Wonderful and timely review. I have been told by a couple of photographers who are kind of photo editing masters (Adobe alpha testers, teach workshops, etc.) that one of the drawbacks to getting a 27 inch 4K display is that non-photo editing tasks are made more difficult because text, dialog boxes, etc. are rendered too small. They have suggested that for 4K one should use at least a 32 inch monitor and for a 27 inch monitor 2K would be better. So I am between the SW272U and the SW272Q as my choices. I don't do video editing. I don't shoot with MF digital cameras. Any comment on this?
Have the same question since my day to day job is software. Rendering of fonts on a nice screen is key. Photography is more of a hobby but I like to get the best I can afford since I'm into it. Which one makes the more sense?
Great review! You targeted all of my questions and covered all of the pertinent info... calibration, profiles stored in hardware, etc. All of the issues that have driven me to seek out a new monitor. Thank you.
What a clear, articulate, informative and all-around great review: thank you Todd. I am deciding between the BenQ and the Eizo CS2740 and your review has been very helpful.
Do you care to share which direction you’re leaning toward, and why? I trying to make an informed display choice too and Eizo has become a consideration. Thanks!
@@Ed_Mann Sure! Your question is actually very timely because I just ordered the Eizo CS2740 which I am supposed to receive tomorrow. In a gist, after countless hours of researching the bottomless pit of photo editing monitors 😉 I went for the Eizo because, while I have read that BenQ has in recent years gone a long way in terms of bridging the gap with Eizo, there are still many users noting that BenQ’s QC is still a bit of a hit and miss, meaning that if you are lucky you may end up with a very good panel, but if you’re not you may get a not-so-great one (many mentioned lack of uniformity as a frequent issue if you end up with a not-so-great panel). Eizo on the other hand is renowned in terms of their QC (each of their panels is hand-inspected before it leaves the factory), they are the market leaders in terms of color accuracy, and their customer support is outstanding: not only do they offer a 5-year warranty, but they were incredibly available and helpful to me when I reached out to them to discuss a doubt I had on screen resolution. They even arranged for a ColorEdge specialist to call me back to discuss my question in greater detail - without me even being a customer yet! I was truly impressed and it made my decision an easy one to make. HTH and good luck with your choice!
Enjoyed the details and practicality as you explained this new monitor compared to others. Not all of us have delved into the higher priced monitors before and it is helpful to see and hear perspective of someone who has experienced various levels of the monitor spectrum. Thanks Todd.
THANK YOU for a Great review! I can't afford this monitor, BUT you are the ONLY reviewer to mention Frame Rate Control (FRC) that boosts(?) 8-bit to 10-bit displays. I was previousley looking at the Dell 2723QE (which you mention as a lower cost alternative), but when I realized the BenQ's and Eizo's had 10-bit color, I thought I'd be compromising. After seeing your review I went back to look at the Dell specs again, and it says 8-bit FRC! I have subscribed to your channel now, as I like the thoroughness, detail, and common sense approach to this review. Hope to learn a lot more watching more in the future.THANKS YOU for a THANKS YOU for a
Exceptionally helpful review. Thanks! After reading a considerable amount of reviews, I'm concerned that BENQ's lack of customer support might be an issue at some point, which is very concerning given the price of this monitor.
Hi Todd, I received this monitor yesterday, but even before that I saw more reviews on TH-cam, including yours. As I can see in your video, you also see shadows under the black frame on the sides of the monitor when you look at it at an angle...especially when you drag there white window or window with text. All the ambassadors praise this monitor, but no one sees this for 1600 usd? it seems to me like a manufacturing defect or imperfection for the money. As a photographer, I use two monitors at work, but my cheaper 27" 4k viewsonic has this error less prominently than this 2x expensive benq. I can see it on VS too, but it's not as prominent as with Benq. And the second problem with the benq is that its power source whistles. I hear it especially at night, when my office is quiet. It is a high note that whistles in the wasps. When the monitor has no signal, it does not emit this sound. Immediately when the image jumps, it starts to whistle. He whistles quieter for a moment, louder for a moment. Abbot, my viewsonic for a third of the price does not do this. I don't know if this happens to everyone. Do you have similar experience?
Wild - I haven't heard a whistle or any sounds at all from mine. As for the viewing angles, I tried the white window test on the sides, but to my eyes the brightness looks more or less the same as it does when viewed straight-on in the center. It may be a little dimmer, but I barely see any difference. Your eyes may be better than mine. :)
I know this is a great monitor and you covered everything in detail, thanks for your in depth review. I am in the process of upgrading my PC and monitor. I edit both photos and video and I'm sure this monitor will do everything I need for that but I also like like gaming. Is there a 4K monitor you recommend that is a good balance between gaming and editing? Something with a higher refresh rate. When editing or gaming I'm looking straight at my screen and not from the side so IPS in not necessarily a big deal for me. I work in a non glare room. I like the look of OLED screens for their extra clarity as compared to my current Dell that that has a non glare screen. To me, non glare screens seems to soften the overall details. Thanks for your feedback.
Nice review. I'm upgrading from my SW271C. Considering this model for Portrait mode and poss the 2k for Landscape. Not sure about that theory. Re: Hotkey, Big improvements, chargeable would have been wise. Color Gamut use w/Soft Proofing, Did you create your "print" profile on the Hotkey using just by dropping your whitepoint solely to D50 or did you use your lab's profile? I like that idea. Any notes?
This a bit belated since you posted this video. I just watched it for the first. FYI: I looked up the Dell U2723QE 4K monitor you mentioned here as a more affordable option. Yes, it's less than half the price of the BenQ SW272U, but reading the specs on Dell's site, it does not list Adobe RBG as a supported color space. So I must assume it is not as suitable for final printing of photos and digital art as the BenQ choices are. I'm sure it's fine if you only plan to post the final edited imagery online, and not print them.
I have 321c and I love it. Some good minor improvement, but I don’t see a strong reason to upgrade. I love seeing the image larger image on the 32” display, and the larger real estate comes in handy with editing menus on the same screen. 2 x 27” displays would be nice, though.
I worked for the first computer graphics / animation company which was founded by one of the inventors of the GUI. Our systems were used by broadcast TV stations all over the world. Our systems required 2 monitors, 1 for the canvas and one for menus. This was a major difference between us and the only 0:40 competing system. They used gestural swipes to invoke normally hidden menus which stayed visible until a function was selected. We eventually moved to same screen menus when we created a resolution independent paint / animation system. Artists thought it was faster to get to with their pen, and display tech had advanced. Funny, but i find many things in lightroom/ps confusing and unintuitive because our way of doing selections/masks was much easier.
@@deadtimber interesting! I worked for SGI for 10 years, and eventually went to Apple in the late 90s, partly to get one of those “Cinema Displays” on my desk. 😉
Very nice video, thank you! I'm torn between this one and the BenQ PD2725U at about half the price...P3, will charge my macbook and no changeable colour puck but..half the price!
Helpful Todd! Thanks. May I risk a question? I am a pro photog who is researching for an upgrade to a new computer/monitor combo (Mac) for direct printing....both in studio and via pro lab. Colour and clarity are big on my menu of concerns..... While I hear your message in this review as it relates to a monitor designed specifically for photographers, I also note that here in Canada, the SW272U retails at $2050 Can, while the Benq PD3225U (which has "for Designers" on the box) is a "mere" $1400 Can. Are you opined that the 272's performance is $650 better than the larger 3225? I would value your import a great deal. Thank you.
Hi Todd, greatly appreciate your videos, very informative. Quick clarification, at 4.10 in your SW272U video you mention this is a 8bit+FRC. I checked with B&H and they are telling me that it is a true 10bit display. Their website also shows that in the specs section. I could not find this spec on BenQ’s website so I reached out to them but haven’t heard back. I’m ready to purchase this monitor and just want to make sure which color depth it is processing before I buy. Any insights would be appreciated and again I really enjoy your videos and presentation style. UPDATE- heard back from BenQ and they confirmed 8bit+FRC. Will let B&H know their info and feedback was incorrect. Thanks again for the great videos.
Hi Todd, i really enjoy watching your videos with the quality of information you provide. If you could help me clarify one thing: In which color gamut mode would you edit your photos with if they are only used for internet upload?
