The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Desktop Monitors (LCD)

ChrisDauer

Workshop Member
As a new thread, (Sorry Lars!)

How much better is an Eizo, which I've always heard great things about, over a Dell/Apple monitor?
Say, LCD either Dual 20" Full Screens or a single 30" Widescreen.
 
D

DougDolde

Guest
Can't tell you how much better, but my EIZO CG21 is just amazing. You won't regret getting an EIZO.
 

Lars

Active member
Graphics professionals seem to have a preference for EIZO and NEC displays over Apple displays. Specifically, EIZO ColorEdge series and NEC SpectraView series. As I understand it there are a few specific reasons:

These dedicated graphics monitors have high-bit color processing, with the ability to load the linearization table of the monitor profile into the monitor (as opposed to the graphics card). This leads to significantly smoother and more neutral grayscale tonality.

One standing complaint with Apple monitors is the difficulty in repeating the same settings, and setting up multi-screen displays to have the same brightness. Since Apple monitors do not display any indication of chosen brightness, the only way to repeat a setting is to set it to full brightness. This can be particularly troublesome if you have a classroom of displays that need to be consistent, but even a dual-display setup can be troublesome.

My personal opinion - Apple is in the business of selling design (which it does very well), and as such from time to time makes product decisions that prioritize form over function. Eizo and NEC specifically target graphics professionals with their high-end series, the hardware might not be as pretty but is less of a functional compromise. This is reflected in price.

I think there would be room in the Apple product line for a "pro" line of displays to compete with Eizo, just like the MacBook has a Pro line. Apple is traditionally so strong with creative pros, such a product line would give the message of Apple's dedication to that segment.
 
Last edited:

dfarkas

Workshop Member
The Eizo ColorEdge monitors are hardware calibrated. The CE series has a 10-bit LUT with 12-bit precision and the CG series has a 12-bit LUT with 14-bit precision. The monitor connects to the computer via USB. When you run the Eizo ColorNavigator s/w with an EyeOne Display attached and hit "Start" the s/w takes control of the monitor. It sets the appropriate brightness, contrast, gamma and color temp to match your desired settings without any user intervention at all. The calibration proceedure is about the quickest of any I've done. And, the results are far better that an 8-bit LUT in your OS/video driver.

Eizo monitors are much more consistent in terms of brightness uniformity from edge to edge. They are mapped in factory and have an automatic brightness stabilization that corrects for lamp wear. In other words, your Eizo will appear the same brightness even after several years of lamp fade. You don't have to deal with a half-hour warm-up before using the monitor either. The Eizo is designed to come up to max brightness in less than five minutes from powered-off (and maintain that exact brightness all day).

They also run cold to the touch. Compare this to an Apple Cinema Display, which you can fry an egg on. Viewing angle is better, with less change off-axis and the monitors are exceptionally easy on the eyes. Not sure why the eye strain is reduced, but it is.

Each panel is tested and calibrated in the factory to gamma 2.2 before shipping. There is a zero pixel defect policy and the Eizo carries a five year warranty, the best for any LCD panel.

Of course, the Eizo monitors are also capable of displaying between 96-101% AdobeRGB colorspace, depending on model. Apple/Dell monitors are more in the 75-85% range.

Bottom line is that the Eizo is designed for graphics pros who need to stare at the same screen all day. Calibration is super easy. Color gamut is unmatched and smooth tonal gradations are really smooth.

Btw, if I sound like an Eizo user, I am. If I sound like an Eizo dealer, I am as well... :)

David
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
Most of my design work is for offset printing and since I've moved to a remote area, away from most of my clients and their printers, I rarely (as in never) do press checks anymore while my work is in production. I need to have an accurate display that will bring me closest to what the client will see once the ink dries.

Up until this past summer I used a Sony Artisan CRT and for its time, it was an excellent display. But it aged while LCD panel technology progressed to the point where it seemed reasonable to replace it. After a lot of research I decided on the Eizo CG21 over the NEC and Apple products.

