the Asus, I had a small one and was not impressed, Dell or LG sounds good to me, a backlite model certainly from there what looks good to you.
I would say make sure it's an IPS panel. Unfortunately, some smaller independent brands source panels from several manufacturers even for the same model number, so it's a bit of a lottery sometimes.
I had a look at some AOC IPS monitors recently and these looked very good for just over £100. I understand that LG is the main (exclusive?) source of IPS panels.
Ian
This shows how little I know. I had to Google to find out if "AOC" was a brand name or yet another variant of IPS. E-IPS, S-IPS, H-IPS, P-IPS....
It's a minefield. Why do manufacturers need to make it so complicated?
Sometimes I read about IPS and that it's the best thing in the world, then someone else is saying that the cheaper IPS monitors use "6 bit" with some AFRC or something or other that means it's not so good after all.
I just want to be sure I get something that can produce reasonably accurate colours and is better than the ones I've already got.
My aprouch after reading reviews wold be to narrow your choice s as much as possible and then if you can see them working, possibly at PC worls or Currys.
I don't suggest you buy there just see them in action.
My personal opinion is forget the Asus, I had a small one and was not impressed, Dell or LG sounds good to me, a backlite model certainly from there what looks good to you.
Patrick
Thanks, Patrick.
I believe we have a PC World and/or Currys in walking distance so I'll pop into them next time I can get out. I'd like to have a rough understanding of what I'm looking for first, though.
This shows how little I know. I had to Google to find out if "AOC" was a brand name or yet another variant of IPS. E-IPS, S-IPS, H-IPS, P-IPS....
It's a minefield. Why do manufacturers need to make it so complicated?
Sometimes I read about IPS and that it's the best thing in the world, then someone else is saying that the cheaper IPS monitors use "6 bit" with some AFRC or something or other that means it's not so good after all.
I just want to be sure I get something that can produce reasonably accurate colours and is better than the ones I've already got.
I have been considering an inexpensive monitor for my MacBook and to double as a dual screen for the iMac, AOC caught my eye also seen some good reviews. PC world/Currys stock them so perhaps see one in action.
I haven't read a bad review of an IPS monitor yet - if there any negatives it has been more related to price and gaming performance but price is no longer an issue and I am assuming gaming is not important to you
I have a Dell Ultrasharp 23", though last year's model, not the one you mention. It is excellent, the colour calibration is so good that my Spyder monitor barely altered it and I simply use the default calibration.
I ultimately went with the U2412M. I have nothing really to compare it against given the archaic nature of my previous monitor. I believe the colour accuracy is pretty good as I'm getting matching results between my printer (calibrated with my ColorMunki) and the monitor - something I've never really been able to achieve before.
The 1920x1200 resolution at 24" feels huge compared to my old 1280x1024 19" model, even though it's really only wider (not much taller). Being able to rotate it is a great feature for zooming up A4 pages or portrait photos.
The only thing I don't like is that the built-in USB ports power off when you switch the monitor off. So if you have external hard drives attached and go off for a break (turning the monitor off as all environmentally-conscious people should), the hard drives cut off - not only preventing you from leaving it copying files, but also risking damage to the hard drives. If you have your mouse and keyboard in there, they power off and so won't bring the computer out of standby for ages until power comes back to them. But the thing is that it's a monitor not a USB hub, so I guess it's not something worth complaining about.
In my very limited knowledge of monitors I can only recommend it. If you can't afford to go for a proper high-spec one, give it a go.
I went through a lot of head-scratching when I looked for mine. It's very difficult for the non-techie to figure it out (I'm reasonably techie and it still confuses the heck out of me).
All I can really offer is the little bits of info I picked up.
There are generally three types of flat screen panels these days - TN, and two types of IPS.
TN is the in the cheapest monitors. They're not typically good with colour accuracy and viewing angles, but they have a fast refresh rate. These are good for gamers, but not so good for photography. Some of the more expensive ones are better for viewing angles and colour accuracy than the cheaper ones, but check for reviews before considering this type of monitor.