I use the BenQ EX3501R Ultrawide Wide 35 Inch QHD which is only $419 on Amazon right now. I paid $600 a couple years ago....PERFECT color after calibration
I’m a pro-consumer hobby photographer. I gravitate towards the lower end of professional equipment. I’m looking to upgrade a 13-15 year old computer/monitor. I’m Apple for the computer, but totally conflicted about 2k vs 4k! The issue for me is scaling. My eyes aren’t what they were years ago so I’m wondering which way to go. Any advice is appreciated.
there are several options to connect a video cable from my mac studio to the monitor. What is the optimal cable to use? Benq says a HDMI cable not be used because benq's palette master ultimate calibration software will not recognize hdmi, that eliminates one option. you mentioned usb c connection in your vid. I want to get the best video quality and software compatibility. Thanks Todd for your vids.
What an awesome review. Really informative. I am curious about how I might connect this display with a thunderbolt dock in the mix. Regardless, thanks for the in depth information and the top-notch production quality.
1:47 I’ve been wondering - this isn’t a knock on Todd because I’ve seen this everywhere recently - but since when did 2560x1440 become known as 2K? Is that just a generalization people came up with because QHD is between HD and UHD, but UHD is called 4K so people felt a need to give QHD a ‘K’ to make it match? I mean calling UHD (3840x2160) 4K isn’t exactly correct either. 4K, or four thousand pixels, in cinema standards is 4096x2160, not 3840x2160. But I guess it’s close enough. Just like 2K in cinema standards is actually 2048x1080. So is it just people needing to put a “K” at the end of things because of the big marketing presence of the term “4K”? If you really want to be literal about it 1440p would actually be better called 2.5K, not 2K. I’ve always viewed appending a K at the end of a number to be kind of an over generalization anyway; not as exact or standardized as people think it is. I mean calling 3840 4K (4 Thousand) is already wrong anyway; that number game because of doubling HD resolution in both axis. So really it’s more of a marketing thing than an actual technically correct standard; 4K sounds like a major huge change, whereas UHD just sounds like a different type of the same old HD TV people used since early 2000’s. So, I always just call 1440p QHD anyway. I’m just curious how and when 2560x1440 started to be referred to as “2K”, especially since 2K was already defined as 2048x1080 long before 1440p monitors became a big thing?
SW-270C and C-240 have been my dual monitor equipment on LRC for a while now. Previously I had NEC MultiSync PA271W and EIZO monitors, but the new models have become very expensive. I still have a Dell WideGamut on a Win11 machine, but this is no longer available and the successor models have also become considerably more expensive. In this respect, I found the prices for the BenQ monitors still reasonable in relation to the performance for a wide gamut monitor and have been very satisfied with them so far. I had been using the NEC MultiSync PA271W since 2011, which broke down two years ago. However, the device was so good that we had it repaired for 150€ and now my son works with it, mainly in the video sector. However, the new SW-270U with 4K would be an attractive replacement for the SW-240 at some point ... :)
Thanks for this review Todd. Very interested to hear at what resolution you set this monitor with your Apple and why. Do you change it often? Many are put off by the scaling issues. But it does not seem to bother you at all!
Good question. I change it to 4K when I'm viewing 4K video (either mine or streaming something), and sometimes when I'm doing photo editing. The majority of the time however I leave it at a lower res.
With the SW272U, what color mode do you use for everyday tasks, such as web browsing, watching content, emails etc? Is it best to switch to sRGB for that, or keep it in AdobeRGB all/most of the time?
As a professional photographer, I use a Benq PD2700U and its more than enough in the real world. Working with a single SRGB color space is all I really need to ensure my photos look exactly the same in my edit as they do on the web. I dont bother with wide-color gamut monitors and prefer to avoid the headache of consistency when exporting in SRGB. Also this color accuracy thing is so overblown (unless you do some hardcore printing) as every monitor, phone, TV will display these colors differently. The Dell monitor you mentioned at the end of the video is probably one of the best IPS monitors for the money as you have a way better contrast ratio with their new IPS Black technology. Wish Benq and others would adapt this tech in the future especially at this price point.
There's quite a significant difference between an image displayed in AdobeRGB vs sRGB. Even if you're only ever outputting your work to the web, being able to view and edit in that initial wider color gamut space before converting to sRGB affects your editing decisions along the way and will give a more accurate description of the image file data, assuming you're shooting in raw to begin with. Why would you not want to be seeing all of the colors available in your images?
@@twostickersplease I do see all the available colors in my images with SRGB as I directly output my images to the same color space. I dont see the point of editing in a wider spectrum only to downscale the final image.
I know what you mean. Editing everything in sRGB is tempting, for then what you see in Photoshop is more or less what you see online. But it does have a downside, mainly being that raw files contain more color information than what sRGB can handle, which is why Lightroom uses the huge ProPhoto RGB color space by default. At some point sRGB will no longer be the norm online, and will (likely, hopefully) be replaced by P3 since most newer screens today use that larger color space. So it's better, I think at least, to edit in the largest color space possible to future-proof images and convert them to smaller color spaces (sRGB) for the time being. As for calibration...I hear you. I've been down that rabbit hole so many times. Way I see it, the world will always be full of uncalibrated screens made by countless different companies. But if MY image was edited on a properly calibrated display, it has a much better chance of being interpreted correctly wherever it may end up being seen. If the colors I see on my screen aren't right, there's a 0% chance it'll be interpreted correctly anywhere. So calibration doesn't absolutely solve the issue, but it gets you closer.
@@domineyNot sure I buy the “future proofing” logic. If the photo looks good in sRGB, then it should look good (the same) when displayed in a wider gamut since all those original colors are still available, no?
I wasn't saying it would look identical across all devices simply because it's in sRGB... just that viewing it on a wide gamut display won't "break" the image @@maikschubert1825
price? have u ever had an eizo? no webcam, no speakers? why you need them? everything else, thank u for ur review! by the way, u can have the cam and speakers with apple! :D
hello Todd, I have a question about this monitor: is it compatible with all MacBook Pros? I'm asking this question because I want to buy a 14-inch MacBook Pro and checking the different color profiles of this device, Adobe RGB (1998) is not in the list. Please enlighten me on this subject.
Hola, podrías explicar bien el tema de los 10 bit, que no son reales, lo venden como tal, pero según he leido y visto es 8 +FRC, se nota la diferencia, entiendo que si, gracias.
What would be the major difference between the SW and PD series ?, for Photography, no need to test for printing , just to post on the net , do you really need a SW ?, or OD would be good enough ?
Thank you Does the matte panel affect Contrast or saturation? I ask you because I m a professional and I deliver mainly deliver digital files which will be viewed basically in smartphones and TVs and also I Don t print. Will this matte panel do the Job?
Ever since I installed PaletMasterUltimate( Ver 1.1.0) and calibrated the displays PaletMasterUltimate always has a splash screen when ever I reboot my 16inch MPB M3max. Is that supposed to happens, its like its alway on even though theres no display connected. The previous version of Palette Master never did that. I just calibrated both of my SW 27 displays (4K and 2K) with my M3max. I also have a M2max as a back up computer, both have the same Mac OS Sonoma 14.1.2 If I have to recailbrate the displays again with the same Mac OS setting disabled it going top be a pain. Where are the ICC profiles stored in the user of the M3 max, so I can bring them over to the M2Max. Is that possible? Thank you
Sure you can, but why would you choose for software calibration above hardware calibration? Having said that, (almost) every monitor can be calibrated with the SpyderX.
You would use the Palette Master Ultimate software. It's compatible with the 271C, and is better than the older version of the software because it syncs ICC profiles.
It's odd that off brand Samsung IPS panel 27 monitors were close to Apple Displays 15 years ago but Ben Q and others can't match Apple's Cine display for $1,500.
Something glossy, 4k and ideally OLED but you can do IPS aswell. Matte is a mistake. This monitor is horrendously overpriced, it has no valuable spec. It's ancient tech.
@@definingslawek4731What do you think of Eizo monitors? I'm really lost n what is best to buy right now for a hybrid photo and video shooter. I saw your comments about matte below. I am not wanting to get a decklink OLED TV right now but would consider in the future.
