Studio monitor vs benq 271 c

[debi.lightcraft]

I am now deciding between the Studio monitor and the Ben q 271c to pair with the Apple Studio. I currently have the iMac from 2017. I have been able to calibrate it to a good enough place to get decent prints that are a good match to my monitor. Would I completely lose this calibrating ability with the studio monitor? Would I be better off with the benq? I am reluctant to switch because I am comfortable in the Apple eco system. But if I lose the ability to get prints that match what I see on the monitor, I have no choice. My camera is set to AdobeRGB. Thank you in advance!

 

[clee01l]

I use a Benq EW3270U as my primary monitor with my 24 M1 iMac. My i1Display Pro calibration device and software is out of date so I only use the system calibration. The system calibration generates an icc profile for each monitor and uses a separate monitor icc profile for each screen using the Apple Display Calibration Assistant.
If you are shooting RAW, the Color profile in the camera is irrelevant as it only applies to the JPEG created by the Camera. Lightroom uses the ProPhotoRGB Color space for computation The Apple Studio monitor is going to offer a DCI-P3 color space which is slightly different from the AdobeRGB Color space on the BENq 271C. My EW3270U monitor can use the DCI-P3 color space which I prefer over AdobeRGB. Both the Apple Display and BENq 271c are 27" and the same price. My EW3270U was much cheaper, and larger. I've been quite happy with it ia a primary monitor. I prefer a dual monitor workspace too. Sl it was a good complement to the 24" M1 iMac.

 

[Conrad Chavez]

I am now deciding between the Studio monitor and the Ben q 271c to pair with the Apple Studio. I currently have the iMac from 2017. I have been able to calibrate it to a good enough place to get decent prints that are a good match to my monitor. Would I completely lose this calibrating ability with the studio monitor? Would I be better off with the benq?

Both are wide gamut displays that should be very good and suitable for color correcting for prints. Hard to decide. Both should be ready to use out of the box with pretty good factory calibration, but if you suspect that either has drifted after a time, Art Suwansang has videos about calibrating both, linked below.

The BenQ 271C can be hardware-calibrated using BenQ Palette Master Element software.
The Ultimate BenQ SW & Palette Master Element Calibration Walkthrough!

The Apple Studio Display works a little differently from most displays, but it is still possible to create and apply a custom profile, and integrate it with an appropriate Studio Display Reference Mode.
Apple Studio Display Calibrite / X-Rite Full Calibration Guide

I haven’t used either display personally, but it looks like either would be a good choice, or in other words neither would be a mistake.

 

[PhilBurton]

Looking at this Benq monitor on Amazon, I was surprised to see the price. I had expected that a monitor with these specs would cost over US $1000. Is Benq doing some technology magic? Or have monitor prices declined when I wasn't looking?

https://www.amazon.com/BenQ-EW3270U-inch-Monitor-FreeSync/dp/B081V1KPSD

 

[Conrad Chavez]

Looking at this Benq monitor on Amazon, I was surprised to see the price. I had expected that a monitor with these specs would cost over US $1000. Is Benq doing some technology magic?

The price of a decent monitor has gone down; you can get 4K, HDR, or wide gamut for a lot less than a few years ago. Although if you want all three in the same display, it can still be over $1000.

The product description for the linked EW2780U says it’s HDR capable, but supports only sRGB gamut, so it isn’t wide gamut like the 271c discussed above. My guess is that the EW2780U supports only color profiling (like most displays) and not direct hardware calibration like the 271c. The feature set is more “office/gaming” than “photographer”; for example FreeSync mostly benefits video games. But with a good profile, as an IPS LCD it probably works well enough for photography as Cletus says.

The BenQ 271c and the Apple Studio Display both sell for $1599. Being over $1500 for those two displays is probably about the combination of tighter factory specs for uniformity and color calibration, wide gamut, 4K/5K, and hardware color control (the 271c’s hardware calibration, and the Studio Display’s Reference Modes). Both displays would not be the best choice for entertainment or gaming, but are great for photography.

 

[clee01l]

The BENq that I referenced does not have all of the bells and whistle as many of the high end models such as the 271c. Also the EW3270U is an older model. There is an EW3280Q that has replaced it at a higher price.

 

[debi.lightcraft]

I use a Benq EW3270U as my primary monitor with my 24 M1 iMac. My i1Display Pro calibration device and software is out of date so I only use the system calibration. The system calibration generates an icc profile for each monitor and uses a separate monitor icc profile for each screen using the Apple Display Calibration Assistant.
If you are shooting RAW, the Color profile in the camera is irrelevant as it only applies to the JPEG created by the Camera. Lightroom uses the ProPhotoRGB Color space for computation The Apple Studio monitor is going to offer a DCI-P3 color space which is slightly different from the AdobeRGB Color space on the BENq 271C. My EW3270U monitor can use the DCI-P3 color space which I prefer over AdobeRGB. Both the Apple Display and BENq 271c are 27" and the same price. My EW3270U was much cheaper, and larger. I've been quite happy with it ia a primary monitor. I prefer a dual monitor workspace too. Sl it was a good complement to the 24" M1 iMac.
View attachment 18845

Thanks so much Cletus for explaining your setup. I really appreciate it. I always gain more knowledge about these details in your responses. I checked out the 32 inch monitor, but it really is too big for my setup, so I think I am stuck with the 27 inch. It will serve as my primary monitor as I need to retire my imac which is so slow.

