Which monitor should a photographer choose for photo editing? Page 2
Table of contents:
Page 1:
- Introduction
- CRT and LCD - were things better in the past?
- Characteristics of photographic monitors
- Is it worth investing in a good monitor?
- A monitor for a photographer
- Advantages of 4K/UHD monitors in photography
- How can manufacturers "cheat"?
- Calibration
- Graphics card
Page 2:
- List of monitors for photography - HD and QHD
- List of monitors for photography - UHD and 4K
- Apple monitors in photography
- What to buy as a secondary display
- Used monitors
- Summary
The best monitors in their price class
There are many good monitors, but only a handful of models crush the competition in terms of value for money. Give me your email address and I'll send you a list of them, together with an explanation of why these particular models are so worth considering:Previous page (monitors in general)
List of monitors for photography
The list below will be thoroughly refreshed in March 2024. It is already out of date. Below is the most important part: a list of monitors suitable for photography. If a model is not there, it is not because it was overlooked, but because it is unsuitable for photography or has long since gone out of production and is no longer sold.
I put the cheap monitors first - they may be suitable for amateur editing, but absolutely do not treat them as something specifically intended for photos, because they are a long way from that (it is definitely better to invest in higher-end models, but sometimes the budget simply cannot be stretched and there is no other choice - then all that remains is to spend even more money - first buy something cheaper, then replace it in the future). Each successive monitor on the list is better than the previous one in its size. Remember that for print, it is worth investing in monitors with a color space close to AdobeRGB (which also covers almost the whole of CMYK), rather than sRGB, which is suitable for the internet and making prints.
Monitors with standard resolutions (1920 x 1080 px - 2560 x 1600px)
My list has never included any Eizo EV-series monitor or any monitor worse than those. I simply see no point in buying these displays for photographic use. The difference between them and even the models I put right at the beginning of the list is too great to justify buying them. If someone bought an Eizo EV because I had put it on my list, they could only blame me for it later - after all, for a small extra outlay you can get a monitor that actually begins to make sense for retouching, and those are precisely the monitors where my list begins. For the same reason, there are no other office displays here pretending to be photographic monitors, such as BenQ, Dell, etc. If you are nevertheless looking for something even cheaper, take a look at the paragraph about secondary displays.
23`` - 24``
Personally, I cannot imagine buying such a small monitor these days, and I have been saying for years that it is a relic. Not only is there little room on the screen, but the pixels are enormous – a sharp image is out of the question. Screens of this size have a very low resolution (1920 px on the longer side), which gives them a larger pixel pitch than the other diagonal sizes (which unfortunately means the pixels are more visible than on larger monitors). It is also a resolution that does not fit much workspace, so without a secondary monitor, working comfort is limited. That is why it is always worth considering whether it would be better to buy a 27″ monitor with a larger workspace and smaller pixel pitch (and therefore a sharper image).From 1750 zł
Monitors for basic web editing and prints from a minilab. They do not have as many sensors as graphics monitors and are less uniform. Some people use them for professional work, but in that case I would advise going for better models and choosing these only if the budget really is that limited. But if you have lenses costing 4000 zł and want to buy a monitor for 2000 zł, then something has gone very badly wrong in your budget planning.Eizo CS2410 | 24″ | 16:10 | 1920 x 1200 | IPS | satin | sRGB
This model filled a gap that had existed in Eizo's range for years: the lack of a basic 24" monitor with a 16:10 aspect ratio. Ultimately, the CS2420 replaced the Eizo CS230 (16:9). In monitors with such a low resolution, that difference hugely improves working comfort because much more content/workspace fits on the screen. This monitor should not be treated as a weaker version of the CS2420, but as a larger version of the CS230. What distinguishes it from typical office displays above all is screen uniformity compensation, but that is standard in monitors for photography.
