21–30 of 203 posts
I prefer running two 144hz 27” 4k monitors instead. Yeah the 5k to 4k scaling isn’t as crisp as native 2x, but god the high refresh rate really makes up for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
1000$ worth of difference? - Why not buy the LG then 5 years ago for cheaper?
The LG Ultrafine 5K is notorious for its high unreliability (WiFi interference), low build quality (creaky plastic), and low durability (flaky ports).
The target market for Apple Studio Display does not look to trade price for lower quality. Rather, Apple's target market are premium buyers, people looking to pay a bit more for higher quality.
It looks like the version with the VESA mount costs as much as the base model, plus a few hundred for a nice desk arm/wall mount/etc if you don't have one already holding up your current screen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
That's why I said "DPI increase". 27" at 1440p is 108.79 PPI. 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".
I don't even use HDR, the density is just that good for looking at text all day. It takes on this milky quality that I haven't seen on any other monitor before this.
The complete lack of appreciable IPS glow or uniformity issues is also better than you might expect for text. Especially with dark backgrounds which will now present one impressively uniform block of color, improving contrast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
That's why I said "DPI increase". 27" at 1440p is 108.79 PPI. 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".
> most 4k displays were 27".
This is in the direction of lower PPI/DPI, which is worse. That is:
4K @ 24" > 4K @ 27"
Also, as others have noted, the Apple Studio Display is 5K, so more UI is visible than on a 4K monitor.
I also use a 27" 4K monitor. The difference between the two isn't that great. 5K is mostly useful for 4K video editing. PS: It sounds as if the author would have had a great experience with a 350€ 4K monitor, too.
Imho the Apple Thunderbolt Display is still a great (and way much cheaper) alternative for those of us who can't care less about refresh rate or pixel density. If this one had a bigger size (say, 32 inches) and a more 'squared' ratio, I'd consider it an upgrade.
The camera isn't technically as good as Apple's, but it also doesn't rely on Apple software. It can raise/lower and tilt without paying $400 extra. It has a black plastic frame which doesn't look as nice, but the glass won't chip if you bump your laptop into the side.
If I didn't already have an LG 5K, I'd buy the Apple Studio monitor. I used my previous Thunderbolt Display for over a decade. That should be sufficient time for someone at Apple to fix the camera bug.
They sort of imply that only the Studio display would have given him a DPI increase over his previous 27" 1440p display. Any 4k screen would have also done that. Then he concludes that 600nits is unnecessary and that he doesn't need or want the USB-C ports. I have no idea why he went with the apple display instead of any good 4k screen for 400$, or two of them.
There aren't many good options in the HiDPI 27" market, just half-measures like the 4k 27" screens you mention which require fractional scaling.
Shoulda gotten the version with the VESA mount adaptor and just hooked it to whatever nice monitor arm he has. I wonder if you can buy it separately and attach it. Looks like not, there's several big screwheads visible in the photo of the back on Apple's page that don't have corresponding holes in the backs of the other versions. Damn that sure is an Apple move; the Dell monitor I spent $500 on a decade ago came with…