I was blown away by the Studio Display but wondered if I’d regret the purchase considering the mixed reviews. After owning it for just over 3 months now - I can honestly say that its the opposite. I absolutely love it! Its an amazing display and the stand it comes with is not only beautiful and low profile - its exactly what it should be for me. That buyers remorse just never came for me because all the other displays just aren’t built like this one. 🥰 If I ever change -, it will be for another Studio Display. It pairs perfectly with our Macbook Pros.
Surprised you didn’t mention the ability to swap to an Apple created Photography display profile on the Studio Display. You can turn it on from Control Center -> Display -> little arrow on the right -> little arrow on far right -> Photography (P3-D65). It does things like set the white point and color gamut of the monitor, plus locking the brightness to a specific level for consistency.
Emma, thank you for hinting out this one but tbh those modes messes too much with the colors for me. I always can see that my photos are all over the place. I always leave it at default.
@@attika70 if you try to maximize functionality and efficiency as a general MO, the more scaling you employ the more of a hit you put on the MacBook. You may not notice it much at first, but if your work comes to involve bigger file sizes and more complex processing in the shortest amount of time possible, then you'll probably notice the throttle that multiple layers of scaling put on the Mac.
@@attika70 it is. 4K is good only for 21, max 24" screens Definitely not for 27 nor 30+ For that you need 5K and 6K because math Mac uses 2x scaling. 4K / 2 is 1080p. Imagine the size of 1080p elements on 32" monitor. You could use 1440p as baseline, but then it scaled to 5K and downscales to 4K which creates pixel shift
Thanks for the video. I have heard a lot said about 4k use with Mac. Some say that due to scaling issues, they recommend 1080p. Just wondering if you feel 4k vs the 5k of the Studio monitor is an issue?
If you have a monitor that has a lower contrast ratio and washed out grays (BenQ), you potentially end up messing up the blacks. Studio display has way better dpi too.
Very curious to hear if you ever put your eyes on a BenQ SW271C (or the 32 inch) and would consider that model more than the PD, or you think that the color gammut of the PD seems plenty for your photography work. Great review by the way, super easy to watch
I have an LG monitor and it’s sold by Apple. I was annoyed that the colours were off so I calibrated it myself only to find that it resets when you switch the monitor off! It’s for sure a regret purchase for me. So thanks as always for sharing.
It is a personal preference. I considered the BenQs but decided on the Apple Studio. The best BenQs have a brightness of only 400 nits which, with a matte screen, washes out blacks and reduces contrast in my experience.
call me crazy dude, but I just got a 42" LG OLED to put off to the side of the studio display for help with culling and library mode haha. freaking love it! Wouldn't trust its color for delivery but its pleasing to the eye for culling, browsing, etc
Thanks for taking the time, definitely leaning towards the BenQ. $600 goes a long way for a new lens. If I do order one over the holidays I will use your links! Appreciate ya
I’ve had the chance to play around with the display and I don’t like how light it is. I’d prefer a monitor that has some heft like my Thunderbolt Display.
The BenQ has so many features to it which you didn't even touch on. I was hoping you would turn the screen around to portrait mode too! As someone else has said you can set the BenQ to "M-Book" colour mode, amongst others. Plus daisy chaining, split screen and PIP... So many features you didn't even touch on! Oh also, you can actually remove the power cord from the monitor... Lol.
Thanks for another great video. I recently purchased the Apple 27” Studio Display and love it. It is really helping with my calibration efforts. I would have paid the price for the packaging alone. I also have a EIZO ColorEdge display that I use mostly for b/w editing.
@@benjhaisch gotcha, thanks for the input. Small detail, but narrowed down my monitor purchase to these two, and it always comes down to the small details right? Again, appreciate the content. Ya make it look easy!
Thanks for sharing this, my biggest issue with monitors (once color calibration is not an issue) is the contrast. My eye is so used to the apple displays that when I use the flatter displays I end up messing up the contrast/brightness on my videos and photos. Do you think the Benq is that much flatter that could mess up your perception of the black levels or contrast?