I was nervous about the transition from CRT to LCD, but I can honestly say it was the best move I could have made. I have tremendous confidence that what I'm seeing on screen is about as close as you can get to what the finished product will be. At least within the tolerances required for the work I do.

The Eizo has been flawless from day one. It's easy and performs as advertised. Highly recommended if you need a high degree of color accuracy.
 

ChrisDauer

Workshop Member
Btw, if I sound like an Eizo user, I am. If I sound like an Eizo dealer, I am as well... :)
Thanks David!

Can you, or anyone else for that matter, explain what is do different between the CG221 and the CG241W?

I know the 221, is smaller, but I can't figure out why it's so much more expensive, when it seems like the larger monitor is faster, and simply has more... everything?
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Chris:

The "big deal" about the Eizo CG221 is that it's native colorspace is basically all of the Adobe RGB (very large for monitors) while the CG241W is a more normal LCD display and smaller space containing maybe 90% of Adobe RGB.

If you proof for print, especially with the new wide-gamut printers, you're going to get a closer rendering with the 221, at least theoretically. However, it's a debatable point that one can learn to "read" the proof view accurately enough on a monitor with a smaller gamut and still get accurate output. Best thing to do is head into Keeble and have them show you difference.

I can tell you that for me, it was total available real-estate that drove my final decision ;)
 

ChrisDauer

Workshop Member
Thanks Jack!

Fortunately, I'm not buying today and have plenty of time to look around.
If I was buying today it would most likely be the Eizo FlexScan SX3031W. Seems to be a good compromise between the two worlds of screen real estate and color capability (supposedly 97% of Adobe RGB.) Resolution is around the 3 MP mark.

However, there is a little something coming out that sure would be 'fun'.

WQUXGA is around 9 MP, and will be produced by Toshiba next year. Unfortunately, at this price you're better off buying a used IBM T221, which provided the same resolution.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/02/toshibas-22-inch-monitor-touts-insane-3-840-x-2-400-resolution/
 
Last edited:

dfarkas

Workshop Member
Chris,

The CG221 is the Eizo flagship, but has been around for a few years. It is capable of displaying 100% of AdobeRGB. The CG241W was just introduced this last fall and can show 96% AdobeRGB. I've also found the CE240W to be a great value. Almost the same specs as the CG241W, and only $1675. We haven't received any pricing on the new 30" screens yet, but these are geared more to CAD/CAM users than photo editing. I'm hoping to see an anouncement for CE and CG 30" models. Maybe they will be showing them at PMA. Anyone else going to Vegas?

David
 

ChrisDauer

Workshop Member
Any comments from users of the CG301W vs. SX3031W?
The two look very similar on the Eizo website. But there is about a $2k difference between them.

CG301W = 5.3k
SX3031W = 3.0k

Both have 97% of Adobe RGB. I believe they both have 12-Bit Gamma, 16-Bit Internal Processing. Both have Brightness and Color Uniformity with DUE. Maybe I'm being dense but I'm kind of expecting something big for the price jump and I was expecting it to jump out at me (like this is a V8 instead of a V6.)

Thanks for the feedback/input. *ahem* David... ;-)
 
D

ddk

Guest
Any comments from users of the CG301W vs. SX3031W?
The two look very similar on the Eizo website. But there is about a $2k difference between them.

CG301W = 5.3k
SX3031W = 3.0k

Both have 97% of Adobe RGB. I believe they both have 12-Bit Gamma, 16-Bit Internal Processing. Both have Brightness and Color Uniformity with DUE. Maybe I'm being dense but I'm kind of expecting something big for the price jump and I was expecting it to jump out at me (like this is a V8 instead of a V6.)

