Reading mode: Light Dark

An advantage of 27 inch over 32 inch monitors

Go to last post
JimKasson

JimKasson

Community Leader
Forum Moderator
Messages
52,259
Solutions
52
Reaction score
59,049
Location
Monterey, CA, US
I've mentioned this before, but, after using 32 inch NEC and Eizo monitors since they first were offered for sale, I switched to a 27 inch Eizo 4K for my main workstation. I've been sitting proportionally closer, so the visual angle subtended by the display is the same.

However, I've noticed an advantage to the smaller monitor. It's easier for me to shift my position in my chair so that I'm square on to windows wherever they may be placed on the screen with a 27 inch monitor.

So, for photo editing and productivity work, the smaller monitor is all upside as far as I'm concerned.

Jim
 
JimKasson said:
I've mentioned this before, but, after using 32 inch NEC and Eizo monitors since they first were offered for sale, I switched to a 27 inch Eizo 4K for my main workstation. I've been sitting proportionally closer, so the visual angle subtended by the display is the same.

However, I've noticed an advantage to the smaller monitor. It's easier for me to shift my position in my chair so that I'm square on to windows wherever they may be placed on the screen with a 27 inch monitor.

So, for photo editing and productivity work, the smaller monitor is all upside as far as I'm concerned.

Jim
Click to expand...
Is the 27” the sweet spot?
 
Doppler9000 said:
JimKasson said:
I've mentioned this before, but, after using 32 inch NEC and Eizo monitors since they first were offered for sale, I switched to a 27 inch Eizo 4K for my main workstation. I've been sitting proportionally closer, so the visual angle subtended by the display is the same.

However, I've noticed an advantage to the smaller monitor. It's easier for me to shift my position in my chair so that I'm square on to windows wherever they may be placed on the screen with a 27 inch monitor.

So, for photo editing and productivity work, the smaller monitor is all upside as far as I'm concerned.

Jim
Click to expand...
Is the 27” the sweet spot?
Click to expand...
For me it is, although I've never used a 24 inch 4K monitor. My 4K 16-inch laptop screen is too small. I don't like being right on top of the monitor.
 
JimKasson said:
I've mentioned this before, but, after using 32 inch NEC and Eizo monitors since they first were offered for sale, I switched to a 27 inch Eizo 4K for my main workstation. I've been sitting proportionally closer, so the visual angle subtended by the display is the same.

However, I've noticed an advantage to the smaller monitor. It's easier for me to shift my position in my chair so that I'm square on to windows wherever they may be placed on the screen with a 27 inch monitor.

So, for photo editing and productivity work, the smaller monitor is all upside as far as I'm concerned.

Jim
Click to expand...
I never used a monitor larger than 27”, and I only can imagine images on a larger screen look more impressive (as Greg says all the time). I will however stay with that 27” , especially since I use a dual monitor setup. Beside that, I think it’s good enough (perfect), for editing and I don’t have to move my head all the time….no I don’t work on 2 monitors simultaneously. Never used a laptop and I don’t want or need to.
 
Last edited:
JimKasson said:
Doppler9000 said:
JimKasson said:
I've mentioned this before, but, after using 32 inch NEC and Eizo monitors since they first were offered for sale, I switched to a 27 inch Eizo 4K for my main workstation. I've been sitting proportionally closer, so the visual angle subtended by the display is the same.

However, I've noticed an advantage to the smaller monitor. It's easier for me to shift my position in my chair so that I'm square on to windows wherever they may be placed on the screen with a 27 inch monitor.

So, for photo editing and productivity work, the smaller monitor is all upside as far as I'm concerned.

Jim
Click to expand...
Is the 27” the sweet spot?
Click to expand...
For me it is, although I've never used a 24 inch 4K monitor. My 4K 16-inch laptop screen is too small. I don't like being right on top of the monitor.
Click to expand...
 
I use a 27" iMac. Which I like a lot.

While I've tried out a few 32" monitors, I've never worked on one.

Your experience is good to know.
 
JimKasson said:
I've mentioned this before, but, after using 32 inch NEC and Eizo monitors since they first were offered for sale, I switched to a 27 inch Eizo 4K for my main workstation. I've been sitting proportionally closer, so the visual angle subtended by the display is the same.

However, I've noticed an advantage to the smaller monitor. It's easier for me to shift my position in my chair so that I'm square on to windows wherever they may be placed on the screen with a 27 inch monitor.

So, for photo editing and productivity work, the smaller monitor is all upside as far as I'm concerned.

Jim
Click to expand...
Same here.

And 1440p resolution is also a kind of a sweetsspot for that size.

No reason to go with more, unless you're sticking your nose directly to the screen.
 
CrispyBee said:
JimKasson said:
I've mentioned this before, but, after using 32 inch NEC and Eizo monitors since they first were offered for sale, I switched to a 27 inch Eizo 4K for my main workstation. I've been sitting proportionally closer, so the visual angle subtended by the display is the same.

However, I've noticed an advantage to the smaller monitor. It's easier for me to shift my position in my chair so that I'm square on to windows wherever they may be placed on the screen with a 27 inch monitor.