There's a reason why directors of photography, high end photographers and just about any other big name photographer out there, doesn't use Apple products to edit their work in... First off, the AdobeRGB coverage for prints is just about average, in fact, even some of the $150 monitors have better AdobeRGB color gamut coverage than Apple screens. Secondly, while the Rec. 709 and sRGB color gamuts are covered 100%, the blacks and shadows are always inaccurately displayed because of the super high contrast of the Apple panels - there is just too much contrast and the blacks and shadows are never displayed correctly and always look differently (worse) when shown on broadcast monitors, TVs, cinema, online videos, online photos and similar... Thirdly, the DCIP3 color gamut, which is used for digital cinema only, is covered +/-97%, which is good but again, editing on an Apple display would have you suffer from the same problem as with Rec. 709 and sRGB color gamuts. Lastly, Apple products are just idiotically overpriced - and that's me understating it. Industrial, professional grade monitors from companies such as EIZO, which are made specifically for color grading, are incomparably better and even monitors from consumer grade companies like Asus with their ProArt display or BENQ with their high end PW display, are a MUCH, MUCH better choice than editing your images or videos on an Apple product.
I couldn't help notice the BQ was flopping around like a flag in the wind, and had far worst reflextions of of it's matt glass surface than the Apple. The BQ looks kind of cheap for a professional grade monitor. I think both are ISP displays, so the black levels are not going to be good on either, but the double brightness, double resolution, higher contrast glossy glass, and build quality of the Apple seem like hands-down wins for a pro user.
it's a bit of the issue of my own office tbh where I have a pretty wobbly floor [I put down those thick foam gym mats as a temporary solution and just haven't changed them out for actual flooring yet haha. So in a real world scenario, it isn't nearly that bad. In fact I'm typing this from my L-desk and there is no movement on it at all
If you are using the monitor in a dark room, then yes, glossy is better. Anything else, go with a matte. You don't need a 600 nits monitor, for any kind of photo work. If you do, you are sitting in the wrong room/under wrong conditions. Color grading photos, is usually done at much lower brightness. The recommended is around 80-120 nits, depending on where you look up the information, and under what conditions. That's why monitors made for photo editing, even very expensive ones, rarely goes above 250-300 nits / cd/m2. If the monitor wobbles, then it's your fault, not the monitor. Don't bump into your desk, buy a heavier desk or buy a better VESA mount foot or wall mount. Usually, monitors are black. And for a reason. You don't want to have a gray area around the monitor, affecting the colors you see. Also, the Apple monitors are *not* aluminium, they are painted aluminium. So, you don't see the aluminium, you see paint. And you pay an extra $3-400 for the alu. Is that worth it?! Double brightness, means nothing on an IPS panel. When you double the display output, you also raise the min. brightness (black), so if you have a monitor that is calibrated to 1 nits min. And 300 nits max, you have a contrast ratio of 300:1. Raise the brightness to 600 nits, and the min. Brightness is around 2. So, still a 300:1 contrast ratio. You gained nothing, but a higher overall output. The Studio Display is a great all-rounder. But it excels in nothing, compared to a dedicated monitor for the job. Buy a photo monitor for photo editing, but the Studio Display for general work, buy a video editor monitor for video editing. The Studio Display, for example, only has 80% AdobeRGB coverage, and not a dedicated AdobeRGB setting for print. You can buy an Asus ProArt for $400, that has, and that covers over 99%. But it can "only" output 350 nits.
Thanks for this video, I just got my BenQ PD3220U Monitor today so your video came as a coincidence. The only thing I am noticing is that when I look at pictures I edited on my MacBook Pro screen and look at the same edits on my new screen, the exposure is quite off. So the pictures edited on my MacBook Pro screen are looking too dark on the BenQ, even though the brightness is at 100%. How should I deal with this? Just trust the exposure of the BenQ monitor at 100%? And what color profile do you use on the BenQ? The M-book one? Thanks !!
Yes the brightness on the MBP will be more than the BenQ. When I went Mac, I 1st wanted the iMac but upon research I read on numerous sites that if you were to print the image you would not see the same image. Using a calibrated 2k BenQ, you will get a more true representation of the end result. Editing on a 2K is more realistic as well. The 4-5k monitors have to “alter” the image for you to edit it.
I found the Mac colors too saturated and use BenQ with my Macs. I preached about the SW270c to 2 friends, they broke down and got them and kicked themselves for not getting BenQ sooner.