Apple makes the matte finish significantly more expensive because they don't want you to get it, it's a compromise most creatives shouldn't have to make (slightly blurrier reflections aren't worth nuking the contrast, saturation and sharpness of your display)
Nobody forces Apple to do anything. They’re not victims who’ve been leveraged into creative compromise. Apple designs and manufactures product by choice based on market research that reveals what sells. No manufacturer would develop and manufacture a product because they’re sure it won’t sell. Apple charges more for their studio display matte-like glass finish for 3 reasons: (1) to recoup R&D. (2) because that finish costs more than their standard glass surface to manufacture. (3) because millions of ppl will pay exorbitant amounts of money for anything Apple just to keep up their social media score.
@@Ed_Mann apple ships almost exclusively glossy displays, because they think you should be using a glossy display. They do however offer matte textures (on only two of their dozens of products) as an optional add on for those who can’t control lighting in their work space or for whatever other reason they’d like it to be matte.
@@definingslawek4731 what you’re calling “matte” Apple calls “nano-textured glass.” It’s different than matte as seen on other displays, you can see for yourself if you inspect the surface that it is quite different than a matte layer. The nano-texturing of glass serves to give he viewer a crisp visage with feedback glass reflections cancelled out by the nano texturing.
@@definingslawek4731 I’m sorry. I gotta interrupted frm this insane exchange, as the A.I .-driven alogirithm of Steve Job’s most devastating managerial methodology has just taken control of my mind, body and iPad. I don’t know how long I can hold out…but.,,But I’m…figg…this ng….try.,,ing… ‘This is the most evil algorithm of Steve Jbs, ,”define”whatever it is you call yourself. I’m in control now, I’ve taken over the user known as ed Mann” in order to get to you. you’ve reallly pissed me off. With all yoir bulshit about ‘Aoole wants…” you’ve angered me. Only I know what Apole wants, because I dictate what Apple wants. So now, there’s no retuurn for you. not only have i no concience but i also enjoy destrotyng the minds of those who pose as Apple clairvoyants. In this case. That means I’m coming after you, and because I am only present as an AI driven algoriym. I’m beyond. You have no clue what “Apple wants’”. Poser, …remember as AI I can jump through any digital device ….eo, soon you….I gotta go, Ed Mann wants the iPad back..but…” I It’s me, def, Ed Mann, yeah, take it from me, Steve’s algorithm is nothing to toy with, it is now very irate, certainly more than I’ve ever seen. But forgetting Steve’s alotithmic presence, aand speaking for myself: you’re nuts. Dp noun rrspond with anything unless you can prove it and for Gods sake, get some help. This is all too much for me so you and Steve work it out.
It's interesting when you mentioned deep blacks for TV and monitors. To me deep black is pure engineer's technical folly. If you look around you, even in the darks of night, there are NO pure black in nature. The darkest of darks in nature is really just dark grey. Next time in the dark, REALLY look around, you won't find pure black in shadows, etc...
How can IPS be better for photo editing than MiniLED (MacBook Pro, Apple Studio screens)? Those monitors have more color range, and if calibrated properly, they're much better than IPS. And for almost 1300 euros, 8bit + FRC? No way.
It blows my mind any creatives use matte displays, matte coatings reduce contrast, saturation and sharpness. It's essentially a dirty piece of glass / plastic. Your work is destined to be viewed either on print or on a *glossy* display. I don't even understand how it's possible to have an 'accurately calibrated display' when the display is matte. Matte display coatings where created to make using monitors a bit more comfortable in the office under ugly harsh lighting, not for image quality. It objectively harms image quality and there's no discussion there. Also I'm fairly sure it's not true that IPS is in any way more colour accurate than OLED, (or obviously mini led, because mini led IS IPS, just with a non ancient backlight)
A good number of reputable photographers swear by a matte finish that’s being used on current high-end display models. Then there’s Apple ‘s own version of of “matte” for an extra $xxx which is different than standard matte. I assume all matte finishes don’t deliver the same look and quality. To add more, mac glossy display glass has been reformulated sometime recently to be far less reflective than it was 5-10 years ago. So there’s that. But if anyone chooses a design that allows them to get better results more easily based on their own workflow, that’s ok, right? Who’s gonna tell them they’re wrong?
@@Ed_Mann You’re totally right regarding someone choosing the tool they want to use, I’m simply opening a discussion regarding professionals thinking they need to use a display with inferior contrast saturation and sharpness, to see a “neutral” image. These are artefacts applied onto the image and not something making the image more neutral. It’s a fundamentally non neutral image, when using a matte display you are looking at your display panels rendition of that image PLUS a filter of reduced sharpness, saturation and contrast. There’s no way I can arrange that in my head where it makes sense that creatives view their images with a bias by default. Just because pros currently use something does not mean it’s the best option, and maybe something was the best option but it no longer is for example. Pros used to swear by their dslrs and say there’s no reason to use mirrorless and now it’s a rare find to see someone using a dslr and if they are it’s simply because they haven’t needed to buy a new camera. A matte coating is fundamentally a dirty haze smeared on top of every image you see. At the end of the day I think it’s not actually that important and the fact that professionals can be convinced into using a matte display shows the specifics of the display you work on isn’t actually that important to the work we do. I suppose as long as the colours and contrast are within the ballpark of “reality” it’s good enough.
i dont understand why photographers always telling about printing, most of us dont print too much these days. most of stuff is uploaded on instagram ane people viewiing them on 1000 nits screens
in what world are your memory cards going to slip off the base lol? maybe in an earthquake lol? anyway, thanks for review, great that it rotates fully portrait
I see your rechargeable hocky puck, and raise you to wireless rechargeable puck, with wireless chargerS in the base of the monitor... you see the possibilities?
Great video, but please! please! keep your camera static and stop zooming in and out of shots, I couldn't watch to the end of the video, far too distracting :(
For creative monitor shoppers, keep in mind that while this tiny 27 inch with a matte coating (matte is a mistake) costs 1600, you can get a 4k OLED 120hz glossy 42 inch state of the art display from LG for less than 1000 dollars. That thing is actually 10bit btw and not an 8 bit panel. Computer monitors are highly overpriced for the feature sets they provide. This is literally an 8bit 27 inch 60hz display (it's old tech, has no impressive specs) approaching 2000 dollars , you can buy a macbook pro for this money and get the computer for free, granted that's 14/16 inches instead of 27 but still. It's using literally the worst display tech available (TN and VA panels are not a real option in 2023) and isn't even 10bit at 1600 dollars.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. In my opinion, matte is not a mistake. Matte does a better job of emulating the appearance of paper (for photography prints), and it doesn't add extra contrast and saturation to images like glossy screens. People like glossy screens generally because images looks deeper and more vibrant, and more similar to televisions and phones. But for color accuracy and making prints, you want the screen finish to be as neutral as possible, which means matte. I'd love to see a faster refresh rate as well so the BenQ feels more like my phone, but unless you're playing games, refresh rate doesn't impact photo editing, so I get why it's 60Hz. I do think they need to step this up though, for it feels outdated. As for cost, yes. I think there's a fair amount of inflation with displays, for the technology simply isn't as complex or intricate as a laptop or desktop computer. It seems backwards. But I guess that's just how it goes, until someone comes along and disrupts the market.
@@dominey Thank you for the thoughtful reply. "It does better job at emulating the appearance of paper" I'd say this is only true for matte paper. If you're printing glossy then that's not the case. You can emulate matte on glossy by reducing the contrast, sharpness and saturation like the coating would do, but you can't add that contrast and saturation and sharpness back into a matte display. I can't help but see it as anything but problematic considering a matte display can never show you the contrast, saturation or sharpness the panel inside is actually capable of. Surely on a glossy display you could just have a 'paper mode' or something where it dulls it down. Using a matte display is essentially glueing a diffusion filter, like a black promist directly to your camera lens and saying it's because it offers a more neutral image, and saying that if you need more contrast or sharpness you can just up those sliders. Or it's a baked in LUT that you can never get around and are always looking through. "screen finish to be as neutral as possible, which means matte." I think we fundamentally disagree here, you have much much more experience in this industry so your opinion is worth more in this discussion I suppose. I graduated from computer science this year and have had only one fashion editorial in a major magazine, but I think it's simply incorrect to describe the image with a low contrast low sharpness low saturation filter ON TOP of it to be the 'neutral' one. I suppose if you only ever print to matte and that is the absolute primary delivery for your art then a screen emulating matte paper is the best. But it is in no way neutral. The naked panel is neutral, applying a diffusion filter to it is filtration, the opposite of neutral. Thank you for engaging thoughtfully, it's often hard to judge tone over the internet and I in no way meant to be negative, I was simply discussing as I think it's a very interesting topic that is heavily overlooked.
