boo50 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 i really like this display and wish to buy one but i doubt about it's picture qulity... did picture quality of 24" Dell is so good as 20" or 30" models or Apple displays? i ask this because it have another matrix type. Samsung PVA (24" Dell) VS LG.Philips S-IPS (all Apple displays and 20", 30" Dells) also i have read some bad reviews exactly about this 2407 Dell about jittery screen, lines that moves up and down even on A02 rev. of this model. or maybe better add extra money and go with 23" ACD ? but i still preffer Dell - low price, good adjustment features - i like it's vertical adjustment, build-in card reader..... which Apple doesn't have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dohntayboi Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 I have a 2405 FPW and I'm really happy with it... I hear the panel on the 2407 was changed and isn't as good (aparently it's 6bit per colour (18bit), compared to the 2405's 8bit per colour(24bit)). You can also get the 2405 much cheaper from a refurb shop... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infamous Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 I would recommend to stay away from Dell monitors. The price says for itself. I heard only bad experiences, seriously not for quality-demanding users. Low end and very very bright (not adjustable under 170cd/m2 which is THE OVERKILL). Other than that, some Dells are 6bit. All ACDs are 8 bit. Go for ACD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boo50 Posted October 5, 2006 Author Share Posted October 5, 2006 it's not good news for me.. and for my budget =)) i'm not from US. i'm from Russia. and price for ACD is extremely high. more then 1500 UDS for 23" ACD =(( Dell is over 900 USD (some corrections - for me with some discount, average price is $1000) price difference is too high... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infamous Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Well, it's the same in my country, but why do you compare these two? Those are really different products It's obvious that Ferrari is twice expensive than every other car. For a reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boo50 Posted October 5, 2006 Author Share Posted October 5, 2006 i choose this two because 1) Dell - i like it's design and adjustment, and great price. 2) ACD - it's a quality without compromises... if i don't find any good monitor at good price i'll buy this anyway... yeah, you right. then maybe any recommendations about 24" display ? Infamous, as i see you have Sony widescreen... 24" too ?? i find some new 2405 Dells ... for $1300... sure i'll better buy ACD for $1500, then Dell 2405 for $1300. it's really strange. the older model cost much more then newer.. 1300 VS 900... new is a 44% less... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infamous Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 24" LCDs have the same resolution as 23" ones. 1920x1200. That means, 24" is worse quality (bigger pixels) and more "pixelated". That could be one of the reasons why 24" is cheaper. The other thing, Dell is a mass producer and uses components of lower quality. Also if you compare Dell with ACD, with the same LG S-IPS TFT inside (23"), you find Dell lower quality because they use lower class of panels (worse uniformity, dead pixels - simply those which were not greatly manufactured but are still usable) If you like Dell's rotation, why and how often would you use it? Probably never. It just feels good but nothing that useful. OSD options are useless too, bacause all color calibration should be ONLY done in software (Apple ColorSync or other calibration software). My Sony is 23" and same priced as ACD 23". Also uses same LG S-IPS. Very high quality. I've chosen it because it's black, i like the design more and has 3 years warranty. ACDs have 2 years in Europe, 1 year in USA. Sony can be connected to 3 PCs at once and also has a sensor which detects the room lightning and sets the backlight according to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boo50 Posted October 5, 2006 Author Share Posted October 5, 2006 this the model of your sony? _____? _____ I would recommend to stay away from Dell monitors. The price says for itself. same price as Dell in USA.. 750 bucks.... =)) what price can told us about your sony ??? =)) and again 1500 in Russia.