IPS panels have better colour reproduction and wider viewing angles than TN. IPS panels used to be very expensive, but a new type has entered the market to compete on price with TN panels. IPS panels typically have slower refresh rates which some gamers might notice, but is not an issue for anyone else.
The more expensive (£400+) IPS panels tend to have wider colour gamut (8-bits per colour, I think). The cheaper ones have a smaller colour gamut (they're only 6-bits but use something fancy called FRC to simulate 8-bits per colour). The cheaper ones tend to have energy-friendly LED backlighting, while the more expensive ones have LCD backlighting.
This is the reason why, for example, the Dell U2410M is a little under £400 while the "newer" Dell U2412M is just over £200. The U2410M is the "better" monitor in that it has a wider colour gamut thanks to the proper 8-bits per colour. The U2412M is the "newer" monitor which has the 6-bit +FRC.
Unless you're doing serious work, you may not need or want the more expensive monitor. Just because it can display more colours doesn't mean you're able to print them. You may find that limiting yourself to the colour gamut of the 6bit+FRC monitor makes your workflow easier (you may not even perceive that you are "limited").
But, as I say, I'm no technie on this. Far from it. I just read lots of reviews and there were a vast number of positive ones for the U2412M which kind of swayed it for me as I couldn't stretch to the U2410M. That said, I was intent on getting a monitor with 1920x1200 pixels (16:10), not the more common 1920x1080 pixels (16:9), and I wanted to go for a 24" - I would have sacrificed to a 23" if necessary, but I wanted something that would actually be bigger in both directions than my 19" (a 23" 16:9 panel is the same height as a 19" 4:3 panel). By sticking with this resolution, I immediately ruled out a wide swathe of the market - which made choosing a model much easier!
I always have the the thought of 'the law of diminishing returns' on my mind - not being blessed with a huge income, value for money considerations dominate my life. Most of the inexpensive IPS panels will give a most satisfactory display for photographers and for a small improvement you may have to pay a lot more, as you say. I'm sure the monitor you have chosen will do the biz
One small point - you mention 'LCD' backlight; do you mean RGB LED backlights rather than plain white LED backlights (which are blue LEDs with yellow phosphors to obtain white).
I always have the the thought of 'the law of diminishing returns' on my mind - not being blessed with a huge income, value for money considerations dominate my life. Most of the inexpensive IPS panels will give a most satisfactory display for photographers and for a small improvement you may have to pay a lot more, as you say. I'm sure the monitor you have chosen will do the biz
One small point - you mention 'LCD' backlight; do you mean RGB LED backlights rather than plain white LED backlights (which are blue LEDs with yellow phosphors to obtain white).
Ian
I've no idea what I mean - no one makes it easy to decide which of the many monitors you should go for. I'm not sure I'd know the difference, but I'd guess that these cheaper panels are white LEDS (i.e. "nothing fancy") - but I really don't know, nor would I know the difference.
It's great that we have all of this choice but the manufacturers and sellers don't seem to understand that too much choice can be just as bad as too little choice sometimes. They could do with making it easier - "this is budget IPS, that's mid-range IPS, and that's posh IPS".
I read a whole long thread somewhere (which is what prompted my original post) of some people looking a TN panel that had been advertised as IPS and they didn't know which it was. Some people bought it, discovered it was TN, and then raved about how it was as good as some IPS panels. I don't know if that's an honest evaluation or a case of ego-protection because they'd bought what they thought was IPS but were lumbered with a TN.
Then I saw a video review of someone trying to simplify matters which ended with the conclusion "if you have less than $900 to spend, then forget it - you'll be buying a turkey". Very helpful - not!
The waters are too muddy to successfully navigate. I think the only thing we can really do is to consider a specification (size, resolution, ports, etc), decide on a budget, and then look at just those models that fit. Trying to consider everything that everyone raves about just leads you to months of indecision and no purchase.
Linear Mode