🖖There's a mind meld going on here. This is precisely what I was looking for--from the devices/models to the geeky granular stuff. Real-world observations to boot. Thanks, Benj. Keep 'em coming. 🤓
@@samarianosans That's because MacOS scales properly with 4k at 24". If it doesnt equate to about 220ppi, then MacOS has to scale up then scale down to fit the desired ppi, which can make for weird text and wasted processing power. This is why the retina Mac displays at 5k @ 27" (2x the density of the standard 2560x1440 27" monitors) and 6k at 32". Keeps the pixel density equal to 4k 24" (or perfectly double traditional monitor resolutions)
I used a 27" 4K at 2560x1440 on a M1 Mac and a 2016 Intel Macbook Pro. I had zero scaling issues with the M1 but my Intel Mac struggled during heavy tasks.
Hi there and very thank you for your review just about to make my decision on Asus proart pa 279crv and Benq pd2706u any help will be much helpfull thank you
The problem with BenQ is that it is 4K 4K is good enough for 21" displays, but not for 27" and definitely not for 32" It is simply not enough to properly display an image Cause 4K is 2x 1080p, and 1080p is way too big of a scaling for both 27 and 32 For those, you need 5K and 6K. And BenQ lacks those. Also, Apple Studio Display has build in calibrated profiles. Though camera is unnecessary and bad
The only thing that matters for photography is the print. Is the monitor able to display the gamut of colours your camera can capture and then can that be output to print accurately. I didn’t understand what the video title or the contents had to do with photography. Does the dispkay look nice, yes of course, not sure what that has to do with photography as practiced beyond instagram and screen, in which case it’s a very expensive display to look at sugary people and blue skies.
Hi Benj, That was a great review, thanks! I really dig this monitor (BenQ). I am looking for a monitor to pair it with my M1 Mac Mini for design works. Do you use the BenQ for any printed applications? If yes, how do you find the Adobe RGB coverage (an unofficial 80% if I'm not mistaken.) is it good enough on your opinion? As mentioned, I'm a graphic designer, and although I don’t have consistent printed projects (as a photographer would have), when I have, I need the monitor to be trustworthy. Monitors with 100% Adobe RGB coverage are significantly more expensive - with some exceptions from Asus. Thank you in advance!
The reflections are much more diffused on the BenQ than the SD, it's hard to show, but I tried to make it clear that there is a fairly large difference between the two.
benq is sub 1k at this time and matt is much more inportant than brightness. If you have to go past 50 percent on your benq. your environment is not suited for colour grading etc.
@@benjhaisch So, 80 some percentile Adobe RGB and 90 percentile PP3 is good enough? I guess we should buy cars that we need to push? What junk for a great dealmof money!
@@benjhaischcan I assume you'd buy a bike with peddles? I do thousands of architectural images professionally earth tones are important and the Apple display is going to turn them to mud on screen making quality conversion very difficult. Backyard wildlife photography requires a better gamut. I do tens of thousands of those for myself.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
I was blown away by the Studio Display but wondered if I’d regret the purchase considering the mixed reviews. After owning it for just over 3 months now - I can honestly say that its the opposite. I absolutely love it! Its an amazing display and the stand it comes with is not only beautiful and low profile - its exactly what it should be for me. That buyers remorse just never came for me because all the other displays just aren’t built like this one. 🥰 If I ever change -, it will be for another Studio Display. It pairs perfectly with our Macbook Pros.
Surprised you didn’t mention the ability to swap to an Apple created Photography display profile on the Studio Display. You can turn it on from Control Center -> Display -> little arrow on the right -> little arrow on far right -> Photography (P3-D65).
It does things like set the white point and color gamut of the monitor, plus locking the brightness to a specific level for consistency.
I honestly didn't even know that was a thing! I'll have to try it out, thanks for the tip!
Emma, thank you for hinting out this one but tbh those modes messes too much with the colors for me. I always can see that my photos are all over the place. I always leave it at default.
You didn't mention scaling at all. 4k display scaling is bad on MacOS. 5k is 2x 1440p which scales beautifully.
Is it that bad? Is it the same with 27 and 32 inch 4k monitors or is one of them a better with the macos scaling?
@@attika70 if you try to maximize functionality and efficiency as a general MO, the more scaling you employ the more of a hit you put on the MacBook. You may not notice it much at first, but if your work comes to involve bigger file sizes and more complex processing in the shortest amount of time possible, then you'll probably notice the throttle that multiple layers of scaling put on the Mac.
@@Ed_Mann totally biased and untrue; go check some hearings here on TH-cam and you’ll notice basically no difference in a 4K and a 5K for performance.
@@attika70 it is. 4K is good only for 21, max 24" screens
Definitely not for 27 nor 30+
For that you need 5K and 6K because math
Mac uses 2x scaling. 4K / 2 is 1080p.
