Which monitor

I've been looking for a new monitor, I'm torn between the

BenQ PD2705U 27 inch IPS 4K Monitor and the ASUS ProArt PA279CV 4K IPS Professional Monitor.​

This will be for photo editing.
Any recommendations guys??
 
Norkie said:
BenQ PD2705U 27 inch IPS 4K Monitor
Click to expand...
I have this monitor and I’m very pleased with it. I did try any ASUS ProArt before the BenQ, but preferred the latter, however the ASUS was not 4K.
 
following as I would like to upgrade my iMac 5K 27" 2020
 
To me 4k@27 is a downgrade from 5k, but I do a lot of text work.

If you’re used to a 5k screen do try a 4k@27 somewhere first. Some people don’t notice or care, but for some it’s just not an option. For me, it’s gotta be 5k@27 and then 4k@32 is acceptable but only if I need the other benefits that can get me in colour or refresh rate.
 
I know what you mean, the iMac 27” is lovely, but I need to watch the cost as well, I need two monitors.
 
Are OLED good for photo editting?
 
If 5k Monitors, especially the Apple Studio is £1k, with VESA mount instead of that fixed height feet, I would have stomached it.

But I got mine for £350...that is like £1300 still in my pocket....which come to think of it, the main items in my system cost less than 1 Studio Monitor

M4 Mac Mini £500
Caldigit Thunderbolt Pro Dock 4 £279
Huawei Mateview 28" 4k+ Monitor £350
Uperfect 16" 3k OLED £190

Total £1319
 
Raymond Lin said:
If 5k Monitors, especially the Apple Studio is £1k, with VESA mount instead of that fixed height feet, I would have stomached it.

But I got mine for £350...that is like £1300 still in my pocket....which come to think of it, the main items in my system cost less than 1 Studio Monitor

M4 Mac Mini £500
Caldigit Thunderbolt Pro Dock 4 £279
Huawei Mateview 28" 4k+ Monitor £350
Uperfect 16" 3k OLED £190

Total £1319
Click to expand...

Hi Raymond - would that set up cope with processing 100 MB files in LR with a Catalog of 50,000 images, (most are not 100MB's but many are 50MB's), at a reasonable speed - I've got used to iMac's and the 27" screen over the years!

( use 2 x iMac's at the moment 27" 5k - one from 2014 and the other 2020) - I've looked at the "hack" from China which can convert the iMac (monitor) into just a monitor, but I think technically it is well beyond me!
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
Hi Raymond - would that set up cope with processing 100 MB files in LR with a Catalog of 50,000 images, (most are not 100MB's but many are 50MB's), at a reasonable speed - I've got used to iMac's and the 27" screen over the years!

( use 2 x iMac's at the moment 27" 5k - one from 2014 and the other 2020) - I've looked at the "hack" from China which can convert the iMac (monitor) into just a monitor, but I think technically it is well beyond me!
Click to expand...

What do you mean processing 50k images? Surely you are not trying to edit them all at the same time rather than having a catalog of that size?

My catalog goes back to like 2012, files from Canon 5D2,3 & 4, Sony A73, R3, Fuji X-pro 1, XT1, XS10, X100 and X100VI.

It flies, and the slowest thing is the access speed from the hard drive. I only have the base 16G of ram too. If you want to spend £200 for 24G of ram, it’s worth it but I am not sure how much difference it makes when editing photo to photo.
 
Raymond Lin said:
What do you mean processing 50k images? Surely you are not trying to edit them all at the same time rather than having a catalog of that size?

My catalog goes back to like 2012, files from Canon 5D2,3 & 4, Sony A73, R3, Fuji X-pro 1, XT1, XS10, X100 and X100VI.

It flies, and the slowest thing is the access speed from the hard drive. I only have the base 16G of ram too. If you want to spend £200 for 24G of ram, it’s worth it but I am not sure how much difference it makes when editing photo to photo.
Click to expand...

My LR catalog has 50,000 images in it - quite a few stacked images, (insects, flowers and similar), and a lot of D850 RAW images and I am now thinking about upgrading my Leica Q to the Q3 which has 100MB images - the D850 RAW image "file size" is 50MB - previous to that are D810 and right back to D300/D700 .........