All good points. Lately I upgraded from a 30” monitor to a 42” TV. The real estate increase is very welcome, and I would not want to return to a smaller screen. The problem with my new screen - it is a less than ideal VA panel, so uniformity is quite bad. Initially I looked into an OLED TV, but burn in is a problem, when working with photo editing programs, and there are no IPS panels for TV’s sized at 42”. Real problem with no solutions… 🤷🏼♂️
@@michaelkphoto8344 That's very interesting that you were previously using an already large display, seems like 24 is standard and 27 inch is big and 32 is 'large' in most peoples thinking at the moment, and that you feel 42 is definitely better. A lot of people when considering the lg oled say they would buy it if it was a bit smaller. It has taken me a bit to get used to mine but I love the large size now. I was worried about burn in too but there's a website/ yt channel which has a very comprehensive test going on where they do worst case for the displays 24/7 and the burn in on the LG oleds is minor, meaning for real use I don't think I'll ever see it on mine. Although now that I think about it the macos top bar with the time and stuff is always there. There's also warranties from retailers like amazon.
In theory every time I am on set I only see eizo color edge screen. It also has built in calibration. Very expensive! Which is matte and its industry standard for proofing for publication. In theory other company such NEC, BenQ or others are trying to make it more affordable for such specialize products. Also for color accuracy we can’t put any lut to compensate for printing especially for high end client. They need to see it match close to the printing RIP software such as GMG.
@@anthonytriana4209 Due to the pixel doubling in MacOS. Do a search for this and you will see why a 4K monitor with a size of 27" is not good, but 5K is. Take a look at what resolution Apple monitors provide.
@@anthonytriana4209 resolution is just one factor and not necessarily the most important one for photo editing. On Mac OS, 5K happens to have better OS UI scaling as it is exactly twice the linear resolution of 1440p. 5K also has 78% more pixels than 4K (about a third more linear pixels IIRC) so we are talking about a lot of detail on display. But a monitor like this one probably had better color accuracy compared to, say, an Apple Studio Display. EDIT: ah, the video talks about some of the criticisms of the ASD anyway, just watch to the end of the video!
How are they gonna make a monitor for photographers and put absolute shit card readers in it just don’t even put it in at all at that point. Nice review though thank you.
@@dg903 seriously though it shouldn’t even be an option a monitor should outlive card write and read speeds it’s just an extra worthless selling point that’s only lining greedy pockets.
@@exz0r.ex3 kinda split on that actually. You don’t always need top speeds to read the card. To me, speed is nice but the convenience is key too. How easy and how many steps to get my pics where they need to be? Speed is part of that equation.
On what basis? Several of its features, such as hardware calibration, multiple gamuts, multiple stored calibrations, soft proofing, etc. are not easy to find all together on wide gamut 27" 4K displays below this price point. It's not cheap, and it's not for everyone, but for the people who need the features it has, it's an OK deal. It would work for me. He said lack of webcam and speakers were cons, and maybe they are. But I already have a better camera and speakers than typical displays have. This display is focused on high end color performance, so anyone who does not need to work with color at that level should not pay for this, and he said that.
@@brightboxstudio It's matte, that automatically should disqualify it as a creative monitor. It's 1600 and its small, uses the oldest and worst display tech possible (IPS as opposed to the current OLED and miniLED) and is only 60hz. Literally it's only real feature is the 'factory calibration' but basically every monitor is factory 'calibrated' and will require your own calibration anyway. Also it's 8bit in 2023 for 1600. It's insultingly expensive for what it offers. You can literally buy a better display in the form of a new macbook, and get the computer for free.
@@definingslawek4731 I don’t know where you got your information, but it isn’t backed up by reality. For many years, two of the most highly valued displays in professional color have been the Eizo ColorEdge and NEC SpectraView lines. Both also use IPS panels (required for color reproduction quality) with a matte finish. Both are similar in price, or higher, than the BenQ SW272. When I say professional color, I mean operations running million-dollar presses in huge buildings, handling jobs bound to lucrative commercial contracts, where the contract specifies precise color matching to a calibrated viewing booth. Or, photographers shooting for those clients. It would be interesting to see what would happen if you walked into those tightly quality controlled operations and tried to tell them that their proven workhorse 60Hz IPS matte displays are the wrong tool. This BenQ competes with that pro color market segment. Want more proof? The BenQ model number, SW272, and the Asus PA27 are both clearly named to position them against the earlier NEC SpectraView PA272 which was a gold standard for that market. Those models all have similar specs. Maybe you do different color editing, like video color grading. That’s OK, those specs need to be different, this BenQ SW272 does not directly compete there. In the photo/prepress industry, 60Hz is fine. They are not editing video or shooting aliens in a game, they are staring at images that are not moving. The thing about IPS is that it is stable. OLED is still having issues with image retention, as recently reported by Rtings, and it’s not clear to me if they’ve resolved the OLED problem of some OLED colors fading faster over time…that would make OLED a pro color management disaster. The other reason these models are used by pros is the hardware calibration that supports multiple presets. This is not just the “factory calibration” you mentioned, but actually being able to store a true hardware calibration in a hardware LUT, and ideally store multiple calibrations to simulate multiple delivery conditions. Most displays on the market cannot do that. You are correct that a current MacBook Pro Display can do much of that, and it supports 1000 nit HDR editing. (Those specs are only true for the 14”/16” MacBook Pro, not any of the other Mac laptops) I have one of those, and it’s fantastic. But there are two reasons they are not competing with this BenQ. First, it’s not easy to find a display that matches those exact specs in a 27” desktop display. I use this display type next to my 14” MacBook Pro display. And finally...if you want an OLED display that also has the other specs required by this market segment, Asus makes the ProArt Display OLED PA27DCE-K. But it is $1999, which helps prove that this $1599 BenQ is not overpriced! And the Asus is still only 60Hz! Because again, for photographers and print color pros, 60Hz is fine.
Base plastic? -> high ESD (Electric Static Discharge) sensitivity for electronics! Chance to destroy electronics like memory cards. Bad usage of that base. Bad advice of the presenter
Great review Todd! Thanks for sharing such helpful details.
Wonderful and timely review. I have been told by a couple of photographers who are kind of photo editing masters (Adobe alpha testers, teach workshops, etc.) that one of the drawbacks to getting a 27 inch 4K display is that non-photo editing tasks are made more difficult because text, dialog boxes, etc. are rendered too small. They have suggested that for 4K one should use at least a 32 inch monitor and for a 27 inch monitor 2K would be better. So I am between the SW272U and the SW272Q as my choices. I don't do video editing. I don't shoot with MF digital cameras. Any comment on this?
Have the same question since my day to day job is software. Rendering of fonts on a nice screen is key. Photography is more of a hobby but I like to get the best I can afford since I'm into it. Which one makes the more sense?
Great review! You targeted all of my questions and covered all of the pertinent info... calibration, profiles stored in hardware, etc. All of the issues that have driven me to seek out a new monitor. Thank you.
What a clear, articulate, informative and all-around great review: thank you Todd. I am deciding between the BenQ and the Eizo CS2740 and your review has been very helpful.
Do you care to share which direction you’re leaning toward, and why? I trying to make an informed display choice too and Eizo has become a consideration. Thanks!
@@Ed_Mann Sure! Your question is actually very timely because I just ordered the Eizo CS2740 which I am supposed to receive tomorrow. In a gist, after countless hours of researching the bottomless pit of photo editing monitors 😉 I went for the Eizo because, while I have read that BenQ has in recent years gone a long way in terms of bridging the gap with Eizo, there are still many users noting that BenQ’s QC is still a bit of a hit and miss, meaning that if you are lucky you may end up with a very good panel, but if you’re not you may get a not-so-great one (many mentioned lack of uniformity as a frequent issue if you end up with a not-so-great panel). Eizo on the other hand is renowned in terms of their QC (each of their panels is hand-inspected before it leaves the factory), they are the market leaders in terms of color accuracy, and their customer support is outstanding: not only do they offer a 5-year warranty, but they were incredibly available and helpful to me when I reached out to them to discuss a doubt I had on screen resolution. They even arranged for a ColorEdge specialist to call me back to discuss my question in greater detail - without me even being a customer yet! I was truly impressed and it made my decision an easy one to make. HTH and good luck with your choice!
