Unfortunately, the price probably won't be. EZIO generally is even more expensive than NEC; both target customers for whom image perfection is the only criteria that matters and who're willing to pay a substantial premium for it.
You can pickup an HP Dreamcolor LP2480ZX on eBay for $300-$400 + the calibration tool (they need 5000 hour recalibrations although my experience is they are quite accurate well beyond that.)
Arguably the best 16:10 24" monitor ever made. HP recently rebooted the Dreamcolor display in the Z24x and Z27x, both 16:10, and both relatively inexpensive compared to competing displays from NEC and EZIO. It'll cost you twice as much as a LP24ZX, but they are thoroughly more modern, USB 3.0 hubs and all.
I have both an LP24ZX and a Z24x, and I still like the LP more, even if it is clunkier, louder (cooling fans) and older.
Beware of LP2480ZX from eBay. They are usually with defeated panels. There are quality issues (mura, block of dead pixels) on early batches. I got mine from eBay, but ended up sending back for repair. Despite of this, LP2480ZX is the king of 24" monitors. 7 years passed, there is still no comparable product in its class. Due to the RGB back-light array, I believe it is the only monitor which can adjust WB freely without losing colors. The super wide gamut is ideal for photo editing, publishing and many color critical works.
Same monitor I still use at home. Old as dirt at this point but it still works great and I spent a fair bit on it back in the day and since I don't want to 1080p to replace it replacements aren't exactly cheap. I had a pair of 1920x1200 monitors at my last job and prefer them to the 1920x1080 monitors I've got now but for a little bit unusual reason. I rotated both of them to portrait and the 1200 width is a nice improvement over the 1080. I ended up only rotating one of my 1080p monitors instead of both like my old setup.
Triple Asus Pro Art PA248Q's for me, it even has a crude gsync effect, it drops down to 45, 50, 55 and 59hz/fps in some demanding titles with vsync on. dunno why it does it, i just know there is no tearing, and if i can only get 45fps, its not clocking it down to 30fps with vsync.
Even more useful in laptops, where widescreen has more limited usefulness. I'm still holding out with my 15 inch T60 in 4:3, and am about to upgrade it to a T61 (motherboard swap). I will not buy a 16:9 laptop, ever. 3:2, I will think about it if it is in the 14 to 15 inch range.
I agree, 4:3 in laptops makes so much more sense because you get a full-size 6 row keyboard and a larger palmrest/trackpad. 16:10 also provides these benefits by making the display taller, therefor the casing.
I don't that much. Recently replaced my old 16:10/1920*1200 24" and soon realized there were not many good offerings for that format. Went on to buy a 25" 16:9 with a resolution of 2560*1440. Has the same vertical space, more pixels, and happens to be a bit wider. I don't really see the downside if resolution and size is not fixed.
The issue for me is that the new wider monitor forces me to push it further away in order to not have the image too wide, and then I no longer have the same vertical field of view. I don't have great vision though, so I can see this being less of an issue for others.
Bonus concern: 1920x1200 is easier to push native while gaming.
Get a nice pair of Dell U2415's. I have two at home and two in my office. They are no Eizo's, but they are 16:10 60hz IPS panels with even lighting and good color. They all ship with a calibration document, but it's more of a calibration measurement. They don't seem to work especially hard to get the color dead-on.
I am reading your comment on a Dell U3014. It's the best monitor I've ever used, by far. I have it at work. 30 inch, 2560x1600 resolution, 16:10, beautiful image quality. I think the lag is not great though, although if you care enough about input lag in games you probably just want a cheap 16:9 TN that matches the aspect ratio that most games are expecting anyway.
Same here, my Surface Pro 3 is fantastic for getting stuff done and I'd love a desktop monitor with a similar aspect ratio. And these sound fantastic, until it comes to the PPI which my SP3 has spoiled me on. If these were 2560x1600 I'd probably buy one this year, but as it is I'd find it hard to go back to big pixels after seeing how good an even relatively high PPI screen can look : /
Boutiques like Apple, MS (Surface) and Google (Pixel) sell their products through the image of quality and that lets then increase margins enough to add good stuff like high quality panels.
Meanwhile, if your only value proposition is either the price or the aspie-attracting spec sheet, then you don't have the luxury to spend extra cash on stuff like the panel.