Imagine the size of 1080p elements on 32" monitor.
You could use 1440p as baseline, but then it scaled to 5K and downscales to 4K which creates pixel shift
@@kikiwora Yeah, well that's the fault of the OS, not the monitor.
Thanks for the video. I have heard a lot said about 4k use with Mac. Some say that due to scaling issues, they recommend 1080p. Just wondering if you feel 4k vs the 5k of the Studio monitor is an issue?
If you have a monitor that has a lower contrast ratio and washed out grays (BenQ), you potentially end up messing up the blacks. Studio display has way better dpi too.
Very curious to hear if you ever put your eyes on a BenQ SW271C (or the 32 inch) and would consider that model more than the PD, or you think that the color gammut of the PD seems plenty for your photography work. Great review by the way, super easy to watch
I have an LG monitor and it’s sold by Apple. I was annoyed that the colours were off so I calibrated it myself only to find that it resets when you switch the monitor off! It’s for sure a regret purchase for me. So thanks as always for sharing.
It is a personal preference. I considered the BenQs but decided on the Apple Studio. The best BenQs have a brightness of only 400 nits which, with a matte screen, washes out blacks and reduces contrast in my experience.
call me crazy dude, but I just got a 42" LG OLED to put off to the side of the studio display for help with culling and library mode haha. freaking love it! Wouldn't trust its color for delivery but its pleasing to the eye for culling, browsing, etc
haha! no joke, I've been thinking about doing a similar thing. Just mounting a TV on the wall to do non-color stuff
Thanks for taking the time, definitely leaning towards the BenQ. $600 goes a long way for a new lens. If I do order one over the holidays I will use your links! Appreciate ya
thanks for your honest thoughts and overview. really appreciated it.
Do you print your photos? Are you concerned with the limited Adobe RGB coverage o the Studio Monitor?
That's a question a serious/confirmed professional should ask and which isn't answered in this video 🥲
I’ve had the chance to play around with the display and I don’t like how light it is. I’d prefer a monitor that has some heft like my Thunderbolt Display.
The BenQ has so many features to it which you didn't even touch on. I was hoping you would turn the screen around to portrait mode too! As someone else has said you can set the BenQ to "M-Book" colour mode, amongst others. Plus daisy chaining, split screen and PIP... So many features you didn't even touch on! Oh also, you can actually remove the power cord from the monitor... Lol.
I was just looking for a good display and was thinking what if Benj made a video..
well this is good timing!!
hahahaha
Thanks for another great video. I recently purchased the Apple 27” Studio Display and love it. It is really helping with my calibration efforts. I would have paid the price for the packaging alone. I also have a EIZO ColorEdge display that I use mostly for b/w editing.
You didnt speak about audio comparison, does the BenQ have speakers built in?
appreciate the details in your review here! quick question: does the screen brightness keys on your MBP seamlessly control the BenQ brightness? TIA
ah good question! They don't but the benq has a little puck type thing that makes the controls really easy
@@benjhaisch gotcha, thanks for the input. Small detail, but narrowed down my monitor purchase to these two, and it always comes down to the small details right?
Again, appreciate the content. Ya make it look easy!
Thanks for sharing this, my biggest issue with monitors (once color calibration is not an issue) is the contrast. My eye is so used to the apple displays that when I use the flatter displays I end up messing up the contrast/brightness on my videos and photos. Do you think the Benq is that much flatter that could mess up your perception of the black levels or contrast?
There's a reason why directors of photography, high end photographers and just about any other big name photographer out there, doesn't use Apple products to edit their work in... First off, the AdobeRGB coverage for prints is just about average, in fact, even some of the $150 monitors have better AdobeRGB color gamut coverage than Apple screens. Secondly, while the Rec. 709 and sRGB color gamuts are covered 100%, the blacks and shadows are always inaccurately displayed because of the super high contrast of the Apple panels - there is just too much contrast and the blacks and shadows are never displayed correctly and always look differently (worse) when shown on broadcast monitors, TVs, cinema, online videos, online photos and similar... Thirdly, the DCIP3 color gamut, which is used for digital cinema only, is covered +/-97%, which is good but again, editing on an Apple display would have you suffer from the same problem as with Rec. 709 and sRGB color gamuts. Lastly, Apple products are just idiotically overpriced - and that's me understating it. Industrial, professional grade monitors from companies such as EIZO, which are made specifically for color grading, are incomparably better and even monitors from consumer grade companies like Asus with their ProArt display or BENQ with their high end PW display, are a MUCH, MUCH better choice than editing your images or videos on an Apple product.
