Introduction
Let's be honest: we like big displays. Given the choice between any two computer LCDs, we would almost invariably take the larger display - provided that price isn't an overriding concern, naturally. That being the case, and looking at the current prices of LCDs, we have a serious problem even considering anything smaller than a 20" LCD. The difference in price between a 17" LCD and a 22" LCD can be as little as $75, and by the time you're looking at reasonable quality displays, the price difference can narrow even more. Widescreen displays are the trend these days, which is all the more reason to get something a bit larger if possible - note that in terms of screen surface area, a 19" widescreen is actually slightly smaller than a standard 19" 5:4 aspect ratio LCD.
It wasn't all that long ago that a typical 20" LCD could cost well over $500. After watching 20-22" CRTs bottom out at around $500 for more than five years, you certainly won't find us complaining about LCD prices dropping by 30% or more per year! There is a point of diminishing returns, however, and it's quite difficult to find any size LCD for under $150. Should you go out and purchase the least expensive (and probably lowest quality) LCD you can find for $150, or is it better to spend a bit more money to get one of the larger displays? Considering that the display is what you're actually spending all of your time looking at when you use a computer, we continue to recommend that you spend more rather than less money on that particular component, and the fact that a good quality display can last through several computer upgrades is merely one more reason to do so.
We're looking at HP's 22" w2207 display today, which at $360 costs quite a bit more than the entry level 22" LCDs on the market. We previously looked at one such monitor, the Acer AL2216W that currently sells for $230, so one of the first questions we need to answer is what exactly the w2207 provides that the Acer lacks. Other than a few extra features, we also need to look at performance, but for less demanding users we feel pretty confident in stating that you'll be hard-pressed to find an extra $130 of value in the HP offering. What about those of you who aren't so easy to please - is there a case to be made for the HP w2207? Let's find out....
Let's be honest: we like big displays. Given the choice between any two computer LCDs, we would almost invariably take the larger display - provided that price isn't an overriding concern, naturally. That being the case, and looking at the current prices of LCDs, we have a serious problem even considering anything smaller than a 20" LCD. The difference in price between a 17" LCD and a 22" LCD can be as little as $75, and by the time you're looking at reasonable quality displays, the price difference can narrow even more. Widescreen displays are the trend these days, which is all the more reason to get something a bit larger if possible - note that in terms of screen surface area, a 19" widescreen is actually slightly smaller than a standard 19" 5:4 aspect ratio LCD.
It wasn't all that long ago that a typical 20" LCD could cost well over $500. After watching 20-22" CRTs bottom out at around $500 for more than five years, you certainly won't find us complaining about LCD prices dropping by 30% or more per year! There is a point of diminishing returns, however, and it's quite difficult to find any size LCD for under $150. Should you go out and purchase the least expensive (and probably lowest quality) LCD you can find for $150, or is it better to spend a bit more money to get one of the larger displays? Considering that the display is what you're actually spending all of your time looking at when you use a computer, we continue to recommend that you spend more rather than less money on that particular component, and the fact that a good quality display can last through several computer upgrades is merely one more reason to do so.
We're looking at HP's 22" w2207 display today, which at $360 costs quite a bit more than the entry level 22" LCDs on the market. We previously looked at one such monitor, the Acer AL2216W that currently sells for $230, so one of the first questions we need to answer is what exactly the w2207 provides that the Acer lacks. Other than a few extra features, we also need to look at performance, but for less demanding users we feel pretty confident in stating that you'll be hard-pressed to find an extra $130 of value in the HP offering. What about those of you who aren't so easy to please - is there a case to be made for the HP w2207? Let's find out....
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
43 Comments
View All Comments
yacoub - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
Yes, the better ones were S-IPS panels, which it's a shame no longer seem to be used except in VERY expensive displays. They excel in several important areas over MVA/PVA panels. My first-run 2007WFP is indeed S-IPS and I love it, however they quickly switched over to some sort of MVA or PVA panel and I wouldn't go near those. :(Maybe one day (supposed) costs will come down and we'll get S-IPS again on mainline displays. I did find one really nice panel in 24" size that was S-IPS but the MSRP was around $1200, IIRC. What a joke.
PrinceGaz - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
The HP LP2065 is relatively cheap but usually (not always, you have to check in a hidden menu option) uses an S-IPS panel, and better still there are next to no reports of anyone having even a single dead-subpixel.I'd take a standard 20" 1600x1200 S-IPS display like the LP2065 over any wide-screen 22" 1680x1050 TN display (almost all 22" W are TN), as you get a much better picture with the S-IPS panel and you get more usable screen space because it has a tighter dot-pitch (so although it is smaller physically at 120 sq cm compared with 140 sq cm for a 22" W, the 20" actually has more pixels).