Check the version calibrated by the store: graficzne.pl*
*The CS230 was discontinued after the CS2410 came out
NEC EA245Wmi-2 | 24″ | 16:10 | 1920 x 1200 | IPS | satin | sRGB
The second revision of the EA245 came out recently, but in terms of quality it is the same monitor as before. The EA245's predecessor, the EA244, was fairly popular among people starting out in photography, but personally I never recommended that model unless a used one turned up at an exceptionally good price. I did not recommend it because it lagged too far behind graphics monitors and had its flaws, such as screen flicker at low brightness, while without hardware calibration it could be appallingly nonlinear. Just a good office monitor, better than brands such as Dell, and that is all. It certainly was not a graphics monitor. The EA245Wmi is a completely different design - heavily improved and based partly on technology from the more advanced PA series. Like its predecessor, it gains a great deal from hardware calibration. This model also comes in a ColorTuned version, which is pre-checked and includes hardware-calibration software; it is also linearized before shipping to standard photographic settings (80 cd/m2, D65, 2.2), so for many people this will be just like calibration – all that is needed is the right brightness in the retouching room. The ColorTuned version also has an extended 5-year warranty. This is the version worth getting, because calibration is necessary anyway and the software would also be needed, creating additional costs that are already included in the CT version, so the price difference narrows. Meanwhile, it is not possible to buy an extended warranty for the regular version at all. The EA245 is not a graphics monitor, but it performs very well for its price. However, if the budget allows, it is definitely worth getting something better that will not merely be an exceptionally nice office monitor, but a graphics display capable of reproducing skin detail well, etc.
Check the ColorTuned version: graficzne.pl
Check the standard version: black housing: price-comparison site | graficzne.pl (free calibration) | morele.net | white housing: graficzne.pl (free calibration)
From 3000 zł
I consider the models below the minimum for preparing prints, working on photos that require a high degree of control over color, or in situations where a wide gamut produces photographs several classes better (e.g. some landscapes, nature, etc.).Eizo CS2420 | 24″ | 16:10 | 1920 x 1200 | PLS | satin | adobeRGB
This is the successor to the CS240, but differs from it primarily in its stand and housing, which are definitely better suited to the present day. The specifications are identical, which means good for the price, but not enough to make it an option worth considering for professionals - it is an amateur monitor, only with a wide gamut, which gives it an advantage with some prints. Personally, I regard this model as the absolute minimum for editing beauty photos, etc., although for such uses it is nevertheless definitely better to spend more on a higher-end model. The CS2420 is much more advanced than the CS230 – in fact, it has almost nothing in common with it. Despite the similar name, it also has little in common with the much more expensive Eizo CG2420, because it uses a completely different panel. The electronics differ as well. Black levels in this model are not as good as in more expensive monitors, and it exhibits the silver glow characteristic of all IPS panels. It also lacks the pop-up sensor found in the cheaper model. If funds allow, be sure to spend more on a higher-end model; if that is impossible, get the CS2420.
Check at: price-comparison site | graficzne.pl | komputronik.pl | morele.net
Below I list much better monitors, but also more expensive ones. However, I have serious doubts as to whether it makes sense these days to buy tiny 24” monitors, which not only have a much smaller workspace than 27” monitors, but also have a much larger pixel pitch. It makes sense when funds are minimal, but in this price range it is definitely worth considering spending more for a 27” model. Especially since you can get a decent 27” monitor without spending twice as much money.
