I would really like to see these displays side by side. I'm sure you might notice a difference, but this debate feels, to me, like pixel peeping my image files. I have old 10mp images printed huge that were processed on a display with unknown color gamut specs. I often look bad at some of these images to make me stop comparing colors, sharpness, resolution, etc.
Is stepping out of the apple integrated display ecosystem worth the slight color gamut benefit ? And would this benefit help me make better prints? Or would it just make me feel better about prints matching the screen? Because that's the end goal, right...your printed work on your printer matching your own screen. I've always printed, but gotten gotten away from it in the last couple years. I now want to print weekly and make books regularly. Almost all the book making companies require sRGB output. Blurb then even converts it to their own profile, so the benefits of the Adobe RGB display are not there for external book making companies.
I commented on the ArtisRight video here asking about the display for photography and he responded with some very interesting answers:
My Question: I ordered this display for the Mac Studio to replace the 2019 27” iMac I am selling. I always found the iMac good enough for photography and printing when calibrated with the i1 display pro. It seems this monitor may be the same but without the need to calibrate by just putting it into the photography reference mode. Would you agree with that? Is there a specific alternative display you recommend? And would that alternative need calibrated? It seems there is a new debate whether calibrating with a device is needed with the accuracy of 2022 displays. Thanks!
ArtIsRight Answer: Lots of unpack here. If you are ok with the setup that you have and believe that putting the display in photography reference mode will work well then I would say go for it, though I don't necessary agree. I know that Apple has tweaked their P3 color calibration from the conformity standard slightly and calibrating the display is still better than not calibrating. Photography reference mode or preset is not the end game and should not be for pro photographers but some would think otherwise. I do have plenty of displays that I would recommend for pro photography work BenQ SW, Eizo CG / CS line would be a few. These are all hardware calibrated 99% Adobe RGB display. Where as Apple is software calibration only, can one visually tell a difference now a days? May be, may be not, but I still go through the debate with people who wants true 10 bit vs 8 bit + FRC. So all of this comes down to the need, the workflow, gamut spec and at the end of the day personal preferences. "It seems there is a new debate whether calibrating with a device is needed with the accuracy of 2022 displays." It is not a new debate per say, it has been on going and calibration in 2022 is not any better than what it was a few years or even a decade ago from the factory. It is just that our tools got more sophisticated as we are too. Some will just live their happy lives doing pro work with these display not knowing what they are missing and that is ok until they run into a print matching issue. I think the debate now a day is more along the line of, I do everything for web and I don't print, are these good enough? And the answer to this is again not a resounding yes or no, but rather depending on the level of accuracy one wants from the work and what they can see.
. 