@r3loaded: "Why is it that only Apple seems to consider 16:10 important?"
Guess the other manufacturers aren't convinced the general populace cares. If they can shave a few percent of the bill of materials by going 16:9 they will. (Unless, of course, the general populace stops buying.)
@r3loaded: "Also, I really want a 3840x2400 monitor."
If someone produced one of these that was at all decent, I'd buy right now despite having just acquired a new monitor.
Yes. I have a few Dell monitors in this format. Would be very reluctant to switch to something other than 1920x1200 or 2560x1600. Good monitors as well.
I would move from 1920x1200 to 2560x1440. The important part for me is maintaining at least the same vertical resolution and 2560x1440 would do that. 2560x1600 would be even better, but given what the market looks like either one is acceptable to me. Personally, a 16:9 is nice for watching true 16:9 movies though 16:10 is nice for watching 16:9 movies with subtitles as I can force them a little bit out of the picture. For 2.35:1 movies, it just doesn't matter, nothing is going to fill the screen unless it's 21:9.
God damn straight on the 16:10 laptop sentiment. I simply can't believe all the 'professional' and 'mobile workstation' laptops with 16:9 screens. Just boggles the mind, the sheer clueless stupidity of it.
Uhhh, there's aren't really any laptops nowadays with 16:10 because they're going for even taller ratios like 3:2 (Microsoft Surface) or 10:7 (Google Pixel).
They should actually start producing 3:2 monitors, is basically the best compromise for everything, excel, web reading, comic/manga reading, video, editing.
Yeah, because why would anyone ever want to do anything besides movie watching?
The first company to come to its senses and offer *rationally* designed product, would pwn the market. Too bad boardrooms seem to be stuffed with clueless empty suits these days...
Dont see why you would buy a 24 inch 16:10 at 1920x1200 vs getting a 3840x2160 27inch 16:9. The amount of screen real estate is far greater, and knowing EIZO it wont cost much more at all.
Oh, and 4k at 27" size? Unless you press your nose against the screen as a matter of habit (and/or are pathologically nearsighted or want to become thus), I'd call that overkill, over-spec'ed, overbuilt, and an overpriced boondoggle.
Dell sells one with good color accuracy for about $500 on sale. You do not have to be pressed to the screen to tell the difference. No one is selling 16:10 27inch monitors, only 24 in this case...
These 16:10 fanboys stuck in 2007, 1920x1200 is pathetic, wake up.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
41 Comments
Back to Article
Manch - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
If the price is right I'll take 3 please! I too had an old dell with a 16:10 screen. I used it till it died.DanNeely - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
Unfortunately, the price probably won't be. EZIO generally is even more expensive than NEC; both target customers for whom image perfection is the only criteria that matters and who're willing to pay a substantial premium for it.Samus - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link
You can pickup an HP Dreamcolor LP2480ZX on eBay for $300-$400 + the calibration tool (they need 5000 hour recalibrations although my experience is they are quite accurate well beyond that.)Arguably the best 16:10 24" monitor ever made. HP recently rebooted the Dreamcolor display in the Z24x and Z27x, both 16:10, and both relatively inexpensive compared to competing displays from NEC and EZIO. It'll cost you twice as much as a LP24ZX, but they are thoroughly more modern, USB 3.0 hubs and all.
I have both an LP24ZX and a Z24x, and I still like the LP more, even if it is clunkier, louder (cooling fans) and older.