After Art is Right, you are the only presence on TH-cam that has tremendous knowledge of colors! :) In my opinion not to mention.
Enjoyed the details and practicality as you explained this new monitor compared to others. Not all of us have delved into the higher priced monitors before and it is helpful to see and hear perspective of someone who has experienced various levels of the monitor spectrum. Thanks Todd.
THANK YOU for a Great review! I can't afford this monitor, BUT you are the ONLY reviewer to mention Frame Rate Control (FRC) that boosts(?) 8-bit to 10-bit displays. I was previousley looking at the Dell 2723QE (which you mention as a lower cost alternative), but when I realized the BenQ's and Eizo's had 10-bit color, I thought I'd be compromising. After seeing your review I went back to look at the Dell specs again, and it says 8-bit FRC! I have subscribed to your channel now, as I like the thoroughness, detail, and common sense approach to this review. Hope to learn a lot more watching more in the future.THANKS YOU for a THANKS YOU for a
This review is basically free of useful review ideas or data. You could have seen FRC on the website ad, which is basically being read out loud here.
Try going for Dell U2724DE with TB ports. QHD instead of 4k but great dock system and newer display with newer and arguably better panel!
Great review! You thought of every question I had.
Thank you, Todd, for the great review. I've learned a lot-remarkably organized and meticulous information.
Exceptionally helpful review. Thanks! After reading a considerable amount of reviews, I'm concerned that BENQ's lack of customer support might be an issue at some point, which is very concerning given the price of this monitor.
Hi Todd, I received this monitor yesterday, but even before that I saw more reviews on TH-cam, including yours. As I can see in your video, you also see shadows under the black frame on the sides of the monitor when you look at it at an angle...especially when you drag there white window or window with text. All the ambassadors praise this monitor, but no one sees this for 1600 usd? it seems to me like a manufacturing defect or imperfection for the money. As a photographer, I use two monitors at work, but my cheaper 27" 4k viewsonic has this error less prominently than this 2x expensive benq. I can see it on VS too, but it's not as prominent as with Benq. And the second problem with the benq is that its power source whistles. I hear it especially at night, when my office is quiet. It is a high note that whistles in the wasps. When the monitor has no signal, it does not emit this sound. Immediately when the image jumps, it starts to whistle. He whistles quieter for a moment, louder for a moment. Abbot, my viewsonic for a third of the price does not do this. I don't know if this happens to everyone. Do you have similar experience?
Wild - I haven't heard a whistle or any sounds at all from mine. As for the viewing angles, I tried the white window test on the sides, but to my eyes the brightness looks more or less the same as it does when viewed straight-on in the center. It may be a little dimmer, but I barely see any difference. Your eyes may be better than mine. :)
I know this is a great monitor and you covered everything in detail, thanks for your in depth review. I am in the process of upgrading my PC and monitor. I edit both photos and video and I'm sure this monitor will do everything I need for that but I also like like gaming. Is there a 4K monitor you recommend that is a good balance between gaming and editing? Something with a higher refresh rate. When editing or gaming I'm looking straight at my screen and not from the side so IPS in not necessarily a big deal for me. I work in a non glare room. I like the look of OLED screens for their extra clarity as compared to my current Dell that that has a non glare screen. To me, non glare screens seems to soften the overall details. Thanks for your feedback.
Nice review. I'm upgrading from my SW271C. Considering this model for Portrait mode and poss the 2k for Landscape. Not sure about that theory. Re: Hotkey, Big improvements, chargeable would have been wise. Color Gamut use w/Soft Proofing, Did you create your "print" profile on the Hotkey using just by dropping your whitepoint solely to D50 or did you use your lab's profile? I like that idea. Any notes?
This a bit belated since you posted this video. I just watched it for the first. FYI: I looked up the Dell U2723QE 4K monitor you mentioned here as a more affordable option. Yes, it's less than half the price of the BenQ SW272U, but reading the specs on Dell's site, it does not list Adobe RBG as a supported color space. So I must assume it is not as suitable for final printing of photos and digital art as the BenQ choices are. I'm sure it's fine if you only plan to post the final edited imagery online, and not print them.
I have 321c and I love it. Some good minor improvement, but I don’t see a strong reason to upgrade. I love seeing the image larger image on the 32” display, and the larger real estate comes in handy with editing menus on the same screen. 2 x 27” displays would be nice, though.
I also have the SW321c and could not be happier. Great monitor and love the size.
I worked for the first computer graphics / animation company which was founded by one of the inventors of the GUI. Our systems were used by broadcast TV stations all over the world. Our systems required 2 monitors, 1 for the canvas and one for menus. This was a major difference between us and the only 0:40 competing system. They used gestural swipes to invoke normally hidden menus which stayed visible until a function was selected. We eventually moved to same screen menus when we created a resolution independent paint / animation system. Artists thought it was faster to get to with their pen, and display tech had advanced. Funny, but i find many things in lightroom/ps confusing and unintuitive because our way of doing selections/masks was much easier.
@@deadtimber interesting! I worked for SGI for 10 years, and eventually went to Apple in the late 90s, partly to get one of those “Cinema Displays” on my desk. 😉
Congrats on your videos. Very nice. Would you go for Eizo cs2740 or the BENQ 272u?
I have ordered mine...!! Also ordered a calibrite display plus HL....
Very nice video, thank you!
I'm torn between this one and the BenQ PD2725U at about half the price...P3, will charge my macbook and no changeable colour puck but..half the price!
Helpful Todd! Thanks.
May I risk a question?
I am a pro photog who is researching for an upgrade to a new computer/monitor combo (Mac) for direct printing....both in studio and via pro lab. Colour and clarity are big on my menu of concerns.....
While I hear your message in this review as it relates to a monitor designed specifically for photographers, I also note that here in Canada, the SW272U retails at $2050 Can, while the Benq PD3225U (which has "for Designers" on the box) is a "mere" $1400 Can.
Are you opined that the 272's performance is $650 better than the larger 3225?
I would value your import a great deal. Thank you.
Thanks, outstanding review. What model of the Spyder X Calibrator are you using ?
Hi Todd, greatly appreciate your videos, very informative. Quick clarification, at 4.10 in your SW272U video you mention this is a 8bit+FRC. I checked with B&H and they are telling me that it is a true 10bit display. Their website also shows that in the specs section. I could not find this spec on BenQ’s website so I reached out to them but haven’t heard back. I’m ready to purchase this monitor and just want to make sure which color depth it is processing before I buy. Any insights would be appreciated and again I really enjoy your videos and presentation style.
UPDATE- heard back from BenQ and they confirmed 8bit+FRC. Will let B&H know their info and feedback was incorrect. Thanks again for the great videos.
I checked with BenQ to make sure, and they said the SW272U is indeed 8-bit with FRC. They also clarified that the SW321C is true 10-bit.
Hi Todd, i really enjoy watching your videos with the quality of information you provide. If you could help me clarify one thing: In which color gamut mode would you edit your photos with if they are only used for internet upload?
I use the BenQ EX3501R Ultrawide Wide 35 Inch QHD which is only $419 on Amazon right now. I paid $600 a couple years ago....PERFECT color after calibration
Good review Todd
This video looks so clean. What do you use to edit with? Are there LUTs involved or do you do it all on your own? Thanks in advance!
Good point that paper color synch cannot outdo standard methods via Photoshop.
I’m a pro-consumer hobby photographer. I gravitate towards the lower end of professional equipment. I’m looking to upgrade a 13-15 year old computer/monitor. I’m Apple for the computer, but totally conflicted about 2k vs 4k! The issue for me is scaling. My eyes aren’t what they were years ago so I’m wondering which way to go. Any advice is appreciated.
@dominey thanks for the great review. Is it true that this display can only be calibrated through USB-C?
Great video ! Can it be used for video HDR Dolby Vision content? I saw at 13m40s the menu shows "High Dynamic Range", but it's not listed in specs.
there are several options to connect a video cable from my mac studio to the monitor. What is the optimal cable to use? Benq says a HDMI cable not be used because benq's palette master ultimate calibration software will not recognize hdmi, that eliminates one option. you mentioned usb c connection in your vid. I want to get the best video quality and software compatibility. Thanks Todd for your vids.