For general desktop use and with most games, standard 4:3 is preferable to a wide-screen 16:10 aspect-ratio; the wide-screen format's only big advantage is for watching movies, and for that you should really be connecting your computer to a large-screen TV.
strikeback03 - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
I love widescreen for photo editing - rotate the display to vertical for portrait orientation shots, and you have a huge work area for either format. But I agree, I'd take an S-IPS 20" 4:3 over a 22" TN.PrinceGaz - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
How many cameras have a widescreen format sensor? I know you agreed with most of what I said, but almost all cameras have a 4:3 sensor so a 4:3 display is optimal. This HP LP2065 monitor I have can be swiveled vertically very easily for those purposes, so unless you are taking widescreen format photos, I fail to see the advantage in a 16:10 widescreen display.You're right when you say a 20" Standard S-IPS is better than a 22" Widescreen TN. I'd personally say the difference is like night or day; once you've used the higher-quality and tighter dot-pitch of the 20" S-IPS panel, you'd never want to use any of those 22" widescreens. Only 24" widescreen monitors are better without spending a lot more, but a significant price premium still needs to be paid (and it had better be S-IPS, not PVA/MVA, let alone TN, else I'm not interested).
When I chose my current 20" display, I could have instead saved about 30% of the cost and chosen a 22" widescreen TN display (when I was deciding what to choose, I compiled a spreadsheet of everything available and included panel types). Every 22" widescreen display used a TN panel and as I was used to the quality of a Mitsubishi DP2070SB CRT display, I decided TN panels would be unacceptable. Suffice to say that this display is everything I could have hoped for in a flat-panel and more, after seeing smaller diaplays (of indeterminate panel-type) in local high-street stores.
nilepez - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
Are you sure? Every digital camera I've used seems to mimic 35mm cameras, which have an aspect ration of 1.5:1. Most widescreen monitors seem to have an aspect ration of 1.6:1, while standard monitors are 1.33:1.yyrkoon - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
That 1.5:1 or 1.3:1 ratio is specific to the relitive size of the sensor compared to a fullsized 35mm sensor that is in very few cameras. There are *some* wide aspect cameras, but it is mostly a new 'technology', and mainly implemented in P&S cameras.My Nikon D40 for instance uses a 1.5:1 sensor. What this means is that if I use a 50mm focal length lens, the actual focal length I get with this lens on my camera is 75mm. Images produced with this camera are 3008x2000 which is actually 1.504:1, or more commonly called 3:2 by many. Canon cameras have a 1.3:1 sensor aspect, and I forget which other brand, and ratio, but there is one more 'common' manufactuer ratio. This is of course in the realm of DSLRs, but most P&S cameras use a standard sensor/lens ratio (for 'that' specific brand), with very few using the widescreen setup as I mentioned above.
Anyhow, for image editing, I prefer a widescreen monitor not because it 'matches' the image aspect ratio, but because it give me more realastate for toolbars etc while editing images, and giving me more visable image area to work on while these toolbars are visable. This is purly a matter of taste, and I *could* use the pallete well, or tab keys to hide the toolbars while not in use, but this is the way I have become accustomed to working(pen/tablet seems to work well with this setup as well).
Personally, I think a monitor that displays colors correctly is far more important, as well as contrast ratio, and monitor interface type.
strikeback03 - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
Most DSLRs use sensors that have a 3:2 aspect ratio (or close enough) like 35mm film has. the Four-Thirds system (Olympus, Panasonic, "Leica") is, obviously, a 4:3 ratio sensor.As far as "crop factors" go, Canon makes a full frame (same size as 35mm, 1:1) sensor, a 1.3:1 sensor, and a 1.6:1 sensor. Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Samsung all use 1.5:1 (since they all use Sony sensors), and Fugifilm uses 1.5:1 as well, possibly because the body comes from Nikon. Sigma uses 1.7:1, and Four-Thirds is 2:1.
Most P&S cameras use 4:3 ratio sensors, and most are made by Sony. Panasonic offers a wide-format sensor IIRC.
And yes, the toolbars are a good reason to have widescreen (or dual monitor).
PrinceGaz - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
Ooops, I meant 1200 sq cm for the 20" standard display compared with 1400 sq cm for the 22" widescreen. Heh, 120 sq cm would be a touch on the small side :)yacoub - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
Ah, here it is: NEC MultiSync LCD2490WUXi for $1449.99, or the high gamut extra precision model for $1749.99.http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product/?produc...">http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Prod...t=a46240...
I'm sure they're wonderful but for that price you can get a rather nice 42" LCD TV. Heh.
Then again I bet they don't have any input lag like the Dell 24" and other MVA or PVA panels tend to exhibit which can be very annoying in FPS games for folks who are used to the more immediate input reproduction of CRTs or S-IPS LCDs.
nilepez - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
What makes this technology that much better? If I was spending that much money, I'd get a 30" Dell (or similar). At least I'd get 32% more desktop space than my CRT (and 44% more than the NEC).Oh wait, this isn't really a business monitor, it's for color professionals (mostly those who work on photos, I suspect) and has lots of controls, I suspect, that most monitors don't have.
Out of my price range.....I wonder how it compares to a hardware calibrated Dell or HP. Of course for gaming and business use, it's almost certainly not worth the money.