Steve,

I have been testing and reporting on LCD displays in Shutterbug for a couple of years, with some reports like the Eizo CE 210, Apple Cinema Displays and LGE L2000C finished but not yet published.

The Eizo CE 210W or the larger CE 240W is clearly the cream of the crop, but also in the high luxury price range.

Magazine writers don't make a lot of money these days, so what did I buy for myself? The LGE L2000C, and not because it is really cheap. Its an excellent performing 20.1 inch LCD, is fully adjustable and supports rotation to use it in portrait mode. After using several HD format wide-screen models I find the traditional (CRT) 3:4 aspect ratio is more effective and comfortable to work with. The L2000C is fully adjustable for brightness, contrast, gamma and color temperature and was not difficult to set up, adjust, calibrate and profile.

You don't need a hood if you have control of the lighting environment surrounding your display, but if you are going to have the display in a bright room and there will be a lot of light directly on the screen surface, a hood is an advantage. If needed, making a hood out of black mount-board is easy and can be attached to the edges of the display bezel with self-adhesive Velcro tape.

David,

Thanks for the info. Have you looked at the LG L2013P? Based on the specs on LG's site, it seems to be almost identical to the L2000C. However, it is available locally.

Also, I have Monaco EZ Color 2.5. Will I be able to profile these monitors with their Optix XR?

I had seen you recommend the 214T previously. Does the L2000C supplant that monitor as the new affordable graphics monitor?

If one was going to buy an Eizo, does the CE210 replace the CG210? Does the CE210 pivot? What would be gained from the Eizo monitors over the LG?

Thanks,

Steve

Steve,

The L2000C is specifically recommended by LGE for pro graphics applications, and that is why I chose the model from the very large selection of models LGE produces. The L2000C is available from a couple of dozen internet sources and can be delivered anywhere in the country.

I used and recommended Monaco EZ Color when it was first introduced. Then they changed personnel inside the company and came out with version 2.0, which just plain did not work. Since then all of the feedback I have obtained about Monaco EZ Color has not been favorable. I am not sure that Monaco EZ color and your sensor specifically supports calibrating and profiling LCD's. Sensors originally made to calibrate CRT's usually do not work with LCD's without an upgrade modification.

Currently for an affordable ($79) display sensor and calibration/profiling software I recommend for PC users ColorVision's Express Spyder.

The Samsung Syncmaster is an excellent quality display, but is a 21" HD widescreen format, and considerably more costly than the 20.1 inch LGE L2000C display.

The Eizo ColorEdge CG series displays are designed for pro-graphics, primarily pre-press applications, and is relatively expensive. The ColorEdge CE series is a newer HD widescreen format designed for a broader range of applications and very specifically supports digital photography, and is much more affordable. The CE series does support pivoting so it can be used in portrait as well as landscape mode. But, even though I do quite a bit of portrait retouching and have used several displays that pivot, I have not found it such a practical advantage. So, even though I can pivot my display and use it in portrait mode, I find I seldom bother even though it just takes a few seconds to make the change from landscape to portrait.

David,

Disgarding the fact that the LG is 20" and the Eizo CE210 is 21", what would the Eizo offer over the LG? Besides a bigger price tag?

I don't mind investing in a good monitor. But I also don't want to just throw money away.

Thanks again,

Steve

What the Eizo ColorEdge LCD displays offer that consumer displays do not have is a lot of added digital control of both the handling of color information with more precise control and smoother gradations of tones including its own 14-bit LUT's. In addition the calibration and profiling of the Eizo ColorEdge is done by and through its own digital controls via a USB connection with the computer and Eizo software installed on the computer. In addition to actually providing direct precise software adjustment of the display for brightness, contrast, gamma and color balance, the software includes the calibration and profiling programming used with a supported colorimeter to actually calibrate and profile the display directly and not through the video card. This both takes the function load of profile translation adjustment off the video card it provides a more precise level of profile functioning and screen image accuracy reflected in print matching.

That sounds impressive. But in actual use, is it a meaningful advantage over the LG. Or is it more of a subtle difference.

Steve

Steve,

The difference is quite substantial from my perspective. But I'd have to know someone and their work quite well to say if it might be a big deal or not. I would have purchased the Eizo CE 210W in a heartbeat if my budget would have permitted it, and would have appreciated and enjoyed the performance and quality. Maybe the next time I need a new display I'll be able to afford the best - that would be really nice.

Ditto from me too David. It really sounds like a winner. I just have to save up a lot more--then I can run dual monitors----------

Dave,

Although the idea of dual monitors is intriguing , having tried it several times, including a pair of 30 inch Apple Cinema Displays, the experience is not very rewarding. And, it is especially not very satisfactory with Windows because you can only calibrate and profile one. Nor does it work well with monitor that are different.