From 4000 zł
Semi-professional tier. More technically advanced monitors, with electronics you will look for in vain in cheaper models. They are designed with graphics and photo editing in mind, but usually do not guarantee quite the same uniformity as professional models. Nor do they have such deep blacks or extras such as a hood included.NEC PA243W | 24″ | 16:10 | 1920 x 1200 | AH-IPS | satin | Adobe RGB
NEC PA24* models have always been on my monitor list as the cheapest genuine graphics displays that have not been stripped of the electronics found in more expensive models. Consequently, they were the cheapest monitors for people who wanted to take photo editing seriously, including retouching more demanding photographs. That is, among other things, cases where skin color is very important. For someone like me, therefore, this is the minimum worth considering, but at the same time it is a quite good minimum, though not very versatile. Admittedly, I always recommended paying a little extra for an Eizo CX, but since those are no longer available (and the successor is much more expensive), the NEC PA243 remains the only choice in this category. It is much better than the Eizo CS2420 and much cheaper than an Eizo from the CG series. Unfortunately, silver glow in blacks is visible on the PA243, as on almost all IPS-based monitors. Only the 27” NEC 271Q is free of this flaw (and if the budget allows for it, it is definitely better to get the 27” model). Because the 243 belongs to the PA series, in addition to standard hardware calibration (after purchasing the SpectraViewII software), it allows you to use MultiProfiler and change the parameters of the displayed image very precisely without needing to use a calibrator. This is a major advantage, especially at the beginning. Compared with the previous model, changes include the backlight and the housing with its stand.
Check at: price-comparison site | graficzne.pl
*
*Monitor now discontinued.
Over 5500 zł
Professional tier. An enormous leap in image quality (deep blacks, higher contrast, no silver glow characteristic of IPS panels, etc.). Besides that, they are far more suitable for making video than the models listed earlier (and for watching it too, for that matter).Eizo CG2420 | 24" | 16:10 | 1920 x 1200 | PLS | satin | Adobe RGB
An improved and slimmed-down version of the now-discontinued Eizo CX241. In fact, it is a less advanced Eizo CG247X, but with a better housing design and thinner bezels, which is always welcome when working with multiple monitors (and with 24", you usually work with at least 2 screens). Thanks to a new Panasonic-made panel, its blacks are very good and it has a contrast ratio of 1500:1 (instead of 1000:1 as in the previous models). It has a lower-grade calibrator than the one in the three-digit CG models. If I absolutely had to buy a mere 24" monitor myself, I would pay extra for the CG247X (which unfortunately looks worse, but has better hardware).
Check at: price-comparison site | graficzne.pl | komputronik.pl | morele.net
*
*The CG247 was discontinued after the CG247X came out
Eizo CG247X | 24" | 16:10 | 1920 x 1200 | PLS | | satin | Adobe RGB
Among standard-resolution monitors, this is the absolute number 1. It combines the advantages of the new Panasonic panel (very deep blacks) with the advanced electronics of the flagship model. It also has a calibrator as advanced as those in the other 3-digit CG models, and therefore much faster and more accurate than the one in the CG2420. Of course, partly for this reason, its housing is as large as in the older models. Such good blacks are an enormous advantage for video work, as is the very good coverage of the DCI-P3 color space.
Check at: price-comparison site | graficzne.pl | komputronik.pl
27``
From 2550 zł
I think that if you are buying a monitor today, 27" is the minimum. UHD is obviously better, but even a standard 27" will provide vastly greater working comfort and slightly better image sharpness than its 24" counterpart.*NEC EA275WMi | 27″ | 16:9 | 2560 x 1440 | IPS | satin | sRGB
This model was absent from my list for a long time, and I am adding it because you ask me about it very often. Worse still, some people decide to buy a 27” BenQ instead of choosing this NEC, meaning they buy a much worse monitor despite the similar price. It is not that the NEC EA275 is good for nothing—it is an office screen that, after buying SpectraViewII, can be hardware-calibrated and used for amateur tinkering with photos, although I think buying it for retouching simply makes no sense. While with a 24” monitor, buying a good office monitor instead of one dedicated to photography can be justified by a complete lack of funds for anything better, with a 27” monitor the alternative is to buy a smaller but much better 24” monitor with graphics aspirations for the same price. However, if it has to be 27”, the UHD version is not so much more expensive that the extra cost is an insurmountable obstacle (and it is better in every respect).*This model is no longer in production.
