11–20 of 203 posts
I’ve been researching good monitors to upgrade from my Acer UM.CX2AA.P01 34” When the studio display got released I started to get excited. After all the reviews I’ve read I will definitely NOT buy it. Thanks for writing this! Planning on saving up until the Pro Display XDR gets updated and getting that instead.
They sort of imply that only the Studio display would have given him a DPI increase over his previous 27" 1440p display. Any 4k screen would have also done that. Then he concludes that 600nits is unnecessary and that he doesn't need or want the USB-C ports. I have no idea why he went with the apple display instead of any good 4k screen for 400$, or two of them.
They sort of imply that only the Studio display would have given him a DPI increase over his previous 27" 1440p display. Any 4k screen would have also done that. Then he concludes that 600nits is unnecessary and that he doesn't need or want the USB-C ports. I have no idea why he went with the apple display instead of any good 4k screen for 400$, or two of them.
They sort of imply that only the Studio display would have given him a DPI increase over his previous 27" 1440p display. Any 4k screen would have also done that. Then he concludes that 600nits is unnecessary and that he doesn't need or want the USB-C ports. I have no idea why he went with the apple display instead of any good 4k screen for 400$, or two of them.
> There is a product manager at Apple who, for some reason, hates webcam users with a burning passion.
It also makes perfect sense, since the actual specs of the camera should be giving a much better picture.
If this one had a bigger size (say, 32 inches) and a more 'squared' ratio, I'd consider it an upgrade.
They sort of imply that only the Studio display would have given him a DPI increase over his previous 27" 1440p display. Any 4k screen would have also done that. Then he concludes that 600nits is unnecessary and that he doesn't need or want the USB-C ports. I have no idea why he went with the apple display instead of any good 4k screen for 400$, or two of them.
I can't speak for the author, but I find 2560x1440 /logical/ pixels (what apple calls points) at 27" to be the ideal amount of screen real estate (and physical size for UI elements). Unless it's a small 21" display, 4k at high-DPI would result in less screen space. Going up to 5k is the best way to get that combination of real estate and pixel density.
They sort of imply that only the Studio display would have given him a DPI increase over his previous 27" 1440p display. Any 4k screen would have also done that. Then he concludes that 600nits is unnecessary and that he doesn't need or want the USB-C ports. I have no idea why he went with the apple display instead of any good 4k screen for 400$, or two of them.
While true, the ppi increase from most 4k screens would not be as large as the Apple Studio Display.
Most 4k monitors are 24 inches, and those monitors will be 192.94 ppi. [0][1] The Apple Studio Display comes in at 218 ppi. [2]
They sort of imply that only the Studio display would have given him a DPI increase over his previous 27" 1440p display. Any 4k screen would have also done that. Then he concludes that 600nits is unnecessary and that he doesn't need or want the USB-C ports. I have no idea why he went with the apple display instead of any good 4k screen for 400$, or two of them.
> would have given him a DPI increase over his previous 27" 1440p display. Any 4k screen would have also done that. While true, the ppi increase from most 4k screens would not be as large as the Apple Studio Display. Most 4k monitors are 24 inches, and those monitors will be 192.94 ppi. [0][1] The Apple Studio Display comes in at 218 ppi. [2] [0] https://www.sven.de/dpi/ [1] https://imgur.com/a/8Woe7Bn [2] https://ww…
I'm sitting in front of a 4k 27" and the 160ppi is almost indistinguishable to my macbook at 227 due to the different viewing distance.
And I always had the impression most 4k displays were 27".