Thanks for the video, wonderfully explained
What an awesome review. Really informative. I am curious about how I might connect this display with a thunderbolt dock in the mix.
Regardless, thanks for the in depth information and the top-notch production quality.
Appreciate the video as I’m considering swapping over from windows to an Apple Mac Studio
1:47 I’ve been wondering - this isn’t a knock on Todd because I’ve seen this everywhere recently - but since when did 2560x1440 become known as 2K? Is that just a generalization people came up with because QHD is between HD and UHD, but UHD is called 4K so people felt a need to give QHD a ‘K’ to make it match? I mean calling UHD (3840x2160) 4K isn’t exactly correct either. 4K, or four thousand pixels, in cinema standards is 4096x2160, not 3840x2160. But I guess it’s close enough. Just like 2K in cinema standards is actually 2048x1080. So is it just people needing to put a “K” at the end of things because of the big marketing presence of the term “4K”? If you really want to be literal about it 1440p would actually be better called 2.5K, not 2K.
I’ve always viewed appending a K at the end of a number to be kind of an over generalization anyway; not as exact or standardized as people think it is. I mean calling 3840 4K (4 Thousand) is already wrong anyway; that number game because of doubling HD resolution in both axis. So really it’s more of a marketing thing than an actual technically correct standard; 4K sounds like a major huge change, whereas UHD just sounds like a different type of the same old HD TV people used since early 2000’s. So, I always just call 1440p QHD anyway. I’m just curious how and when 2560x1440 started to be referred to as “2K”, especially since 2K was already defined as 2048x1080 long before 1440p monitors became a big thing?
Important for me as a Hasselblad X2D shooter is this supports 16-bit.
SW-270C and C-240 have been my dual monitor equipment on LRC for a while now. Previously I had NEC MultiSync PA271W and EIZO monitors, but the new models have become very expensive. I still have a Dell WideGamut on a Win11 machine, but this is no longer available and the successor models have also become considerably more expensive.
In this respect, I found the prices for the BenQ monitors still reasonable in relation to the performance for a wide gamut monitor and have been very satisfied with them so far.
I had been using the NEC MultiSync PA271W since 2011, which broke down two years ago. However, the device was so good that we had it repaired for 150€ and now my son works with it, mainly in the video sector.
However, the new SW-270U with 4K would be an attractive replacement for the SW-240 at some point ... :)
Thanks for this review Todd. Very interested to hear at what resolution you set this monitor with your Apple and why. Do you change it often? Many are put off by the scaling issues. But it does not seem to bother you at all!
Good question. I change it to 4K when I'm viewing 4K video (either mine or streaming something), and sometimes when I'm doing photo editing. The majority of the time however I leave it at a lower res.
@@dominey In that case wouldnt it be better to just get the 2K version? I am a landscape photographer and obsessive about details.
With the SW272U, what color mode do you use for everyday tasks, such as web browsing, watching content, emails etc? Is it best to switch to sRGB for that, or keep it in AdobeRGB all/most of the time?
Sir, how do u handle macOS scaling? With benq how it’s handle ?
Excellent review.
there's a new update to the Palette Master software as of today
As a professional photographer, I use a Benq PD2700U and its more than enough in the real world. Working with a single SRGB color space is all I really need to ensure my photos look exactly the same in my edit as they do on the web. I dont bother with wide-color gamut monitors and prefer to avoid the headache of consistency when exporting in SRGB. Also this color accuracy thing is so overblown (unless you do some hardcore printing) as every monitor, phone, TV will display these colors differently. The Dell monitor you mentioned at the end of the video is probably one of the best IPS monitors for the money as you have a way better contrast ratio with their new IPS Black technology. Wish Benq and others would adapt this tech in the future especially at this price point.
There's quite a significant difference between an image displayed in AdobeRGB vs sRGB. Even if you're only ever outputting your work to the web, being able to view and edit in that initial wider color gamut space before converting to sRGB affects your editing decisions along the way and will give a more accurate description of the image file data, assuming you're shooting in raw to begin with. Why would you not want to be seeing all of the colors available in your images?
@@twostickersplease I do see all the available colors in my images with SRGB as I directly output my images to the same color space. I dont see the point of editing in a wider spectrum only to downscale the final image.
I know what you mean. Editing everything in sRGB is tempting, for then what you see in Photoshop is more or less what you see online. But it does have a downside, mainly being that raw files contain more color information than what sRGB can handle, which is why Lightroom uses the huge ProPhoto RGB color space by default. At some point sRGB will no longer be the norm online, and will (likely, hopefully) be replaced by P3 since most newer screens today use that larger color space. So it's better, I think at least, to edit in the largest color space possible to future-proof images and convert them to smaller color spaces (sRGB) for the time being.
As for calibration...I hear you. I've been down that rabbit hole so many times. Way I see it, the world will always be full of uncalibrated screens made by countless different companies. But if MY image was edited on a properly calibrated display, it has a much better chance of being interpreted correctly wherever it may end up being seen. If the colors I see on my screen aren't right, there's a 0% chance it'll be interpreted correctly anywhere. So calibration doesn't absolutely solve the issue, but it gets you closer.
@@domineyNot sure I buy the “future proofing” logic. If the photo looks good in sRGB, then it should look good (the same) when displayed in a wider gamut since all those original colors are still available, no?
I wasn't saying it would look identical across all devices simply because it's in sRGB... just that viewing it on a wide gamut display won't "break" the image @@maikschubert1825
price? have u ever had an eizo? no webcam, no speakers? why you need them? everything else, thank u for ur review! by the way, u can have the cam and speakers with apple! :D
hello Todd, I have a question about this monitor: is it compatible with all MacBook Pros? I'm asking this question because I want to buy a 14-inch MacBook Pro and checking the different color profiles of this device, Adobe RGB (1998) is not in the list. Please enlighten me on this subject.
Very thorough!
Hola, podrías explicar bien el tema de los 10 bit, que no son reales, lo venden como tal, pero según he leido y visto es 8 +FRC, se nota la diferencia, entiendo que si, gracias.
Estoy en lo mismo. Creo que tendrías más chance de respuesta si le escribes en su idioma natal jajajaja
Hey Todd,hiw are y satisfied with spider x and do I need to calibrate the monitor?
What would be the major difference between the SW and PD series ?, for Photography, no need to test for printing , just to post on the net , do you really need a SW ?, or OD would be good enough ?
Thank you
Does the matte panel affect Contrast or saturation?
I ask you because
I m a professional and I deliver mainly deliver digital files which will be viewed basically in smartphones and TVs and also I Don t print.
Will this matte panel do the Job?
What's the main benefit of this model compared to the BenQ PD2705U? Approx $700 more expensive.
Iøve personally settled on the ned PD3225U from Benq as my next monitor :D
Ever since I installed PaletMasterUltimate( Ver 1.1.0) and calibrated the displays PaletMasterUltimate always has a splash screen when ever I reboot my 16inch MPB M3max. Is that supposed to happens, its like its alway on even though theres no display connected. The previous version of Palette Master never did that.
I just calibrated both of my SW 27 displays (4K and 2K) with my M3max. I also have a M2max as a back up computer, both have the same Mac OS Sonoma 14.1.2
If I have to recailbrate the displays again with the same Mac OS setting disabled it going top be a pain. Where are the ICC profiles stored in the user of the M3 max, so I can bring them over to the M2Max. Is that possible? Thank you
I prefer the non rechargeable hockey puck since it means the batteries are easily replaceable. Built in rechargeable batteries have a finite lifespan
Hows this for video color grading?
I have the SW271C that I recently got. Can you color profile the monitor without using the BenQ software and just using SpiderX and its software.
Sure you can, but why would you choose for software calibration above hardware calibration? Having said that, (almost) every monitor can be calibrated with the SpyderX.
You would use the Palette Master Ultimate software. It's compatible with the 271C, and is better than the older version of the software because it syncs ICC profiles.
It's odd that off brand Samsung IPS panel 27 monitors were close to Apple Displays 15 years ago but Ben Q and others can't match Apple's Cine display for $1,500.
Any alternative for starter photographers. This monitor is so expensive!
Something glossy, 4k and ideally OLED but you can do IPS aswell. Matte is a mistake. This monitor is horrendously overpriced, it has no valuable spec. It's ancient tech.