NEC EA271Q | 27" | 16:9 | 2560 x 1440 | PLS | satin |sRGB
A greatly improved successor to the EA275WMi. While I advised against the previous model, this one makes much more sense. Even the EA275 left every BenQ-like contraption far behind, while comparing them with the EA271Q can be treated as nothing more than a joke. Linearity and uniformity have been improved, and thanks to exceptionally good blacks for this type of panel without a quarter-wave filter, this monitor becomes far more versatile (although a TV is still always better for watching films, this monitor will certainly perform better than the previous model).
I have serious doubts about whether to place it above or below the Eizo CS2730, because Eizo’s only technical advantage is its wide gamut, which will be very important to some people (printing landscapes, macro, nature) and almost irrelevant to others. Like every EA, calibrating it yourself requires buying SpectraViewII, or buying the monitor in the ColorTuned version, which includes this software.
Check at: price comparison site | graficzne.pl (free calibration)
Check the ColorProof version: graficzne.pl
*
Check at: price comparison site | graficzne.pl | komputronik.pl
*This model is no longer in production.
Eizo CS2731 | 16:9 | 2560 x 1440 | AH-IPS | satin | Adobe RGB | USB-C
The successor to the CS2730, enhanced with 60 W USB-C and therefore much more convenient for laptop owners. Other than that, it is a twin model to the CS2731, so it is best to read its description for more information. The version calibrated by the store is only minimally more expensive, so that is the one I would recommend to anyone who does not have a decent calibrator of their own.
Check the calibrated version at: graficzne.pl
Over PLN 4,750
Professional monitors. With excellent blacks and imperceptible image non-uniformity, suitable even for very demanding types of photography.*
*This model is no longer in production
*
*This model is no longer in production
*
*This model is no longer in production; the last units are available, and there is no successor. The situation that followed the end of production of the previous high-end model will probably repeat itself, meaning no next model for a dozen or so months
Eizo CG279X |16:9 | 2560 x 1440 | AH-IPS | satin | Adobe RGB | Backlight: W-LED |
This monitor confirms my theory that Eizo is focusing very heavily on video applications. Just as with its top-of-the-line 319X, here too Eizo boasts about adding better support for HDR video editing through preinstalled presets for HLG and PQ gamma, and its marketing is based mainly on video production. This model also gained a built-in calibrator that allows recalibration during normal work, and a USB-C connector was added (while DisplayPort, HDMI, and DVI were retained). In terms of technical parameters, it is excellent—after all, this is a top-of-the-line monitor (at least among those with standard resolutions). In practice, it is a monitor very similar to the NEC PA271Q.
Check at: graficzne.pl
24``
Over PLN 9,000
Technically very advanced graphics monitors. At this size, the horizontal workspace has the same number of pixels as a 27” monitor, but we get an additional 160 pixels vertically (meaning a 16:10 aspect ratio instead of 16:9). The pixel pitch is a little larger than on a 27” monitor, but smaller than on a 24” one. Even so, given a choice between 27 and 30 inches, I would take the larger one. Unfortunately, the price is also considerably higher, and today I would prefer to pay extra for a 32" UHD/4K monitor.*
*This model is no longer in production.
*
UHD/4K monitors (3840 x 2160 px–4096 x 2160 px)
Unfortunately, there are currently no monitors of this type that are very good, wide-gamut, and not very expensive at the same time. So you generally have to choose between resolution and quality, or spend a huge amount of money.
24``
Office-work monitors with aspirations of being screens for editing photos for the Internet or making prints at a minilab. At this pixel pitch, probably everyone will need to use scaling; without it, text will be too small.*
*
*This model is no longer in production.
27`` - 32``
Up to PLN 4,000
*This model is no longer in production
NEC EA271U | 27" | 16:9 | 3840 x 2160 | AH-IPS | satin | | sRGB | Backlight: W-LED
This model is a slightly improved version of the now-discontinued NEC EA275UHD. One advantage of the new model is the use of a USB-C connector, which is slowly becoming the standard. A dilemma comes up very often: buy this monitor or pay a little extra for the PA271Q, which admittedly does not have UHD resolution but is better in every other respect and does not have the typical IPS flaws that the EA models do. If I had to buy something for up to PLN 5,000 for the kind of retouching I do (beauty and high-end work in general), I would definitely choose the PA271Q. In other words, better parameters at the expense of resolution. For many people, however, the NEC EA271U will be the more sensible choice, because its image will be sufficient for them, while UHD simply makes using a computer more pleasant (and is also a huge advantage for people working in CAD programs).