@@nogerboher5266 My 14" Macbook Pro calibrated screen using the Spyder5, I'm getting 90% Adobe RGB! that's not shabby!
Ha! Was just searching this on Google a few hours ago, epic timing Benj.
Omg thank you so much for this video, I have been trying to find a comparison like this!
Have you encounter any problems with connectivity when waking up your Mac?
Fires up everyday with no issues so far
@@benjhaisch thanks 🙏🏽
I couldn't help notice the BQ was flopping around like a flag in the wind, and had far worst reflextions of of it's matt glass surface than the Apple. The BQ looks kind of cheap for a professional grade monitor. I think both are ISP displays, so the black levels are not going to be good on either, but the double brightness, double resolution, higher contrast glossy glass, and build quality of the Apple seem like hands-down wins for a pro user.
it's a bit of the issue of my own office tbh where I have a pretty wobbly floor [I put down those thick foam gym mats as a temporary solution and just haven't changed them out for actual flooring yet haha. So in a real world scenario, it isn't nearly that bad. In fact I'm typing this from my L-desk and there is no movement on it at all
If you are using the monitor in a dark room, then yes, glossy is better. Anything else, go with a matte.
You don't need a 600 nits monitor, for any kind of photo work. If you do, you are sitting in the wrong room/under wrong conditions. Color grading photos, is usually done at much lower brightness. The recommended is around 80-120 nits, depending on where you look up the information, and under what conditions. That's why monitors made for photo editing, even very expensive ones, rarely goes above 250-300 nits / cd/m2.
If the monitor wobbles, then it's your fault, not the monitor. Don't bump into your desk, buy a heavier desk or buy a better VESA mount foot or wall mount.
Usually, monitors are black. And for a reason. You don't want to have a gray area around the monitor, affecting the colors you see. Also, the Apple monitors are *not* aluminium, they are painted aluminium. So, you don't see the aluminium, you see paint. And you pay an extra $3-400 for the alu. Is that worth it?!
Double brightness, means nothing on an IPS panel. When you double the display output, you also raise the min. brightness (black), so if you have a monitor that is calibrated to 1 nits min. And 300 nits max, you have a contrast ratio of 300:1. Raise the brightness to 600 nits, and the min. Brightness is around 2. So, still a 300:1 contrast ratio. You gained nothing, but a higher overall output.
The Studio Display is a great all-rounder. But it excels in nothing, compared to a dedicated monitor for the job. Buy a photo monitor for photo editing, but the Studio Display for general work, buy a video editor monitor for video editing.
The Studio Display, for example, only has 80% AdobeRGB coverage, and not a dedicated AdobeRGB setting for print. You can buy an Asus ProArt for $400, that has, and that covers over 99%. But it can "only" output 350 nits.
Thanks for this video, I just got my BenQ PD3220U Monitor today so your video came as a coincidence. The only thing I am noticing is that when I look at pictures I edited on my MacBook Pro screen and look at the same edits on my new screen, the exposure is quite off. So the pictures edited on my MacBook Pro screen are looking too dark on the BenQ, even though the brightness is at 100%. How should I deal with this? Just trust the exposure of the BenQ monitor at 100%? And what color profile do you use on the BenQ? The M-book one? Thanks !!
Yes the brightness on the MBP will be more than the BenQ. When I went Mac, I 1st wanted the iMac but upon research I read on numerous sites that if you were to print the image you would not see the same image. Using a calibrated 2k BenQ, you will get a more true representation of the end result. Editing on a 2K is more realistic as well. The 4-5k monitors have to “alter” the image for you to edit it.
@@MichaelFrederickPhoto, what do you mean alter the image?
@rick, it has to do with file compression. Watch the review on ARTISRIGHT on the SW270c vs SW271c, he does a great job explaining it.
@@MichaelFrederickPhoto what a nonsense!
I found the Mac colors too saturated and use BenQ with my Macs. I preached about the SW270c to 2 friends, they broke down and got them and kicked themselves for not getting BenQ sooner.
Is there not a saturation option to dial down?
@@misterfilmguy not that I am aware of
@@MichaelFrederickPhotoprofiles?
@@dell-tone6472 Not sure what you mean by profile. Could you expand?
