Dell Ultrasharp 23" vs 24" monitor

futureal33

futureal33

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,390
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I am in the market for a new IPS panel monitor.

Originally I wanted 27" but after measuring my work space, I am going to be struggling to fit it in, and I sit very close etc... so have decided 22/23/24" maximum is the way to go.

I keep hearing good things about the Dell Ultrasharp range, and see they do a 23" and 24" version of the monitor, with around £100 price difference between them.

Only differences I can seem to find are
  1. Obviously, 1 extra inch
  2. Improved gamma ?
  3. Resolution = 1080p vs 1200p

Is the difference worth £100?

I guess the extra resolution would be nice, but is it going to make that much difference?

Thanks
 
Personally I would be/am happy with the 1080, and would say it's not worth it. However the next person may say they would never go back. Is it possible to go and see the difference in a shop?

If money is no issue go 24'', but otherwise I would go for 23inch
 
You will find that u231* has 16:9 ratio and is simply lower than u241*. Presuming height is not an issue I'd get 24 unless you are struggling for money.

P.S. 2410 was better than 2412. The new one is only 6 bit and could have banding issues when pushed, and hence is cheaper.
 
I wasn't aware of any gamma difference? From my research into this monitor the difference is they chopped 120 pixels of the bottom to make it 16:9 not 16:10, everything else is the same.

FWIW I will be getting the 23" I use a 22" 1980*1080 monitor at work and it's a sight better than the 1440x900 than I am used to at home for real estate. However this is primarily to allow for more spend elsewhere, if this wasn't the case I'd probably find the extra.
 
I have a dual screen set up of a Dell U2311 and U2312, and it's great.

Would I switch to the 24" to get 1200 vertical rather than 1080?

For me, price was the overriding factor - I couldn't afford the 24" screen, making the question a bit academic, but if I had been able to afford the bigger screens I would have.
 
I bought the U2412M because the extra vertical resolution makes a huge difference for me.

That extra 120 pixels gives the the extra screen space in lightroom to have both the top and bottom bars open while retaining a decent amount of pixels for the editing area.

It really is rather a good monitor too.
 
why not have the best of both worlds, u 2410 with 1200 vertical pixels and the far better panel? just got one off ebay reconditioned but still a fab monitor
 
Mad Badger said:
why not have the best of both worlds, u 2410 with 1200 vertical pixels and the far better panel? just got one off ebay reconditioned but still a fab monitor
Click to expand...
Because it isn't clear that if your workflow is sRGB end to end (mine is) the 2410 is a better monitor. It may have a higher pixel depth, but if you're calibrated in sRGB, you are restricting the colour gamut.

The other issue is the 2410 is more expensive.
 
the u2410 uses different panel tech and is better. Is it worth another £100 that's your decision reality is unless you had them side by side you'd never know or care. I have a u2410 and we use them at work on all our workstations more than happy with mine.
 
I went through this.

The panel tech may be technically better on the u2410 but the difference between that and the u2412m is negligible unless you are using a workflow that would take advantage of the wide gamut. Most folk arent.

Certainly not worth £130 more. Especially when you consider the drawbacks of a non colour aware program displaying on a wide gamut monitor.
 
PS. I have 2 x 2410's here ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top