Check the standard version: price comparison site | graficzne.pl (free calibration)
Check the CT version: graficzne.plEizo CS2740 | 27" | 16:9 | 3840 x 2160 | IPS | satin | | Adobe RGB | USB-C
There are almost no 27” UHD/4K monitors suitable for photography, especially wide-gamut ones. So if someone wants a screen like this, there is effectively no other choice, because the NEC EA271U, which would be its direct competitor, does not have a wide gamut. With standard-resolution monitors, the premium for a wide-gamut model was at most half the price of the monitor. Here it is twice the price. This is probably not due to the lack of alternatives from competitors; Eizo simply puts a fairly high price on its monitors these days, even when the competition has a twin model, as can be seen perfectly among the three-digit Eizo CGs.
As with the EA271U, there is no quarter-wave filter here either, so the blacks are typical of IPS, but photography alone does not require anything better (games and movies do, to a greater extent). The USB-C port will certainly please laptop owners, because you only need to plug in one cable, which not only carries the image but also charges the laptop and splits USB into the 4 ports on the monitor. USB provides 60 W, which is nothing spectacular, but laptops are becoming less power-hungry, so the lack of 90 W is not a problem. DisplayPort and HDMI ports are of course also included.
Check at: graficzne.pl
Over PLN 13,000
Professional tier - wide-gamut monitors, incredibly uniform, with very advanced electronics. If you want a monitor without any compromises - excellent in every respect, only the models on the list below offer that. Of course, image sharpness will not be as good as on a 24" UHD, but I believe 32" UHD monitors offer an excellent balance of sharpness and screen size. This size is large enough that a great many people will not need to enable scaling, and that means an enormous workspace, equivalent to 4 standard 24" screens.*A successor is already available: Eizo CG319X
*NEC PA311D | 31.1" | 16:8 | 4096 x 2160 | satin | Adobe RGB | W-LED backlight
*This model is no longer in production, the last units are available, and there is no successor. The situation that followed the end of production of the previous high-end model will probably repeat itself, meaning no replacement model for a dozen or so months
Eizo CG319X-4K | 31.1” | 16:8 | 4096 x 2160 | satin | AdobeRGB | W-LED backlight
This is the direct counterpart to the NEC PA311D – a monitor that is genuinely 4K rather than UHD. It therefore has a resolution of 4096x2160 instead of 3840 x 2160. This provides some additional, though small, workspace at the side - which is why the screen has a fairly unusual aspect ratio (16:8 instead of 16:9). While I would consider that a plus for video (because a movie can be displayed at its original resolution with room left for the basic icons), that is not necessarily true for photography, because a wider screen without an increase in diagonal size means that it is considerably shorter, despite having the same number of vertical pixels. The CG319X-4K is an improved CG-318-4K, primarily for video applications - Eizo mainly boasts about adding better support for HDR video editing, thanks to preinstalled presets for HLG and PQ gamma. It also uses an improved built-in calibrator that can check the monitor's calibration even while it is in use. Apart from that, I could basically copy the CG318-4K description here.
Check at: price comparison site | graficzne.pl
Apple displays in photography
Many people associate the Apple brand with photography - and rightly so, because color management in macOS wipes the floor with its Windows counterpart. However, software and hardware issues need to be kept separate.
External displays and iMac displays
The display built into an iMac has nothing in common with those made for photography, and the same is true of the Apple Cinema Display and Apple Thunderbolt Display. This applies to every model, including the 5k iMac. Even the iMac Pro does not stand out in this respect.
