Do you think monitor price reflects Quality?

Comixbooks

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
22,029
I'm just wondering if the more expensive monitor deliveries the better picture over the cheaper variations.
 
Last edited:
This question is so open ended... where to begin. Usually, but depending on your usecase that money could be wasted too. If you get a high hz monitor and your gpu cant push that many frames you may as go with a cheaper one. Sometimes cheaper monitors (B panels) are just as good, but they might be lower quality and not last as long or have a higher chance of defects/bad pixels.

What is your usecase (gaming, photo editing, video editing?) what are your computer specs? what size monitor do you want? What do you have currently?
 
You have to pay a lot of extra money for certain features like color accuracy and uniformity that is good enough for graphics work or high refresh rate, low input lag and fast response times for gaming.
 
Generally ... you get what you pay for ... because certain features are completely unavailable in lower tier price brackets. That’s just how it is.
 
There's a price point where you get what you pay for, then after that it's all glitz.

Think about a monitor with good tech specs. Now think about "gaming" monitors that have the same specs but now have LEDs or alien heads or weird tripod stands or whatever.

If you buy just the specs, you can definitely save some money. The key is determining exactly what you need so you can get just that.

Some people are fine with TN while others want minimum VA and others are IPS or die while even fewer are OLED elite, everything else is for plebes.

What do you want/need?
 
Generally speaking monitors are low margin products, and so you get what you pay for.
 
To a large degree, price does reflect quality. This is usually true for almost anything up to a point. At some point there is usually a halo level for a product where the amount of money spent is disproportionate to the gains received over a less expensive option. For example: Most shooters would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a $1,500 semi-custom 1911 and a custom $2,500 1911. In most cases, the less expensive one will be capable of more accuracy than the shooter is. There are few people that are proficient enough to notice the difference in the higher end option. Even a few of those are experiencing a simple placebo effect.

On the subject of monitors, you bet there is a difference. However, the monitor market is a weird one. In some cases the person looking at monitors may simply not have the exposure to the higher end displays or doesn't know enough about the subject and therefore doesn't know the difference. On the reverse side of the coin, there are people who can look at a panel and tell you right away roughly what it is and how good or bad it is. Simply looking at the specs isn't the answer either as some specs are rated differently from one manufacturer to the next. As others have stated, you have some people that are good with TN and don't really care about image quality as much as raw performance. That is, they are looking at refresh rates or response times. Nothing else really matters. On the other side, you have people like me that hate TN displays and won't use one. The image quality and viewing angles are atrocious and are therefore unacceptable. It can also depend on your needs. I've done photo editing on panels that weren't calibrated or weren't very accurate due to their panel types and it caused a problem. Basically, the photo looked fine on my screen but for everyone else it had a yellow tint.

There are also differences in cheaper monitors when it comes to eye strain. Cheaper monitors that use PWM cause me headaches. For short periods its fine but I'm on my PC more than a person really should be. Having a quality panel is essential to the experience being tolerable.
 
The law of diminishing return apply for all things, for example certain medical grade monitors from Eizo go for around 20K and up. If you are trying to spot a tumor based on a shadow, gray scale dynamic range has to be perfect but for a gamer not so vital.
http://www.neutronusa.com/prod.cfm/...WqOUjAdapLalETgrgmS3tH4xPDIilQ9xoC8WsQAvD_BwE
I find image quality has to come from a high quality source for example the Red 8K camera is 100K with the appropriate telecine lenses view video to see the difference between 4K on a Red vs. a GoPro.
 
Last edited:
Dan_D said:
To a large degree, price does reflect quality. This is usually true for almost anything up to a point. At some point there is usually a halo level for a product where the amount of money spent is disproportionate to the gains received over a less expensive option. For example: Most shooters would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a $1,500 semi-custom 1911 and a custom $2,500 1911. In most cases, the less expensive one will be capable of more accuracy than the shooter is. There are few people that are proficient enough to notice the difference in the higher end option. Even a few of those are experiencing a simple placebo effect.