Everyone might wish for more space but then you have to cut more lawn or clean a bigger house.

Point well taken.
Dave

I decided to bite the bullet, and ordered the Eizo CE210W today. From everything I've read and heard, I should be very happy with it. I talked with a salesperson at Eizo today, as well as guys from two of their resellers.

I also picked up the X-Rite Optix XR.

I should get the monitor early next week.

Thanks for all of your help.

Steve

David,
Ignoring the difference in price, as between the Samsung Syncmaster 214T and the LGE 2000C would you recommend one over the other to a PC user for Photoshop CS and general computer purposes? I am not a gamer. I use both digital and film cameras. I want to replace a very old Dell 17" CRT.

Sandy,

In performance the screen quality of the Samsung Synchmaster 214T and the LGE L2000c are very closely competitive. I found the LGE and SynchMaster adjustment controls also very comparable. The biggest difference between the two is the Samsung 214T is an HD wide format configuration and the LGE L2000C is the traditional monitor 3:4 aspect ratio. Both displays offer rotation so you can set it in either landscape or portrait mode. And the actual selling price for both displays is less than $200 different (Wide format 21" HD displays are just slight larger in total area and usually a bit costlier than 20.1 inch standard 3:4 format models.

If you are swapping out an older CRT you will probably need to upgrade to a new DVI digital output video card. LCD's do not perform nearly as well connected to an old analog video card.

David,
Thanks for your prompt response to my question. I am aware that you have tested the Samsung 244T. Have you actually tested or used the Samsung 214T? When will your review of the LGE L2000c be published?

Sandy,

I think you will find that LCD's in the same model series with different size dimensions have the same performance specifications other than those related to size. Other than screen size if the screen itself and the electronics supporting the display are the same and manufactured by the same factory and process, you will not see any difference perceptually in performance, any more than you will find any difference in any mass produced product just because it come in a larger or smaller container. I've used all three sizes of Apple Cinema Displays at different times and there is nothing I found I could report different in the way they performed. If the screen material and electronic support is different as it is between some different model series, then there is a reason to look at them as distinct products.

The LGE L2000C report was just sent in to Shutterbug's editorial office and is slated for a fall issue but I cannot say for sure which until the particular issue is actually in production ready to go to press.

I wish to point out that while the Samsung 244T is HD format, the Samsung 214T actually is a 4:3 monitor that operates at a resolution of 1600x1200, just like the LG 2000C.

Furthermore, the 214T and 244T are quite a bit different animals for photographic use, with the 214T actually being the superior of the two. Here is an anecdotal testament to the difference and here is an actual visual comparison of the two.

Ansel

Ansel,

All of the description of faults that you attributed to the 244T you had are entirely inconsistent with the 244T I tested, and what some readers have reported about the ones they have purchased. Except for size and brightness due a difference in the backlight, the specifications and actual screen of the two models 214T and 244T are identical.

From your experience I would have to conclude you got one that had a serious fault in the one or more of the control chips in the back of the display. That does happen in mass produced digital devices. Probably if you had just exchanged it you would have obtained a 244T which matched the 214T performance.

With all of the performance specifications the same except those attributed to the backlight, and the screen material identical except for size, the two displays 214T/244T should perform the same, and if not it is due to a component not functioning properly. The exception does not prove the rule.

Quote:

From your experience I would have to conclude you got one that had a serious fault in the one or more of the control chips in the back of the display. That does happen in mass produced digital devices. Probably if you had just exchanged it you would have obtained a 244T which matched the 214T performance.

David,

Your response is puzzling to me since I've never had either a 214T or 244T. I am just another photographer trying to sort out the confusing LCD marketplace so I can replace an aging CRT monitor. The links I gave were from another person that had trouble with a 244T, and I accurately described his post as "anecdotal". The second link comes from a French website that seems to have some fairly rigorous testing procedures (definitely not anecdotal), and furthermore they have actually tested BOTH the 214T and 244T.

I think this information legitimately raises some questions which are not assuaged by imputing the qualities of one monitor to the other due to the fact they are part of the same series. The currency of the scientific method is test data, not speculation, however plausible-sounding! And Shutterbug has NO test data on the 214T.

Ansel

Ansel,

It was not clear at all from your message the first link was from another person. But that is really irrelevant to what I said in my response.

There is nothing in the second link that substantiates any kind of "scientific" testing as the basis for what is displayed.

I make no claims to test the displays I report on "scientifically". They are subjective evaluations based on actual use applied to what digital photographers do and require in performance.

Although simple logic should indicate that two displays of the same manufacture and in the same series which have the same performance specifications (noting the difference in backlight necessitated by the size and aspect difference affecting brightness/contrast) should perform essentially the same. Especially when the documentation issued by the manufacturer indicates as much. In addition in communication with the company's representative I was assured the same level of performance should be expected from either the 244T or 214T.