(my Catalog goes back into the last century with many scanned film images)

(I'm trying to do as much "house-keeping" on my images now, although I'm reluctant to delete images! - my iMac has 64GB of memory ....... I'm now finding it "slow"
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
My LR catalog has 50,000 images in it - quite a few stacked images, (insects, flowers and similar), and a lot of D850 RAW images and I am now thinking about upgrading my Leica Q to the Q3 which has 100MB images - the D850 RAW image "file size" is 50MB - previous to that are D810 and right back to D300/D700 .........

(my Catalog goes back into the last century with many scanned film images)

(I'm trying to do as much "house-keeping" on my images now, although I'm reluctant to delete images! - my iMac has 64GB of memory ....... I'm now finding it "slow"
Click to expand...

The CPU itself can hold its own, if you are worried then get 32G or Ram.

For my usage, I don’t find it slow at all.
 
the_accidental said:
To me 4k@27 is a downgrade from 5k, but I do a lot of text work.

If you’re used to a 5k screen do try a 4k@27 somewhere first. Some people don’t notice or care, but for some it’s just not an option. For me, it’s gotta be 5k@27 and then 4k@32 is acceptable but only if I need the other benefits that can get me in colour or refresh rate.
Click to expand...
5k 27 is perfect. 4k 27 is almost unusable unless you love youuge text. 4k 32 is passable after some tinkering and text will be on the small side. 6k 32 is perfect. That's pretty much the game on windows right now. Macs may be more forgiving with their settings from memory, i.e. they don't force you to scale images beyond 100 or 200%.

phinix said:
Are OLED good for photo editting?
Click to expand...
I don't see why not. Good gamut, even illumination. Just the risk of burn in. Not that IPS are safe from that either...
 
Yeah I’d love 6k@32, waiting for the new Asus to come out as the only real game is the XDR and it’s pricey (or the dell that gets very mixed reviews). I could maaaaybe persuade myself to spend XDR money but it’s lacking high refresh rates.

Windows does better at the fractional scales (like 4k@27) as you can set the scale 100% then separately set the size of fonts/UI elements. I’ve not tried it for image editing lately though so it might be worse there.

Macs you can scale the whole UI (as can windows) but both suffer with aliasing on text if you’re not at clean multiples. The text rendering is different though, so different scales look ok on either OS.
 
the_accidental said:
Windows does better at the fractional scales (like 4k@27) as you can set the scale 100% then separately set the size of fonts/UI elements. I’ve not tried it for image editing lately though so it might be worse there.
Click to expand...
I do that on 32.0" 4K. Font size 9 (why????!!!!) >> 11. Problem fixed. I'm obviously not using system settings to do that because unless something changed recently they still screw over graphics.

I can't even imagine how far you have to go on 27 4K. It wants bang on 150% right in the middle. Font 16 maybe?! Then you will get normal text but tiny graphics that requires magnifying glass to look at. I'd rather not even think about it.
 
Raymond Lin said:
For what it's worth, the Intel iMac that this Mac Mini Base model replaced was a late 2012 model that I paid £2200 for and then put in 32GB of RAM after market. Probably cost me like £2400.

£2400 for 12 years' use works out to £200 per year.

My current setup

Main Monitor £350
Mac Mini £500

Things like my Keyboard, mouse, Caldigit dock, external SSD, mic, webcam etc will still be here long after the Mac Mini is replaced. for £850, that is 1/3rd of the iMac that it replaced, meaning I only need it to run for 4 years for it to match the value for money scale. The £200 saved from the RAM upgrade will go towards the next Mac Mini. Essentially....the next Mac Mini only cost me £300 because I have £200 towards it already. If I keep my monitor then i only need it to work for like 2 and a half years really.

Additionally, when making a purchase, it is crucial to use only reliable payment methods to ensure a smooth transaction. I look for such at https://newzealandbanks.co.nz/citibank-nz/ having a reliable bank means being confident in transactions. I would suggest you look when you are going to buy something.

So that's my man math. £200 per year is the bar I need the Mac Mini to beat in terms of value.
Click to expand...
Sounds perfectly reasonable; spreading the cost like that really shows that the Mac Mini setup provides solid value, especially since your peripherals outlast each upgrade!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top