🖖There's a mind meld going on here. This is precisely what I was looking for--from the devices/models to the geeky granular stuff. Real-world observations to boot. Thanks, Benj. Keep 'em coming. 🤓
What about the dreaded apple scaling issues I hear so much about? Not a factor for you?
I have the 24in LG ultra fine, and the Apple Studio scaling is nothing I notice to be honest
@@samarianosans That's because MacOS scales properly with 4k at 24". If it doesnt equate to about 220ppi, then MacOS has to scale up then scale down to fit the desired ppi, which can make for weird text and wasted processing power. This is why the retina Mac displays at 5k @ 27" (2x the density of the standard 2560x1440 27" monitors) and 6k at 32". Keeps the pixel density equal to 4k 24" (or perfectly double traditional monitor resolutions)
I used a 27" 4K at 2560x1440 on a M1 Mac and a 2016 Intel Macbook Pro. I had zero scaling issues with the M1 but my Intel Mac struggled during heavy tasks.
sorry this took forever, but I haven’t noticed any issues on the BenQ. 🙌🏼
The pixels and text on the Benq is minute. When you change resolution it will be fuzzy
how to turn off continue charging on macbook m1 pro with benq pd 2706U moniter...?? type c connect
No idea, if you don't want it to charge, maybe get a USB-C to HDMI adapter?
Hi there and very thank you for your review just about to make my decision on Asus proart pa 279crv and Benq pd2706u any help will be much helpfull thank you
The problem with BenQ is that it is 4K
4K is good enough for 21" displays, but not for 27" and definitely not for 32"
It is simply not enough to properly display an image
Cause 4K is 2x 1080p, and 1080p is way too big of a scaling for both 27 and 32
For those, you need 5K and 6K. And BenQ lacks those.
Also, Apple Studio Display has build in calibrated profiles.
Though camera is unnecessary and bad
The only thing that matters for photography is the print. Is the monitor able to display the gamut of colours your camera can capture and then can that be output to print accurately. I didn’t understand what the video title or the contents had to do with photography. Does the dispkay look nice, yes of course, not sure what that has to do with photography as practiced beyond instagram and screen, in which case it’s a very expensive display to look at sugary people and blue skies.
Got my Apple Studio Display for $1300 on sale at Best Buy! Excellent panel. Definitely worth it for me.
Hi Benj,
That was a great review, thanks! I really dig this monitor (BenQ).
I am looking for a monitor to pair it with my M1 Mac Mini for design works.
Do you use the BenQ for any printed applications? If yes, how do you find the Adobe RGB coverage (an unofficial 80% if I'm not mistaken.) is it good enough on your opinion?
As mentioned, I'm a graphic designer, and although I don’t have consistent printed projects (as a photographer would have), when I have, I need the monitor to be trustworthy.
Monitors with 100% Adobe RGB coverage are significantly more expensive - with some exceptions from Asus.
Thank you in advance!
Why is your reflection all over the BenQ despite what you say?
The reflections are much more diffused on the BenQ than the SD, it's hard to show, but I tried to make it clear that there is a fairly large difference between the two.
benq is sub 1k at this time and matt is much more inportant than brightness. If you have to go past 50 percent on your benq. your environment is not suited for colour grading etc.
Spot on!
the brightness on the BenQ isnt there
and yes the BenQ text looks blurry compared with the Apple 5K, so yes I take the Apple 5K.
it has to do with the native resolution of the source, not the monitor.
No, if you want accurate color you have to have to have to calibrate.
why should anyone take your weird word for it?
I ask myself that same question every day.
Benj has the best words
No mention about scaling/text quality? Poor review.
He said, he couldn't see any difference. And you can't. Don't trust everything you hear Apple say.
Really?
Yes.
@@benjhaisch So, 80 some percentile Adobe RGB and 90 percentile PP3 is good enough? I guess we should buy cars that we need to push?
What junk for a great dealmof money!
85% and 98% from what I’ve seen, but sure. And nah, if I’m going to push, it’ll be a bike.
@@benjhaischcan I assume you'd buy a bike with peddles?
I do thousands of architectural images professionally earth tones are important and the Apple display is going to turn them to mud on screen making quality conversion very difficult.
Backyard wildlife photography requires a better gamut. I do tens of thousands of those for myself.
@davidmilisock5200 the irony that most nice bikes actually don’t come with pedals. ;)
Delta E ≤ 3 accuracy 👎🏻
The MAC is Glosy and the coolers is not korrekt :-) Benq Q is korrekt