Of course, many people use iMacs in photography studios, for example to preview photos straight from the camera - almost anything is suitable for that, because it will be better than the LCD built into the camera. Some people also use iMacs for retouching, but this is the same situation as with Dells - if someone knew how much they were giving up compared with a photography display, it would never occur to them to work on an iMac. These displays are closer to the Eizo EV series than even to semi-amateur graphics models.
iMac displays can only be calibrated in software. In Retina iMacs from the "late 2015" model onward, the gamut is wider than sRGB - close to DCI-P3, which is still a long way from AdobeRGB, and because of the unsophisticated design, it cannot be clipped to sRGB (fortunately, there is no need to do that on macOS). Without using a VESA mount, you cannot work in portrait orientation, which is often very useful in a studio. On top of that, there are problems with blotches appearing in the corners of the screen over time - this problem has existed for years and Apple clearly has no idea how to deal with it, so it merely replaces defective displays under warranty. It even affects current models, despite people saying every year that it will be okay now.
Even if all of that were perfect, it still would not help much, considering how the iMac screen reflects everything around it - compared with satin panels, iMac displays are like mirrors. This is not a tiny laptop where you can perhaps tilt the lid a little to avoid reflections. The light emitted by the screen itself illuminates the user enough for them to be reflected in it, let alone when room lighting is added.
Retina MacBook displays
The display from this company that meets the requirements for amateur photography monitors is the Retina display found in its laptops. However, it does not cover the Adobe RGB space, so while it is just right for the internet and minilabs, it will not show prints in their full gamut. And it is hard to compare a 15" laptop screen with normal monitors that have a much larger diagonal - the working comfort is entirely different. Retina is currently found in all MacBooks now on sale, although the displays are not identical.There was a time when I used a 15" MacBook Pro Retina without an external monitor. Despite having previously used an Eizo CG246, I was able to work on the MBPr and, for internet use with photos that were not too demanding, it would have been sufficient, although the small panel size definitely did not make it suitable for everyday use, and when preparing work for print I missed the ability to preview the photo in a wider gamut. In addition, when I later went back to using a much better monitor than the one in the MacBook, I spotted retouching imperfections in beauty photos, which are fairly demanding of a display.
Apple Pro Display XDR
This is the only 6K monitor that should theoretically be excellent for retouching, although it was designed with video in mind and much of its potential will be wasted on photography. Even the version without the anti-reflective nano coating reflects much less than Apple's other displays.Unfortunately, after the initial delight, more and more disappointments began to emerge. Among them was something that would be a complete deal-breaker for me – the Snazzy Labs channel talks about viewing angles so poor that you had to move away from the monitor to actually judge the colors, and because of this it was impossible to work in portrait orientation even in a text editor, because the white page had such enormous color casts/vignetting (which was demonstrated in the video). Meanwhile, the HDTV Test review shows specific data on how much the image changes at an angle for each RGB channel. The results are terrible. When I saw this monitor in person, it vignetted so heavily up close that I could not believe it was even possible. And this was the model without the nano coating, which makes this effect even worse. I had to move far away from the desk to see an even image. The viewing angles are simply that awful – I had never before seen an IPS or even an S-PVA monitor behave this way. I cannot imagine using it.
So although I initially thought it would be a nice alternative to the Eizo CG279X, for example, in photography as well as video, at this point I definitely would not buy this display. For photography I would without question prefer the NEC PA311D
Missing models
Displays that have long been out of production have been removed from the list entirely rather than merely crossed out.
The absence of models from manufacturers such as Dell, Samsung, Benq, Asus, LG, etc. is not accidental. Even the best models in their ranges are simply screens for office and home use. My list contains higher-class displays. For some reason people recommend even very basic screens for photography, but after many years of using them, I have no idea why they do so. The only advantage of these monitors is their price, but that will not magically make them suitable for something they are absolutely not cut out for. Buying them is more like throwing money away, because eventually you will have to make the purchase again, this time buying something that is actually suitable for photography. After all, what use is a monitor whose parameters, such as brightness or white point, vary depending on which part of the screen is being measured, not to mention the lack of hardware calibration (although hardware calibration is very often claimed even when its ‘hardware’ part is limited to changing parameters available in the OSD).