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sHARD>> Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 24" LCDs have the same resolution as 23" ones. 1920x1200.That means, 24" is worse quality (bigger pixels) and more "pixelated". That could be one of the reasons why 24" is cheaper. The other thing, Dell is a mass producer and uses components of lower quality. Also if you compare Dell with ACD, with the same LG S-IPS TFT inside (23"), you find Dell lower quality because they use lower class of panels (worse uniformity, dead pixels - simply those which were not greatly manufactured but are still usable) If you like Dell's rotation, why and how often would you use it? Probably never. It just feels good but nothing that useful. OSD options are useless too, bacause all color calibration should be ONLY done in software (Apple ColorSync or other calibration software). My Sony is 23" and same priced as ACD 23". Also uses same LG S-IPS. Very high quality. I've chosen it because it's black, i like the design more and has 3 years warranty. ACDs have 2 years in Europe, 1 year in USA. Sony can be connected to 3 PCs at once and also has a sensor which detects the room lightning and sets the backlight according to it. From every single 23-24" panel review I've read, Dell offers the best quality per price, and the best quality overall, with just a few companies beating them on a few reviews. Dell's *high-end* line has a great reputation for quality and long-lasting usefulness. As the 24" fits into the high-end line, it cannot possibly be compared to the low-quality cheap panels they manufactuer for less discerning clientele. I remember way back in 2003 laughing at people who were happy about their display having only a few dead pixels, as my 17" LCD (which was high end in 2003 you remember) had absolutely zero, and still has zero. However, besides the blatantly biased Dell-bashing occuring here, what I really love is your commentary about how larger panels produce worse quality. Is this why everyone wants a 50" HDTV? Oh yes, that's just 1920x1080. Must be terrible quality. Nope, I'd never trade my 1280x1024 17" for a 1280x1024 19". That would be dumb. Apparently, somehow, despite anti-aliasing, massive pixel counts, and little distance between pixels in modern displays, I can magically see the pixels by making them an extremely tiny bit larger (pixels in a 1920 wide screen at 23" are ~0.012" wide. Pixels in a 1920 wide screen at 24" are ~0.013" wide). So, I dunno. Please don't give unbiased reviews to an innocent bystander to a fanboy war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarForge Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 I just bought a Dell 2007 last month, I really like it. My only complaint is that through DVI I get colour banding, but this is non-existent through VGA. Since there's virtually no difference with the two, I use VGA and I'm very very pleased. There's a lot of bad press and people complaining about Dell LCDs. I can see what they're talking about, but I and many other people who aren't graphic designers find these displays great! My advice, if you don't mind using the VGA connection, get the 2407. If you want to use DVI, then be prepared to face colour banding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infamous Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 ACD 23" / 1500 Sony SDM P234B 23" / 1500 Dell 24" /900 --- sHARD>> - "Dell offers the best quality per price". Yes I agree with that. What you forgot is that 50" TV is going to be watched from 5 meters, not 40cm. That's why it can have bigger pixels. But you ARE NOT going to watch at 24" from longer distance than at 23". I can notice the bigger pixels, maybe you don't. But it's a fact and it's the quality fact. Producing bigger pixels is less expensive. Also, compare Dell's uniformity with ACD/Sony uniformity. Dell has 30-40 % (!!) color differences between the middle and the sides. And as I said, not possible to set it under 170cd/m2. Ideal is around 100. Dells are washed out. PS. Apple gives you new monitor if you've got ONE dead pixel. I've seen hundreds of users complaining about their Dells with 3 and more. --- So yes, that's what I call - Best "quality" per price. NOT BAD monitor, but certainly not for highest quality demanding users. I've already said that. /EDIT: really don't want to start a flame. Anyway I was on a limited budget too - also wanted to get Dell at first, but spent everything I had on a much expensive monitor and i'm lucky that I did... So my advice is if you can (even hardly) afford it and want better quality, then surely not Dell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopazBar Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 This is interesting topic, at least it is turning that way. I agree with Infamous that you should get best monitor one can buy. Quality do matter. I also agree with sHard that Dell gives you good quality at very competitive price. I think both you have point and say it very well. What I observe in LCD industry is that there is only handful of manufacturers and others just rebadge them. I can see Samsung qualifying each LCD panel they process as best, good, and acceptable. Then, they send them out to Sony, Dell, and Hanns-g respectively, for example. So, to beat this game, you would want to find the name of panel manufacturer inside that expensive Sony monitor and check with manufacturer to see who else use the panel to manufacture their