 

[debi.lightcraft]

Both are wide gamut displays that should be very good and suitable for color correcting for prints. Hard to decide. Both should be ready to use out of the box with pretty good factory calibration, but if you suspect that either has drifted after a time, Art Suwansang has videos about calibrating both, linked below.

The BenQ 271C can be hardware-calibrated using BenQ Palette Master Element software.
The Ultimate BenQ SW & Palette Master Element Calibration Walkthrough!

The Apple Studio Display works a little differently from most displays, but it is still possible to create and apply a custom profile, and integrate it with an appropriate Studio Display Reference Mode.
Apple Studio Display Calibrite / X-Rite Full Calibration Guide

I haven’t used either display personally, but it looks like either would be a good choice, or in other words neither would be a mistake.

Thanks a million Conrad. Your explanations are always so direct and to the point which is incredibly helpful as these choices make my head spin. I was concerned that the apple Studio would be like the new macbook pro which I believe does not allow for individual calibration so I'm glad to know Art is Right has videos on how to calibrate the Studio as well as the Benq.

There is a download from adobe ( https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/adobergb.html) which I guess would let me add the adobe rgb to the Studio presets. Is there a point to doing this? or would the apple display not allow for the wide gamut for adobe rgb that is available on the Benq? (eg, 99% Adobe rgb).

 

[Conrad Chavez]

There is a download from adobe ( https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/adobergb.html) which I guess would let me add the adobe rgb to the Studio presets. Is there a point to doing this?

No, the linked Adobe web page is quite old. It’s an introduction to Adobe RGB (1998) back when that was new, and seems to date from the mid-2000s based on the versions of Adobe software mentioned in the article. The PDF linked on that page is dated May 2005. The other download is the Adobe RGB (1998) color profile, but today, every Mac already has that built in as part of the default macOS profile set, so it should already appear in Mac profile menus even if you have no Adobe software installed. You’ll find the Adobe RGB (1998) profile at /System/Library/ColorSync/Profiles, which is an OS-restricted folder that users and applications can’t alter.

Now, that’s a separate question from whether a display is capable of Adobe RGB. The BenQ 271c claims to cover 99% of Adobe RGB, while the Apple Studio Display covers Display P3 which is similar in size, but covers different colors which can be good or bad depending on which colors are important in your work. (There have been some discussions about that on this forum.)

Lightroom Classic is going to edit in ProPhoto RGB regardless of what display you use, and Photoshop works in whatever a document’s color space is (Adobe RGB, etc. Each display can show you the colors that are in common between its gamut and the gamut of the working space.

…or would the apple display not allow for the wide gamut for adobe rgb that is available on the Benq? (eg, 99% Adobe rgb).

The Studio Display is capable of wide gamut P3 and probably defaults to it. But If it works like the P3 display on my MacBook Pro, the Studio Display might not have an Adobe RGB Reference Mode or a way to create one. That would be understandable since it does not promise to cover most of Adobe RGB.

The answer to both questions has a lot to do with the colors you typically have in your photos. If you use a lot of colors near the edges of Adobe RGB that P3 doesn't cover, that might tilt you toward the BenQ. But if the typical colors in your work are mostly within the large area that Adobe RGB and P3 have in common, or your colors typically extend into P3, then the Studio Display would still be good.

 

[debi.lightcraft]

No, the linked Adobe web page is quite old. It’s an introduction to Adobe RGB (1998) back when that was new, and seems to date from the mid-2000s based on the versions of Adobe software mentioned in the article. The PDF linked on that page is dated May 2005. The other download is the Adobe RGB (1998) color profile, but today, every Mac already has that built in as part of the default macOS profile set, so it should already appear in Mac profile menus even if you have no Adobe software installed. You’ll find the Adobe RGB (1998) profile at /System/Library/ColorSync/Profiles, which is an OS-restricted folder that users and applications can’t alter.

Now, that’s a separate question from whether a display is capable of Adobe RGB. The BenQ 271c claims to cover 99% of Adobe RGB, while the Apple Studio Display covers Display P3 which is similar in size, but covers different colors which can be good or bad depending on which colors are important in your work. (There have been some discussions about that on this forum.)

Lightroom Classic is going to edit in ProPhoto RGB regardless of what display you use, and Photoshop works in whatever a document’s color space is (Adobe RGB, etc. Each display can show you the colors that are in common between its gamut and the gamut of the working space.



The Studio Display is capable of wide gamut P3 and probably defaults to it. But If it works like the P3 display on my MacBook Pro, the Studio Display might not have an Adobe RGB Reference Mode or a way to create one. That would be understandable since it does not promise to cover most of Adobe RGB.

The answer to both questions has a lot to do with the colors you typically have in your photos. If you use a lot of colors near the edges of Adobe RGB that P3 doesn't cover, that might tilt you toward the BenQ. But if the typical colors in your work are mostly within the large area that Adobe RGB and P3 have in common, or your colors typically extend into P3, then the Studio Display would still be good.

Well, this is great information. I have reread the old discussion and it seems that it really doesn't make a difference in terms of color gamut because both are good enough for my purposes. I have noticed that my greens and blues can be more problematic than the warmer colors which might suggest a need for the adobe rgb capability, but i don't see that as a deal breaker. I think it is now more a choice between the comfort level of the mac environment vs what might be a more accurate representation of what I see on the monitor and what I get in a print (also, the possible benefit of a matte monitor in terms of eye strain). Thank you again so much Conrad for your great explanations!