What should you buy as an auxiliary display (second monitor)?
Anyone who uses a 24" knows that the workspace is severely limited. Working with two photos open and palettes laid out conveniently is nearly impossible, as is convenient batch processing, and so on. It is better on a 27", but still far from ideal. A second monitor solves these problems, which is why multi-display workstations have been a familiar sight in photography for as long as anyone can remember.
Usually, the existing screen becomes the auxiliary one and the new one starts serving as the primary display. Sometimes, however, someone has only had a laptop or a monitor with a TN panel. The best thing you can do with something like that is recycle it, so sooner or later thoughts of buying an additional monitor arise. The old screen may also already have a backlight that is too badly worn, or it may be impossible to set even a reasonably correct white point on it. In that case, keeping it will only cause frustration.
Does the auxiliary display have to be as good as the main monitor?
In my opinion, absolutely not, provided that it serves only as an aid, displaying palettes, and that any photo preview shown on it does not have to reproduce colors perfectly. That is precisely the assumption I make in writing this section, because if someone needs equally good parameters from both displays, the appropriate list of monitors is already in the previous sections. When a screen serves as an aid, it must meet a few basic requirements, and you usually want it to be as cheap as possible at the same time. If price does not matter, then again - simply buy a second unit of the model you already own.
What matters?
An additional monitor absolutely must not fall short of the main display in brightness. In the past this was a huge nuisance, because most models could not be lowered to 80 cd/m2. In the era of LED backlighting this is a thing of the past, but another problem has emerged - on some monitors the image begins to flicker at low brightness because the PWM frequency is too low (not to be confused with the screen refresh rate, which has no effect on LCD image flicker). It is also good for factory linearity to be as good as possible, because new monitors cheaper than the NEC EA245WMi cannot be calibrated in hardware. Achieving a white point very close to D65 is very important, because otherwise the color of everything will be warmer or (usually) cooler than on the main monitor.
The additional monitor must have an IPS/PLS panel, because TN is terrible even head-on, let alone when viewed slightly from the side. Ideally it should also have a very thin bezel - a parameter that has virtually no significance with a single screen (apart from appearance), but greatly improves comfort when using several monitors.
NEC E241N | 24" | 16:9 | 1920 x 1080 | IPS | sRGB | Backlight: W-LED |
This is a completely different design from the older NEC E-series models. An exceptionally inexpensive office monitor (for this company and this level of quality, anyway). It costs much less than screens suitable as a primary display for photo editing and meets the requirements set out above. It also has an 8-bit panel instead of the 6-bit + FRC common in cheaper monitors. In addition, it uses an AH-IPS panel rather than the budget version (e-IPS). The NEC E241 effectively has no direct competition. This is due not only to the hardware used, but also to its good linearity straight from the factory and native white point close to D65. Unfortunately, it has a 16:9 aspect ratio, making it shorter than a 24" 16:10 display, but this is one reason why its price is so low compared with the EA244WMi (which I would not recommend anyway because of flicker at low backlight levels).
Check at: price comparison site | graficzne.pl
What are the alternatives?
There are no technically similar alternatives - the better ones are considerably more expensive, while the main point here is for it to be inexpensive and not interfere with your work. So let us look at cheaper options. If you want to save even more, you can of course try other models, provided that they meet the basic requirements I wrote about.
That said, I strongly advise against buying oddities such as the Dell U2413, meaning wide-gamut monitors without the ability to clip the gamut. That is asking for trouble, and on Windows it will be a color disaster that may be distracting even on an auxiliary display, because things such as the color wheel, hue and saturation panels, Navigator, and so on will glow with radioactive colors even when they should not.
If it absolutely has to be a Dell, there is the Dell U2417H, but it costs almost as much as the NEC E241N, so buying it makes virtually no sense. If saving money, one possible option is the Dell P2417, in which case the price difference is greater, but so are the bezels around the screen. In both cases, the panels will only be 6-bit (plus FRC), with a 16:9 aspect ratio.