Thanks for the feedback/input. *ahem* David... ;-)
CG is Eizo's graphic display line, which gives you the best consistency, color and tone when calibrated, the SX line is a more of a general purpose line of displays. I haven't seen the SX series so I can't comment on it vs the Apple Cinema Display which is still a fantastic monitor after all these years when properly calibrated; and doesn't run hot at all like mentioned above!

The Apple looses against my CG241W.
 

dfarkas

Workshop Member
Any comments from users of the CG301W vs. SX3031W?
The two look very similar on the Eizo website. But there is about a $2k difference between them.

CG301W = 5.3k
SX3031W = 3.0k

Both have 97% of Adobe RGB. I believe they both have 12-Bit Gamma, 16-Bit Internal Processing. Both have Brightness and Color Uniformity with DUE. Maybe I'm being dense but I'm kind of expecting something big for the price jump and I was expecting it to jump out at me (like this is a V8 instead of a V6.)

Thanks for the feedback/input. *ahem* David... ;-)

Chris,

The CG line comes with Eizo ColorNavigator software and allows you to perform direct hardware calibration using an i1. The SX line isn't hardware calibrated. Essentially, you are limited to 8-bit LUTs in your video card vs. 12-bit in the monitor's ASIC. Also, the CG comes with a nice monitor hood.

Hope this is the info you're looking for.

David
 

LJL

New member
The CG line comes with Eizo ColorNavigator software and allows you to perform direct hardware calibration using an i1. The SX line isn't hardware calibrated. Essentially, you are limited to 8-bit LUTs in your video card vs. 12-bit in the monitor's ASIC. Also, the CG comes with a nice monitor hood.
No disrespect intended here, but are those differences really adding up to $2.3K of pricing? That seemed more like what Chris was asking in his original post, and frankly, I am wrestling with the same issue. The CG line is outstanding, but really, how much better are some of these things than the SX line?

LJ
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
I can't respond with a rundown of how much more hardware calibration costs to manufacture into a monitor, but I can say that if you make a living with your monitor (read computer) and color accuracy is an absolute requirement, then the cost differential is acceptable.

I've calibrated monitors for a long time now in order to get as close to the 4 color output of offset as I could. My Eizo CG211 gets me closer than even my former Sony Artisan did to matching the final printed sample to what I worked with onscreen. This is key for me since I send my design files to printers all over the country and never go on press to oversee the printing. The differences can be subtle, but critical.

In the same way that a 28mm Summicron will show nuance that a 28 Voigtlander would miss (at 5 or 6 times the price), the Eizo provides that extra measure of accuracy that I need. Do other monitors by different makers compare? It's possible. But I've never regretted the premium price of either my 28 cron or my Eizo.
 

LJL

New member
Tim,
I can appreciate what you are saying and your experiences from you work demands. I guess I am having a bit harder time appreciating just how different these two monitors, from the same company, really are. I am sure the HW calibration and LUT is better in the CG, but if one is running a decent video card already, doing frequent if not daily calibrations, and working in a rather light controlled environment, are the differences really THAT much? I would imagine they are using the same LCD panels, though there might be differences in the QC levels, just as is the case with NEC and Apple.

Please do not think I am being obstinate here. I am really trying to understand just how much difference there is. I appreciate subtle color differences and stuff now, so I agree with what you are describing. Still trying to understand what one is really getting for that premium price. Not adverse to paying it if it truly that much better. Given that most monitors need to be scrapped after 3-4 years of hard use anyway, are the CGs that much of an exception?

LJ
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
I understand where you're coming from and I don't have the insider technical savvy to answer definitively. If I had to guess, it would be that the hardware calibration is more costly to implement on a 30 inch monitor and so the enormous price difference. But that is just me pulling a theory out of my a**.

You may be right that for the 30 inch monitor in question, and for photographic printing to ink jets, the difference in price may not make sense. But when trying to match a client's Corporate color on offset press? Another story. They (clients) are very critical. The price difference I paid for my Eizo-peace-of-mind has more than paid for the Tylenol I would have had to purchase otherwise.
 
Top