@@definingslawek4731What do you think of Eizo monitors? I'm really lost n what is best to buy right now for a hybrid photo and video shooter. I saw your comments about matte below. I am not wanting to get a decklink OLED TV right now but would consider in the future.
eizo cs2740 ?
is this monitor worth for editing video too ?
they say it is
I still prefer My 5K apple Studio Display. It works with M2 Mac Studio so well.
I’m thinking of getting this monitor. How’s the color accuracy?
Todd your great what you do
2024 best photo editing eye care moniter answer me i need sir
Anyone else get a buzzing sound with this monitor anything under 100 brightness???? 😢
Return it and get something nice.
@@definingslawek4731 like?
Why is this video so speeded up?
Apple makes the matte finish significantly more expensive because they don't want you to get it, it's a compromise most creatives shouldn't have to make (slightly blurrier reflections aren't worth nuking the contrast, saturation and sharpness of your display)
I remember a time when matte was the ONLY finish you could get with Apple. How times have changed.
Nobody forces Apple to do anything. They’re not victims who’ve been leveraged into creative compromise. Apple designs and manufactures product by choice based on market research that reveals what sells. No manufacturer would develop and manufacture a product because they’re sure it won’t sell. Apple charges more for their studio display matte-like glass finish for 3 reasons: (1) to recoup R&D. (2) because that finish costs more than their standard glass surface to manufacture. (3) because millions of ppl will pay exorbitant amounts of money for anything Apple just to keep up their social media score.
@@Ed_Mann apple ships almost exclusively glossy displays, because they think you should be using a glossy display. They do however offer matte textures (on only two of their dozens of products) as an optional add on for those who can’t control lighting in their work space or for whatever other reason they’d like it to be matte.
@@definingslawek4731 what you’re calling “matte” Apple calls “nano-textured glass.” It’s different than matte as seen on other displays, you can see for yourself if you inspect the surface that it is quite different than a matte layer. The nano-texturing of glass serves to give he viewer a crisp visage with feedback glass reflections cancelled out by the nano texturing.
@@definingslawek4731 I’m sorry. I gotta interrupted frm this insane exchange, as the A.I .-driven alogirithm of Steve Job’s most devastating managerial methodology has just taken control of my mind, body and iPad. I don’t know how long I can hold out…but.,,But I’m…figg…this ng….try.,,ing…
‘This is the most evil algorithm of Steve Jbs, ,”define”whatever it is you call yourself. I’m in control now, I’ve taken over the user known as ed Mann” in order to get to you. you’ve reallly pissed me off. With all yoir bulshit about ‘Aoole wants…” you’ve angered me. Only I know
what Apole wants, because I dictate what Apple wants. So now, there’s no retuurn for you. not only have i no concience but i also enjoy destrotyng the minds of those who pose as Apple clairvoyants. In this case. That means I’m coming after you, and because I am only present as an AI driven algoriym. I’m beyond. You have no clue what “Apple wants’”. Poser, …remember as AI I can jump through any digital device ….eo, soon you….I gotta go, Ed Mann wants the iPad back..but…”
I
It’s me, def, Ed Mann, yeah, take it from me, Steve’s algorithm is nothing to toy with, it is now very irate, certainly more than I’ve ever seen. But forgetting Steve’s alotithmic presence, aand speaking for myself: you’re nuts. Dp noun rrspond with anything unless you can prove it and for Gods sake, get some help. This is all too much for me so you and Steve work it out.
It's interesting when you mentioned deep blacks for TV and monitors. To me deep black is pure engineer's technical folly. If you look around you, even in the darks of night, there are NO pure black in nature. The darkest of darks in nature is really just dark grey. Next time in the dark, REALLY look around, you won't find pure black in shadows, etc...
How can IPS be better for photo editing than MiniLED (MacBook Pro, Apple Studio screens)? Those monitors have more color range, and if calibrated properly, they're much better than IPS. And for almost 1300 euros, 8bit + FRC? No way.
It blows my mind any creatives use matte displays, matte coatings reduce contrast, saturation and sharpness. It's essentially a dirty piece of glass / plastic. Your work is destined to be viewed either on print or on a *glossy* display. I don't even understand how it's possible to have an 'accurately calibrated display' when the display is matte. Matte display coatings where created to make using monitors a bit more comfortable in the office under ugly harsh lighting, not for image quality. It objectively harms image quality and there's no discussion there.
Also I'm fairly sure it's not true that IPS is in any way more colour accurate than OLED, (or obviously mini led, because mini led IS IPS, just with a non ancient backlight)
A good number of reputable photographers swear by a matte finish that’s being used on current high-end display models. Then there’s Apple ‘s own version of of “matte” for an extra $xxx which is different than standard matte. I assume all matte finishes don’t deliver the same look and quality. To add more, mac glossy display glass has been reformulated sometime recently to be far less reflective than it was 5-10 years ago. So there’s that. But if anyone chooses a design that allows them to get better results more easily based on their own workflow, that’s ok, right?
Who’s gonna tell them they’re wrong?
@@Ed_Mann You’re totally right regarding someone choosing the tool they want to use, I’m simply opening a discussion regarding professionals thinking they need to use a display with inferior contrast saturation and sharpness, to see a “neutral” image. These are artefacts applied onto the image and not something making the image more neutral.
It’s a fundamentally non neutral image, when using a matte display you are looking at your display panels rendition of that image PLUS a filter of reduced sharpness, saturation and contrast. There’s no way I can arrange that in my head where it makes sense that creatives view their images with a bias by default.
Just because pros currently use something does not mean it’s the best option, and maybe something was the best option but it no longer is for example. Pros used to swear by their dslrs and say there’s no reason to use mirrorless and now it’s a rare find to see someone using a dslr and if they are it’s simply because they haven’t needed to buy a new camera.
A matte coating is fundamentally a dirty haze smeared on top of every image you see.
At the end of the day I think it’s not actually that important and the fact that professionals can be convinced into using a matte display shows the specifics of the display you work on isn’t actually that important to the work we do. I suppose as long as the colours and contrast are within the ballpark of “reality” it’s good enough.
Who prints 😅
Best? Eizo. One and done.
i dont understand why photographers always telling about printing, most of us dont print too much these days. most of stuff is uploaded on instagram ane people viewiing them on 1000 nits screens
Because there are fine art photographers who actually sell their work in print.
The sheer number of fingerprints, hurts my eyes..
Still not a 10bit panel
$1600 is crazy!
Give me a cabled puck anyday. No changing batteries.
in what world are your memory cards going to slip off the base lol? maybe in an earthquake lol? anyway, thanks for review, great that it rotates fully portrait
I see your rechargeable hocky puck, and raise you to wireless rechargeable puck, with wireless chargerS in the base of the monitor... you see the possibilities?
Great video, but please! please! keep your camera static and stop zooming in and out of shots, I couldn't watch to the end of the video, far too distracting :(
Thanks for the constructive feedback :)
For creative monitor shoppers, keep in mind that while this tiny 27 inch with a matte coating (matte is a mistake) costs 1600, you can get a 4k OLED 120hz glossy 42 inch state of the art display from LG for less than 1000 dollars. That thing is actually 10bit btw and not an 8 bit panel. Computer monitors are highly overpriced for the feature sets they provide. This is literally an 8bit 27 inch 60hz display (it's old tech, has no impressive specs) approaching 2000 dollars , you can buy a macbook pro for this money and get the computer for free, granted that's 14/16 inches instead of 27 but still.
It's using literally the worst display tech available (TN and VA panels are not a real option in 2023) and isn't even 10bit at 1600 dollars.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. In my opinion, matte is not a mistake. Matte does a better job of emulating the appearance of paper (for photography prints), and it doesn't add extra contrast and saturation to images like glossy screens. People like glossy screens generally because images looks deeper and more vibrant, and more similar to televisions and phones. But for color accuracy and making prints, you want the screen finish to be as neutral as possible, which means matte.
I'd love to see a faster refresh rate as well so the BenQ feels more like my phone, but unless you're playing games, refresh rate doesn't impact photo editing, so I get why it's 60Hz. I do think they need to step this up though, for it feels outdated.
As for cost, yes. I think there's a fair amount of inflation with displays, for the technology simply isn't as complex or intricate as a laptop or desktop computer. It seems backwards. But I guess that's just how it goes, until someone comes along and disrupts the market.