monitors. They may sell their monitors cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sHARD>> Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 ACD 23" / 1500Sony SDM P234B 23" / 1500 Dell 24" /900 --- sHARD>> - "Dell offers the best quality per price". Yes I agree with that. What you forgot is that 50" TV is going to be watched from 5 meters, not 40cm. That's why it can have bigger pixels. But you ARE NOT going to watch at 24" from longer distance than at 23". I can notice the bigger pixels, maybe you don't. But it's a fact and it's the quality fact. Producing bigger pixels is less expensive. Also, compare Dell's uniformity with ACD/Sony uniformity. Dell has 30-40 % (!!) color differences between the middle and the sides. And as I said, not possible to set it under 170cd/m2. Ideal is around 100. Dells are washed out. PS. Apple gives you new monitor if you've got ONE dead pixel. I've seen hundreds of users complaining about their Dells with 3 and more. --- So yes, that's what I call - Best "quality" per price. NOT BAD monitor, but certainly not for highest quality demanding users. I've already said that. /EDIT: really don't want to start a flame. Anyway I was on a limited budget too - also wanted to get Dell at first, but spent everything I had on a much expensive monitor and i'm lucky that I did... So my advice is if you can (even hardly) afford it and want better quality, then surely not Dell... The fact that you can notice bigger pixels is hilarious. "Oh noes! My pixels are big! Har har!" Really now, DPI isn't everything. Otherwise you'd be using a nice 15" panel at 1920x1200. But you aren't. In reality however, you've probably just paid the Apple tax. Yes, the Apple tax on monitors still remains, and has unfortunately influenced other manufacturers into raising their prices. Today there is hope of a reasonablly priced LCD with professional quality, but in 2002 everyone was in on it. I paid $800 for a 17" LCD which is half as bright as the display on my new freaking laptop. I've seen many professional design firms using Dell high-end LCDs, and despite anything you say, the fact that professionals now seek these as a quality alternative to the Apple tax speaks many more volumes. Yes, this includes very rich firms with cash to burn. Finally however, what you are probably looking at is the first generation 2407s, which, Dell fully admitted, were {censored}ed up. Badly. They had color balance issues, banding and gradienting problems, and brightness imbalance. Which is exactly why they fix it for free. Oh, and as a note, I mentioned that many reviews also consider the Dell the best quality overall, not just per price. And Sony displays are famously average. On a random note, I want to ask everyone who the hell at Sony thought it was a good idea to make a square aspect 1280x1024 screen, and to ask you if you would buy a 17" monitor over a 19". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boo50 Posted October 5, 2006 Author Share Posted October 5, 2006 So, to beat this game, you would want to find the name of panel manufacturer inside that expensive Sony monitor and check with manufacturer to see who else use the panel to manufacture their monitors. TopazBar, here is the manufacturers of panels in this monitors. Apple Cinema Display 20'', 23" and 30" have LG.Philips S-IPS Dell 2007 and 3007 too have LG.Philips S-IPS but Dell 2407 have Samsung PVA new commentors WELCOME =)) "what is your choise? and why ?" >>> ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandmanfvrga Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Don't bash Dell till you tried one. At work here, while I type this waiting on a tape drive to load, I got a 20 inch LCD and it kicks ASS. I love em. SO clear and bright. My manager has the 20 inch widescreen at home and it is BEAUTIFUL. Enough the mindless Dell bashing. Like sHARD>> said, the review tell the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boo50 Posted October 5, 2006 Author Share Posted October 5, 2006 i see what some users who are for Dell with 20" displays. i suppose what it's really so good as ACD 20" they have same S-IPS matrix and maybe ? (i don't know yet) they have same 24bit colors.. so they are identical. but what about exactly 23 and 24 inch screens ??? they are really different.. and hard to compare... any owners here of ACD 23" and Dell 2407... ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infamous Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 sHARD>> You seem to be a bit offensive. Anyway, I don't know why you find it hilarious. I can even notice smaller pixels of ACD 30" compared to 23". It just feels "softer" at first sight, especially on aliased fonts. I had them side to side, both. However, you might be right about the old models (f-ked up). So it could be true that these newer ones are much better... Sony is average on average models, like every mainstream. I've chosen their highest model becaue it's same as ACD (panel inside),same price and has some nice features + longer warranty. So i've written it to consider as alternative if someone's looking for ACD 23". These new Dells might be good. Samsung PVAs (8bit per channel) are almost same as LG S-IPS. Technically even better, since $3000 EIZO uses these with 10bit LUT. ---- TopazBar - right, but these panels from Samsung and LG are manufactured and stored as "classes". Some are manufactured greatly and some a bit less. Classes A,B,C. So you can have a monitor from Brand1 with the same panel as Brand2 but the difference can be huge. (A compared to B ) sandmanfvrga - more bright = worse. Brightness is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandmanfvrga Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 They are bright AND clear. I mean SHARP in the graphics textures etc man. Again, try one with a dvi connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kharn Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Ive been nothing but happy with my 2407 Rev3 i got a few weeks ago. Its my first LCD and my previous monitor was a Sony 21" Trinitron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boo50 Posted October 6, 2006 Author Share Posted October 6, 2006 I can even notice smaller pixels of ACD 30" compared to 23". It just feels "softer" at first sight, especially on aliased fonts. I had them side to side, both. difference in pixel size 30" have 27% smaller pixels then 23" and 30% then 24" yes, i trust what this is a noticeable difference but if you compare pixels in 24" and 23" - 23" have just 4% smaller pixels, then 24"... JUST FOUR percent smaller ..... and 67% MORE EXPENSIVE for me... ..... .. . !!!!! and 25% more expensive in USA... pixel size is not main point in this compare. more intersting about maxrix type (PVA vs S-IPS), brightness, color richness (18 or 24 bit).. and overall picture quality and personal feeling of usage... is it reasonably to pay this extra 67% (or 25% in USA) at all ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopazBar Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 TopazBar, here is the manufacturers of panels in this monitors. Apple Cinema Display 20'', 23" and 30" have LG.Philips S-IPS Dell 2007 and 3007 too have LG.Philips S-IPS but Dell 2407 have Samsung PVA new commentors WELCOME =)) "what is your choise? and why ?" >>> ????? I would probably go for a Dell LCD. I'm a value guy - goodies at reasonable price. Having said that, I truely don't know what to pick because I don't know what each monitor looks like in person. I want to touch and experience them in person before I can make a decision. I have perferences: for movies I want soft, blending picture; for text, I want sharp, and crisp texts; I also like the glossy (Dell TrueLife?) look on LCD... So, for high-end monitors, you cannot trust reviews and what others think. YOU have to experience them in person. I know this doesn't help you much, but that's the best I can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boo50 Posted October 6, 2006 Author Share Posted October 6, 2006 yeah sure experience them is a good idea - but i can just see them in the shop... try over five, ten minutes... it don't give me a real experience... i've already see them... in shop they looks similar, and they both have not glossy displays.. Dell is just looks shiny... "what is your choise? and why ?" >>> ????? .... .welcome with your comments.. ... ,,,, ,.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boo50 Posted October 9, 2006 Author Share Posted October 9, 2006 i make a lot of research. and finally what can i said: ACD - ready for PRO graphics work out of a box DELL - need calibration, but after that it's not worse than ACD, maybe better than not calibrated ACD... but calibration tools isn't cheap. again after a lot of research i found what the one of the best choises is Spyder2Pro finally i would to say what Dell is a very good choice and for PRO graphics work too. i read a lot of review by people who work on Dell in design, graphics sphere, and all of them are happy with this monitor, but only after calibrating !! and Dell is really TOO Bright at standart... and brightness too can be solved by calibrating with Spyder2Pro everyone can just buy Dell, w/o doubt about it's picture quality but don't forget about Spyder or any similar product... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iDerf2006 Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 To put in another good word, I've had a Dell LCD monitor since April of this year, and I seriously love. I've had no problems with this Dell monitor, but I truly do love it. The only thing I don't like about it it it's a bit darker then my Acer, but that's alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boo50 Posted October 10, 2006 Author Share Posted October 10, 2006 which model do you have? exactly 2407 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts