BenQ SW240 monitor...............good?

Box Brownie

Box Brownie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
17,645
Edit My Images
No
A recent thread about IPS vs VA monitors got me thinking once again that I would like to upgrade my ageing Dell 2209WA

I have seen various pointers towards a 27inch BenQ or Dell but apart from the cost I fear my desk space will be a more limiting factor....................therefore the BenQ SW240 caught my eye (again, because I think this one came up a while back in my last searches?)

AFAIK and have read:-
It has 99%aRGB and 100%sRGB gamut coverages
Resolution 1920 x 1200 compared to 2560 x 1440 on the 27inch ones (NB my current Dell 2209WA is 1680 x 1050)
Has onboard hardware calibration?

At <£400 it comes at a price but on spec and reviews is appealing.

So, is anyone using this 24inch 16:10 ratio monitor or any other make of the same 1920 x 1200 resolution?

TIA :)
 
Last edited:
No.....but if you have the desk space then I'd recommend the Benq EW3270U. You can find it sub £400 and it's an awful lot of monitor for your money.

It is mahoosive though.
 
Are there any used ones about.

I bought a Dell Ultrasharp 27" 2560 x 1440 for £135. Sod paying £400 for a monitor

it is ips but so what its fantastic for editing
 
Thanks for the insights guys.

That 32inch monitor is good bang for buck...... but I barely have space for 27", that is why 24" is maybe the sweet spot, desk space wise, let alone room size (as in how close are you sitting to a 32" for editing?).

The gamut on the 32" is larger than sRGB but as it is a standard aimed at video not photography, my initial surmise is that it's target audience is gamers and streaming video viewing.

My old Dell 2209wa, though showing some signs of age........has 99% sRGB and like any new one to at least match or exceed that.
 
JonathanRyan said:
No.....but if you have the desk space then I'd recommend the Benq EW3270U. You can find it sub £400 and it's an awful lot of monitor for your money.
Click to expand...

Looks very good.

JonathanRyan said:
It is mahoosive though.
Click to expand...

Not really. I have 32" and it barely needs more space than 27" it replaced

Box Brownie said:
Resolution 1920 x 1200 compare
Click to expand...

At 24" this will look AWFUL. There is a reason older imacs had this resolution at 20" models. Now they are 4k. Do you still want FHD in LARGER display?

Box Brownie said:
The gamut on the 32" is larger than sRGB but as it is a standard aimed at video not photography, my initial surmise is that it's target audience is gamers and streaming video viewing.
Click to expand...

That's pure bs. If you print anything you will need aRGB to make the most of it. Furthermore the web is about to go DCI-P3 and HDR compliant. It's your choice if that is any important to you.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Box Brownie said:
Resolution 1920 x 1200 compare


At 24" this will look AWFUL. There is a reason older imacs had this resolution at 20" models. Now they are 4k. Do you still want FHD in LARGER display?

Box Brownie said:
The gamut on the 32" is larger than sRGB but as it is a standard aimed at video not photography, my initial surmise is that it's target audience is gamers and streaming video viewing.


That's pure bs. If you print anything you will need aRGB to make the most of it. Furthermore the web is about to go DCI-P3 and HDR compliant. It's your choice if that is any important to you.
Click to expand...

In regard to the look of 1920 x 1200 on a 24" screen...........................please explain why that would look aweful???

As for the re: BS comment ~ the SW240 has 99% aRGB and 100% sRGB as well as compliance to DCI-P3 [not sure of the % but other similar spec'ed ref this standard @ 95%] and Rec.709

The BenQ 32" screen that Ryan suggested is as I mentioned with its DCI-P3, based on that it is standard 'designed' for playing cinematopgraphy so just how is that useful with a primary interest in photo editing with printing in mind?

So why is what I said BS ?
 
Box Brownie said:
In regard to the look of 1920 x 1200 on a 24" screen...........................please explain why that would look aweful???
Click to expand...

Pixels size of your fingernails perhaps. You'd have to sit back at least a meter away from it, ideally 1.5m.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Pixels size of your fingernails perhaps. You'd have to sit back at least a meter away from it, ideally 1.5m.
Click to expand...

Hmm? really.
twist said:
It's only 94 ppi (1920x1200) 24" vs 108 ppi (2560x1440) 27" diagonal.
Click to expand...

@twist beat me to it.

But to expand ...
My Dell 2209wa @ 1680x1050 on its 22" screen =90ppi

The 32" BenQ @ 3840x2160 =138ppi

So, in real world use the diagonal ppi figures of 90, 94 & 108 are logically(?) in the same ballpark. As in how easy is it to see the difference(s).

On the other hand the 32" screen at 138ppi IMO that is an outlier in this context.
 
Box Brownie said:
Hmm? really.


@twist beat me to it.

But to expand ...
My Dell 2209wa @ 1680x1050 on its 22" screen =90ppi

The 32" BenQ @ 3840x2160 =138ppi

So, in real world use the diagonal ppi figures of 90, 94 & 108 are logically(?) in the same ballpark. As in how easy is it to see the difference(s).

On the other hand the 32" screen at 138ppi IMO that is an outlier in this context.
Click to expand...

No its not that simple. Remember 20" imac is 4K now. and 27" is 5K That is your reference point.

If you are happy with your Dell's resolution then fair enough. You will get exactly that. What is the point to "upgrade" then? Maybe you should see an imac first before you decide to buy. No, not the imac, but the new monitor. You don't want it so glossy anyway.

A major difference between 32" and the small ones is the working distance. You will sit back a fair bit more. For me I'm 50-70cm away at least now, so it is a lot better on the eyes. And at longer distances the need for super dense resolution diminishes.

Even side to side every 10ppi is quite noticeable, also subject to coating. Old matt IPS were nasty compared to modern satin coatings. The old 27" is not a miracle but in real life looks clearer than 24"s. 32" 4K is a lot better, and so would be 27" 4K from the same distance... You need to see them in action basically.

If that is not enough to convince... well 4K is going just about everywhere. It is the new de-facto standard in web and TV streaming. You want to have now unless you are looking to replace it again shortly. There are 8K TV options now coming to a market...
 
LongLensPhotography said:
No its not that simple. Remember 20" imac is 4K now. and 27" is 5K That is your reference point.

If you are happy with your Dell's resolution then fair enough. You will get exactly that. What is the point to "upgrade" then? Maybe you should see an imac first before you decide to buy. No, not the imac, but the new monitor. You don't want it so glossy anyway.

A major difference between 32" and the small ones is the working distance. You will sit back a fair bit more. For me I'm 50-70cm away at least now, so it is a lot better on the eyes. And at longer distances the need for super dense resolution diminishes.

Even side to side every 10ppi is quite noticeable, also subject to coating. Old matt IPS were nasty compared to modern satin coatings. The old 27" is not a miracle but in real life looks clearer than 24"s. 32" 4K is a lot better, and so would be 27" 4K from the same distance... You need to see them in action basically.

If that is not enough to convince... well 4K is going just about everywhere. It is the new de-facto standard in web and TV streaming. You want to have now unless you are looking to replace it again shortly. There are 8K TV options now coming to a market...
Click to expand...

Well, a bit like GAS for cameras.....................I can wish for the highest of specs but what I can afford/justify is another matter:-
BenQ SW240 @ £399
Has 99% aRGB, 100% sRGB and I have now found it also has 95% DCI-P3

BenQ SW2700PT @ £585
Same Gamuts as the SW340 except the DCI-P3

BenQ SW321 4K model @ £1599
Same gamuts but the DCI-P3 is at 95% just like the SW240

NB
The Dell 27inch 2716D @ £600
Both aRGB and sRGB are 100%
Plus DCI-P3 is 98%


FWIW I already sit about the same distance to you i.e. varying between 50 to 75cm

As for why upgrade from my Dell 2209WA 22inch:-
1) It has an issue of cold start 'line' appearing near the RH edge
2) I wish for that bit more real estate that the 24inch would give me

As for 4K, I surmise you are right as it will become the 'new' standard and eventually prices will drop................but just maybe by the time they drop I may no longer be in a position to care about it :lol:

So, my opinion for now is the SW240 is good 'bang for buck' though I could see the benefits of the Dell 2716D (compared to the SW2700PT) ....................but currently would have space issues as well as, how the heck do I justify the extra £200 needed to buy it???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top