So, for photo editing and productivity work, the smaller monitor is all upside as far as I'm concerned.

Jim
Click to expand...
Same here.

And 1440p resolution is also a kind of a sweetsspot for that size.

No reason to go with more, unless you're sticking your nose directly to the screen.
Click to expand...
I like 4K for productivity work, and to be able to make the tools smaller.
 
At home I only do one thing at a time so one window and 32" works fine.
 
at the beginning of the year when I switched to MacBook Pro after being a Windows PC person forever, I also got the Apple 27" Studio Display. Yep it's pricey, but wow I love it for photo editing.
 
JimKasson said:
I like 4K for productivity work, and to be able to make the tools smaller.
Click to expand...
I have a 32 inch 4K display that does double-duty for general work applications and for photo processing - I don't have space for a dedicated photography workstation. The extra real estate is a big plus for working with multiple documents.

But scaling under Windows 10 is a bear. 100% makes many screen elements too small for my aging eyesight, and not all of them can be fixed with Windows and/or app-specific compensatory font settings. But the 150% default that's fine for productivity applications is brutal on images in some applications. Still haven't figured out a workaround; I keep thinking that surely I must be missing something.
 
I use 2 24" monitors at 1080p. I prefer a dual monitor setup to a large high res single monitor. I find that 1080 is perfect for 24". I tried 27" monitors and 4k makes everything too small. 2k is best for that size
 
I have a three 4k monitor set-up.

The better eizo for photography is indeed a 27, while the r(elatively) lesser eizo's are 32 and they are for non photography work except maybe the occasional culling and browsing.

I find 27 large enough for my photo editing given the desk distance.
 
Hi,

I figured out, long ago when these things were still vacuum tubes, that 25" was the best for CAD/CAM work. Not 19" or 30" which were the next size up and down in those days.

Dunno if 25" is still a size. I'm using a 27" LCD with LED backlight for such these days. I can't say that it is really any different than when I used a 25" CRT .....

I am using a laptop with a 16" screen for image processing and printing. Chosen so it can go into the field with the cameras. Give me something to do in the hotel room in the evenings.

Both are 2k screens. Same for the wife and her two artwork machines (one desktop, one laptop). The only 4k one we own is a 65" in the living room for UHD DVDs.

Stan

--
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer
 
Last edited:
Hi,

Ah. Three screens. I used to do that when the screens were XGA. I could put the image in Ps on the left, the tools in the center, and the RIP on the right. Windows on a Pentium 4. After that, went to two larger, higher res screens on a Mac G5 dual CPU 2 GHz. Both systems long gone now. And we all know how that part goes! ;)

Stan
 
I’m sort of in the middle with an NEC PA 301w SV II 30” monitor.

It’s a nice size for me and is dedicated to photography only. It has been calibrating with a delta E of 0.32, which is amazing. Since NEC has stopped making their PA series (boo, hiss) this thread is interesting to me. NEC seemed to me to be the sweet spot in price / performance.

Rand
 
Productivity motivations for big screens are all well and good, but what about the image consumption angle?

I had a 32" 1440P monitor. I liked it, it gave roughly the same size screen furniture as a 23" FHD screen but more real estate.

Greg said it wasn't good enough for MF files and I had to have 32" 4k. I now have a 32" 4k but it doesn't really make images look significantly better to my eye.

Now Greg says I have to have 32" 6k, and undoubtedly that will soon grow to a 32" 8k requirement.

So what do you high quality monitor users think? Does it require 4k/6k/8k monitors to do MF justice and make using a larger format worthwhile? Is there something wrong with my eyesight? Am I not doing it right?

p.s.

I can't help feeling that a high resolution but smaller screen would be better for image consumption. Surely that would make the images look better, while bigger screen will make them look worse?

--
Photo of the day: https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day/
Website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/ (2022 - website rebuilt, updated and back in action)
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)
 
Last edited:
DMillier said:
I had a 32" 1440P monitor. I liked it, it gave roughly the same size screen furniture as a 23" FHD screen but more real estate.

Greg said it wasn't good enough for MF files and I had to have 32" 4k. I now have a 32" 4k but it doesn't really make images look significantly better to my eye.

Now Greg says I have to have 32" 6k, and undoubtedly that will soon grow to a 32" 8k requirement.

So what do you high quality monitor users think? Does it require 4k/6k/8k monitors to do MF justice and make using a larger format worthwhile? Is there something wrong with my eyesight? Am I not doing it right?
Click to expand...
Even with my 1440p display I can clearly see the problem:

you don't have Gregs wonderfiles.

It's either that or you have to wait for a 1000k monitor to really appreciate the GFX files. Once the display resolution is so high that the 100MP images at 100% cover 2-3inches you know you're finally cooking with kerosine.

Just keep a microscope handy for pixel-peeping.
 
I don't have Fancy Eizo or a NEC display. I have a 27" 2k BenQ SW270C and 32' BenQ SW321C and 32" is much better in viewing my files. 27" 4k is too small for me. I would like to have 34" 6k/8k.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top