On the subject of monitors, you bet there is a difference. However, the monitor market is a weird one. In some cases the person looking at monitors may simply not have the exposure to the higher end displays or doesn't know enough about the subject and therefore doesn't know the difference. On the reverse side of the coin, there are people who can look at a panel and tell you right away roughly what it is and how good or bad it is. Simply looking at the specs isn't the answer either as some specs are rated differently from one manufacturer to the next. As others have stated, you have some people that are good with TN and don't really care about image quality as much as raw performance. That is, they are looking at refresh rates or response times. Nothing else really matters. On the other side, you have people like me that hate TN displays and won't use one. The image quality and viewing angles are atrocious and are therefore unacceptable. It can also depend on your needs. I've done photo editing on panels that weren't calibrated or weren't very accurate due to their panel types and it caused a problem. Basically, the photo looked fine on my screen but for everyone else it had a yellow tint.

There are also differences in cheaper monitors when it comes to eye strain. Cheaper monitors that use PWM cause me headaches. For short periods its fine but I'm on my PC more than a person really should be. Having a quality panel is essential to the experience being tolerable.
Click to expand...

I'd also add that if you read forums like these, you might start thinking that everything on the market is garbage. But every monitor available has some issues in some area and even the best ones have their drawbacks. Right now I have one of the first gen 8-bit TN high refresh rate monitors (ASUS PG278Q) here along with an LG C9 OLED and a Samsung CRG9 VA panel. I used the TN for over 5 years and it still works fine in my gf's machine, I think it's a very good monitor that still has top tier response times and TN viewing angle issues are not a problem on it as long as you are right in front of it. It's nothing like those awful cheap monitors and laptops you see in stores where moving your head a little causes noticeable shifts. In a similar way the VA's slower black transitions and response time haven't been a real problem for me though I can agree that it is not as good as the TN and OLED. Lastly the OLED has its own issues if one were to use it as a desktop monitor (size, burn-in, font subpixel rendering is not made for its pixel structure...), mine is in TV so it's fine.

The real problems on the market right now is that the TV segment is making you wonder why you are paying so much for desktop displays. At current sale prices you can get a 55" LG C9 for a lot less than pretty much any top tier desktop display yet the OLED will outperform them in nearly every area. There's a lot of good options if you are fine with 27" 1440p or 4K screens but above that it's pretty horrible.
 
kasakka said:
I'd also add that if you read forums like these, you might start thinking that everything on the market is garbage. But every monitor available has some issues in some area and even the best ones have their drawbacks. Right now I have one of the first gen 8-bit TN high refresh rate monitors (ASUS PG278Q) here along with an LG C9 OLED and a Samsung CRG9 VA panel. I used the TN for over 5 years and it still works fine in my gf's machine, I think it's a very good monitor that still has top tier response times and TN viewing angle issues are not a problem on it as long as you are right in front of it. It's nothing like those awful cheap monitors and laptops you see in stores where moving your head a little causes noticeable shifts. In a similar way the VA's slower black transitions and response time haven't been a real problem for me though I can agree that it is not as good as the TN and OLED. Lastly the OLED has its own issues if one were to use it as a desktop monitor (size, burn-in, font subpixel rendering is not made for its pixel structure...), mine is in TV so it's fine.
Click to expand...

II totally agree. Last year when I was looking for a new monitor I did what I always do, read every review I could get my hands on and the thing I found out was that all monitors suck.

IPS has great color accuracy but horrible glow all over the screen. TN has blistering response and lag times but bad contrast and bad viewing angles. VA has superb contrast and black levels but is slow as molasses and ghosting can be a problem. Simply put, there is no perfect monitor. You have to determine what technology has the strengths you most care about. That's half the battle right there then you start looking at individual panels.

As for price, I think the simple answer is that yes it matters. A $500 monitor will be better made, have better performance and will use higher quality parts than a $200 monitor. But like somebody said above, once you get above a certain price point, the benefits really start to get smaller and not necessarily worth it.
 
Could say the same about all panels BUT you need to remember that a lot of the big brand named panels are just rebadged HiSense or other OEM that supplies the same panels they use in their lower priced own displays to the big brand names who put a premium mark up on the same unit with their badge.
 
OliverQueen said:
Could say the same about all panels BUT you need to remember that a lot of the big brand named panels are just rebadged HiSense or other OEM that supplies the same panels they use in their lower priced own displays to the big brand names who put a premium mark up on the same unit with their badge.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It may be the same panel but not as well vetted for uniformity etc. Afaik panel manufacturers have a grading system for their panel so the expensive display gets "A" class panels and the cheaper one gets "B" or "C". Scaler hardware and firmware used for the panel can also vary and that will give you different results from say Asus vs Acer despite both using the same panel in a display model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top