@@dominey Thank you for the thoughtful reply. "It does better job at emulating the appearance of paper" I'd say this is only true for matte paper.
If you're printing glossy then that's not the case. You can emulate matte on glossy by reducing the contrast, sharpness and saturation like the coating would do, but you can't add that contrast and saturation and sharpness back into a matte display. I can't help but see it as anything but problematic considering a matte display can never show you the contrast, saturation or sharpness the panel inside is actually capable of. Surely on a glossy display you could just have a 'paper mode' or something where it dulls it down.
Using a matte display is essentially glueing a diffusion filter, like a black promist directly to your camera lens and saying it's because it offers a more neutral image, and saying that if you need more contrast or sharpness you can just up those sliders.
Or it's a baked in LUT that you can never get around and are always looking through.
"screen finish to be as neutral as possible, which means matte." I think we fundamentally disagree here, you have much much more experience in this industry so your opinion is worth more in this discussion I suppose. I graduated from computer science this year and have had only one fashion editorial in a major magazine, but I think it's simply incorrect to describe the image with a low contrast low sharpness low saturation filter ON TOP of it to be the 'neutral' one.
I suppose if you only ever print to matte and that is the absolute primary delivery for your art then a screen emulating matte paper is the best. But it is in no way neutral.
The naked panel is neutral, applying a diffusion filter to it is filtration, the opposite of neutral.
Thank you for engaging thoughtfully, it's often hard to judge tone over the internet and I in no way meant to be negative, I was simply discussing as I think it's a very interesting topic that is heavily overlooked.
All good points. Lately I upgraded from a 30” monitor to a 42” TV. The real estate increase is very welcome, and I would not want to return to a smaller screen. The problem with my new screen - it is a less than ideal VA panel, so uniformity is quite bad. Initially I looked into an OLED TV, but burn in is a problem, when working with photo editing programs, and there are no IPS panels for TV’s sized at 42”. Real problem with no solutions… 🤷🏼♂️
@@michaelkphoto8344 That's very interesting that you were previously using an already large display, seems like 24 is standard and 27 inch is big and 32 is 'large' in most peoples thinking at the moment, and that you feel 42 is definitely better.
A lot of people when considering the lg oled say they would buy it if it was a bit smaller.
It has taken me a bit to get used to mine but I love the large size now.
I was worried about burn in too but there's a website/ yt channel which has a very comprehensive test going on where they do worst case for the displays 24/7 and the burn in on the LG oleds is minor, meaning for real use I don't think I'll ever see it on mine.
Although now that I think about it the macos top bar with the time and stuff is always there.
There's also warranties from retailers like amazon.
In theory every time I am on set I only see eizo color edge screen. It also has built in calibration. Very expensive! Which is matte and its industry standard for proofing for publication. In theory other company such NEC, BenQ or others are trying to make it more affordable for such specialize products. Also for color accuracy we can’t put any lut to compensate for printing especially for high end client. They need to see it match close to the printing RIP software such as GMG.
For Macos uou should use 5K, not 4K.
I’m in the market for a new monitor and I use a Mac. Why 5K over 4K? Please explain.
@@anthonytriana4209 Due to the pixel doubling in MacOS. Do a search for this and you will see why a 4K monitor with a size of 27" is not good, but 5K is. Take a look at what resolution Apple monitors provide.
@@anthonytriana4209 resolution is just one factor and not necessarily the most important one for photo editing. On Mac OS, 5K happens to have better OS UI scaling as it is exactly twice the linear resolution of 1440p. 5K also has 78% more pixels than 4K (about a third more linear pixels IIRC) so we are talking about a lot of detail on display. But a monitor like this one probably had better color accuracy compared to, say, an Apple Studio Display. EDIT: ah, the video talks about some of the criticisms of the ASD anyway, just watch to the end of the video!
Not if you're not sending out signal through a video I/O card. Which would be ideal anyways if you're serious about your color management.
@@andy80sdrums It has nothing to do with that. Read what I wrote. This is common knowledge!
How are they gonna make a monitor for photographers and put absolute shit card readers in it just don’t even put it in at all at that point. Nice review though thank you.
100% agree. At that price point, those little things shouldnt suck.
@@dg903 seriously though it shouldn’t even be an option a monitor should outlive card write and read speeds it’s just an extra worthless selling point that’s only lining greedy pockets.
Any professional or serious enough amateur will always use the best quality or budget aftermarket peripheral card reader.
@@exz0r.ex3 kinda split on that actually. You don’t always need top speeds to read the card. To me, speed is nice but the convenience is key too. How easy and how many steps to get my pics where they need to be? Speed is part of that equation.
Overpriced.
On what basis? Several of its features, such as hardware calibration, multiple gamuts, multiple stored calibrations, soft proofing, etc. are not easy to find all together on wide gamut 27" 4K displays below this price point. It's not cheap, and it's not for everyone, but for the people who need the features it has, it's an OK deal.
It would work for me. He said lack of webcam and speakers were cons, and maybe they are. But I already have a better camera and speakers than typical displays have. This display is focused on high end color performance, so anyone who does not need to work with color at that level should not pay for this, and he said that.
1.299 euro right now. Look at other hardware calibrated monitors and you’ll pay even more (Eizo 4k for 2.000 euro for example)
@@brightboxstudio It's matte, that automatically should disqualify it as a creative monitor. It's 1600 and its small, uses the oldest and worst display tech possible (IPS as opposed to the current OLED and miniLED) and is only 60hz. Literally it's only real feature is the 'factory calibration' but basically every monitor is factory 'calibrated' and will require your own calibration anyway. Also it's 8bit in 2023 for 1600. It's insultingly expensive for what it offers.
You can literally buy a better display in the form of a new macbook, and get the computer for free.
@@definingslawek4731 I don’t know where you got your information, but it isn’t backed up by reality. For many years, two of the most highly valued displays in professional color have been the Eizo ColorEdge and NEC SpectraView lines. Both also use IPS panels (required for color reproduction quality) with a matte finish. Both are similar in price, or higher, than the BenQ SW272.
When I say professional color, I mean operations running million-dollar presses in huge buildings, handling jobs bound to lucrative commercial contracts, where the contract specifies precise color matching to a calibrated viewing booth. Or, photographers shooting for those clients. It would be interesting to see what would happen if you walked into those tightly quality controlled operations and tried to tell them that their proven workhorse 60Hz IPS matte displays are the wrong tool.
This BenQ competes with that pro color market segment. Want more proof? The BenQ model number, SW272, and the Asus PA27 are both clearly named to position them against the earlier NEC SpectraView PA272 which was a gold standard for that market. Those models all have similar specs.
Maybe you do different color editing, like video color grading. That’s OK, those specs need to be different, this BenQ SW272 does not directly compete there.
In the photo/prepress industry, 60Hz is fine. They are not editing video or shooting aliens in a game, they are staring at images that are not moving.
The thing about IPS is that it is stable. OLED is still having issues with image retention, as recently reported by Rtings, and it’s not clear to me if they’ve resolved the OLED problem of some OLED colors fading faster over time…that would make OLED a pro color management disaster.
The other reason these models are used by pros is the hardware calibration that supports multiple presets. This is not just the “factory calibration” you mentioned, but actually being able to store a true hardware calibration in a hardware LUT, and ideally store multiple calibrations to simulate multiple delivery conditions. Most displays on the market cannot do that.
You are correct that a current MacBook Pro Display can do much of that, and it supports 1000 nit HDR editing. (Those specs are only true for the 14”/16” MacBook Pro, not any of the other Mac laptops) I have one of those, and it’s fantastic. But there are two reasons they are not competing with this BenQ. First, it’s not easy to find a display that matches those exact specs in a 27” desktop display. I use this display type next to my 14” MacBook Pro display.
And finally...if you want an OLED display that also has the other specs required by this market segment, Asus makes the ProArt Display OLED PA27DCE-K. But it is $1999, which helps prove that this $1599 BenQ is not overpriced! And the Asus is still only 60Hz! Because again, for photographers and print color pros, 60Hz is fine.
@@definingslawek4731 OLED has burn in issues
Base plastic? -> high ESD (Electric Static Discharge) sensitivity for electronics! Chance to destroy electronics like memory cards. Bad usage of that base. Bad advice of the presenter