Wallet friendly monitor

[AlexCascatau]

Hi guys,

My old Samsung LCD passed away in a puff of smoke recently so It's finally time to get a new, better, screen for my desktop PC . I'm looking for something inexpensive below the 200 EURO mark, in order to serve my photographic purposes as well. I don't know a lot about monitors (should I get LCD or is LED worth it?/reaction times/other specifications) so I'm entirely open to suggestions from the wonderful CiC community .

[FrankMi]

Hi Cascatau. If you want to enjoy your new monitor long after the amount you invested is nothing more than a memory, take some time to look over what is available in the local stores, decide what you really like, then search for the most reasonable place to purchase that make and model.

When I did some years ago, the LG 26" LCD provided the best image for the lowest price and was rated very well in the on-line reviews. I am still impressed with the image quality and it is a joy to use. At this point I can't remember how much I paid for it but I do recall that it was quite reasonable. I can tell you that given the years of impeccable service it has provided, it was worth it. Hope this helps!

[Nicola]

Hi Alexandru,
I bought the HP ZR24W about one year ago, it do the job very well in my opinion and has very good reviews and comments on the web and also on some photography magazines
In a couple of word, it is a good monitor for (not professional) photography, with a decent price.
the 22inch version is also cheaper

see a very interesting review here:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/hp_zr24w.htm

hope this helps
ciao
nicola

[AlexCascatau]

Thanks a lot for the advice guys!

That HP looks good but is quite a bit over my price range here, I think I'll search for an LG or Samsung as I have had other screens from these brands which worked very well. At the moment I've decided to search after 23 and 24" screens as I'm quite limited to the width it can have (my desk has quite a tight setup at home).

I'm not quite sure but I think I'll go for LED rather than LCD, what do you guys think?

[markfay]

I'm in the market for a new monitor too Alex, and have just read http://mansurovs.com/best-monitor-for-photography. Some interesting observations on the different technologies.

[FrankMi]

I'm not quite sure but I think I'll go for LED rather than LCD, what do you guys think?

If price is your motivation, LED monitors are more expensive than LCD monitors but for information on the comparison of the two I typed 'LCD vs LED Monitors' in my browser and this comparison report popped up. http://getledmonitors.com/

[AlexCascatau]

I'm definetely going for an LED one (I can easily find one in my price range) and I've further narrowed my search to a 22" screen as a 23" one simply won't fit (it's too wide).

[calexe]

Sorry to disappoint you:

Just be aware that "LED" monitor is referring only to the backlight! The panel remains (TFT-)LCD in all cases. The technology in the LCD makes a monitor more or less adequate for photo / video processing. I doubt you will find an adequate monitor for photo / video processing in the named price range of 200 E.

By the way, "LED" monitors are usually those with white LED backlight. With high luminance and poor color rendition, targeted for general and office applications. You need moderate luminance (cca. 100 cd/m2) and good color rendition, which is exactly the opposite. Large color gamut and accurate colors are obtained with special technologies (S-PVA, IPS, etc.) and / or via RGB LED backlight (not white LED!). However such monitors are more expensive than 200 E. One of the cheapest to be adequate for photo / video would be the Dell Ultrasharp series. HP also has something similar (I do not remember the name of the series). Really good LCD monitors are manufactured mainly by Eizo, LaCie, Nec and few others (but start at +700 E).

Finally, you may need calibration. An uncalibrated cheap monitor is quite useless for photo / video processing. You will get into lot of trouble. Calibration is generally needed for any ph / v monitor, but I saw at a friend an Eizo who had accurate colors without calibration ( I mean the calibrated profile was identical to the non-calibrated profile). Colorimeters cost additional money.

[Manfred M]

I'll have to agree with many of the comments here. For photo (and video) editing, you are going to be looking at a higher end monitor that accurately displays colours. Normally editing is done in a room with subdued lighting, so some of the features you see in the standard home and office monitors are actually going to be working against you. Even though my monitor (high end Dell) has a very good and accurate colour gamut, I can't get the brightness down quite low enough for my liking. The bottom end monitors (i.e. the ones in the price range you are looking at) will not do accurate colours and no amount of calibration will bring out the quality because the technology just doesn't render anywhere close to photo quality.

The other comment on having to calibrate your monitor is also quite true. I think pretty well all of these are marketed by X-rite and they pretty well have the market sewn up, regardless of the name on the box. That being said, the bottom end ones are not that expensive and do a pretty decent job.