There is also the Dell U2415, which is the only one in this comparison with a 16:10 aspect ratio, but it is priced even higher than the NEC E241N. It is only natural, however, that this aspect ratio raises the cost considerably, so if you must have a display in this format, there are not many alternatives at this price.
In the future I will also try to suggest additional models and displays in other sizes.
Used monitors
If you want to buy a used monitor, do so only after checking it in person. Monitors from abroad that were intended for disposal are brought into Poland and end up on Allegro. No matter how cheap such equipment is, it is rarely worth its price. What is the point of buying something that does not serve its purpose? There is no point looking at the displayed-hours counter - after crossing the border it was probably adjusted accordingly (that is not much of a problem). Such junk is often described as an "off-lease monitor".
Buying used absolutely can make sense; you simply need to know your way around monitors. If you have no experience in this area, the chances that you will buy something good are slim. If you want to buy a used monitor for photography, first check the external condition of the panel for dead pixels, scuffs, and so on. Then check the condition of the backlight. If you increase the power of the fluorescent lamps and beyond a certain point they no longer get brighter, that is a bad sign. In general, 50% brightness should sear your eyes, although I know many people work that way every day in defiance of calibration principles and logic - I hope you are not one of them. If, at its maximum setting, the monitor outputs around 80 cd/m2, which is how you will be using it, there is no point taking it, because it will be ready for the trash very soon. Display a white background to check backlight uniformity and a black one in a dark room to check for black leakage, meaning bright patches on a dark screen (but do not overdo this - black leakage is normal; what matters is that it is not visible under normal conditions). Better yet, test the monitor with a sensor, calibrate it, and look at the results. All of this can be done in a few minutes, so it should not be a major problem for the seller. Just have them turn the monitor on beforehand, because it must warm up to hold its parameters. If it does not hold them even after warming up and, for example, the RGB balance drifts back and forth or the backlight fluctuates between 80 and 90 nits, that is another sign that the display is no longer good for anything.
There is another problem with buying used - newer-generation monitors are rarely available on the secondhand market and probably will not be for a long time, while the previous models do produce a considerably worse image (weaker blacks, more silvering, poorer contrast, the need for more frequent calibration, and so on).
Summary
If you have good photography equipment, skimping on the monitor is seriously out of place. Some people even claim that the monitor is the most important part of the entire setup, because the final result depends on it, and that matches my experience. If you want a very good display that is excellent for photography, get the NEC PA271Q or something better and enjoy an excellent purchase. Everything below this model involves compromises.
I leave the choice of NEC versus Eizo to readers, because it is an individual matter. Eizo provides a 5-year warranty on everything (and in Poland it is better than in the rest of Europe and generally slightly better than NEC's, especially in practice), hardware calibration is very simple, and the CG models have a built-in calibrator. NEC, meanwhile, provides MultiProfiler software free of charge (with models from PA upward), which is a major convenience for people who do not yet own a calibrator; in addition, soft proofing is also possible in lower-end models (although this is more useful in DTP than in photography). The cheapest model suitable for photography (but only to a very limited extent, and it absolutely cannot be treated as a photography monitor) is made by NEC. In UHD monitors, the advantage at the lower end of the price range is even more visible. Eizo currently has no model that competes with the NEC EA271U.
If you are interested in a particular monitor and want to learn more about it, you can take a look at the mva.pl forum - it is the only place on the Polish web, and one of very few in the world, devoted to monitors for professional applications. You can also call or email a question, for example, to Graficzne.pl - I know they understand the subject there, and if you decide to buy, they can even turn the monitor on and inspect the panel before shipping if requested (they carry the full Eizo and NEC ranges). There is little point looking in typical computer stores and big-box retailers - if they have a photography monitor at all, it will probably only be available to order or at an inflated price.
The list of monitors in this post will be updated if new models worth considering are released.