phuang3 - Tuesday, May 17, 2016 - link
Beware of LP2480ZX from eBay. They are usually with defeated panels. There are quality issues (mura, block of dead pixels) on early batches. I got mine from eBay, but ended up sending back for repair. Despite of this, LP2480ZX is the king of 24" monitors. 7 years passed, there is still no comparable product in its class. Due to the RGB back-light array, I believe it is the only monitor which can adjust WB freely without losing colors. The super wide gamut is ideal for photo editing, publishing and many color critical works.GodHatesFAQs - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
I miss 16:10 very much,Sunrise089 - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
QFTGlaurung - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
I miss 4:3. You can have my 20" 1600x1200 Dell 2001fp when you tear it from my cold dead hands.kpb321 - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
Same monitor I still use at home. Old as dirt at this point but it still works great and I spent a fair bit on it back in the day and since I don't want to 1080p to replace it replacements aren't exactly cheap. I had a pair of 1920x1200 monitors at my last job and prefer them to the 1920x1080 monitors I've got now but for a little bit unusual reason. I rotated both of them to portrait and the 1200 width is a nice improvement over the 1080. I ended up only rotating one of my 1080p monitors instead of both like my old setup.jasonelmore - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
Triple Asus Pro Art PA248Q's for me, it even has a crude gsync effect, it drops down to 45, 50, 55 and 59hz/fps in some demanding titles with vsync on. dunno why it does it, i just know there is no tearing, and if i can only get 45fps, its not clocking it down to 30fps with vsync.Klug4Pres - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link
Even more useful in laptops, where widescreen has more limited usefulness. I'm still holding out with my 15 inch T60 in 4:3, and am about to upgrade it to a T61 (motherboard swap). I will not buy a 16:9 laptop, ever. 3:2, I will think about it if it is in the 14 to 15 inch range.Samus - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link
I agree, 4:3 in laptops makes so much more sense because you get a full-size 6 row keyboard and a larger palmrest/trackpad. 16:10 also provides these benefits by making the display taller, therefor the casing.BurntMyBacon - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
@GodHatesFAQs: "I miss 16:10 very much,"Me too. = ( Me too.
rxzlmn - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
I don't that much. Recently replaced my old 16:10/1920*1200 24" and soon realized there were not many good offerings for that format. Went on to buy a 25" 16:9 with a resolution of 2560*1440. Has the same vertical space, more pixels, and happens to be a bit wider. I don't really see the downside if resolution and size is not fixed.Sunrise089 - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link
The issue for me is that the new wider monitor forces me to push it further away in order to not have the image too wide, and then I no longer have the same vertical field of view. I don't have great vision though, so I can see this being less of an issue for others.Bonus concern: 1920x1200 is easier to push native while gaming.
Sivar - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
Get a nice pair of Dell U2415's. I have two at home and two in my office.They are no Eizo's, but they are 16:10 60hz IPS panels with even lighting and good color.
They all ship with a calibration document, but it's more of a calibration measurement. They don't seem to work especially hard to get the color dead-on.
bji - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
I am reading your comment on a Dell U3014. It's the best monitor I've ever used, by far. I have it at work. 30 inch, 2560x1600 resolution, 16:10, beautiful image quality. I think the lag is not great though, although if you care enough about input lag in games you probably just want a cheap 16:9 TN that matches the aspect ratio that most games are expecting anyway.Frenetic Pony - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link
Same here, my Surface Pro 3 is fantastic for getting stuff done and I'd love a desktop monitor with a similar aspect ratio. And these sound fantastic, until it comes to the PPI which my SP3 has spoiled me on. If these were 2560x1600 I'd probably buy one this year, but as it is I'd find it hard to go back to big pixels after seeing how good an even relatively high PPI screen can look : /sadsteve - Saturday, February 20, 2016 - link
You don't have to miss them. I've to 2 24in Dells in the 16x10 format. They still carry them so it's up to you.r3loaded - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
Why is it that only Apple seems to consider 16:10 important?Also, I really want a 3840x2400 monitor.
ImSpartacus - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
Everyone else is racing to the bottom.Boutiques like Apple, MS (Surface) and Google (Pixel) sell their products through the image of quality and that lets then increase margins enough to add good stuff like high quality panels.
Meanwhile, if your only value proposition is either the price or the aspie-attracting spec sheet, then you don't have the luxury to spend extra cash on stuff like the panel.
BurntMyBacon - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
@r3loaded: "Why is it that only Apple seems to consider 16:10 important?"Guess the other manufacturers aren't convinced the general populace cares. If they can shave a few percent of the bill of materials by going 16:9 they will. (Unless, of course, the general populace stops buying.)
@r3loaded: "Also, I really want a 3840x2400 monitor."
If someone produced one of these that was at all decent, I'd buy right now despite having just acquired a new monitor.
fmyhr - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
Dell U2415h4rm0ny - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
Yes. I have a few Dell monitors in this format. Would be very reluctant to switch to something other than 1920x1200 or 2560x1600. Good monitors as well.joex4444 - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link
I would move from 1920x1200 to 2560x1440. The important part for me is maintaining at least the same vertical resolution and 2560x1440 would do that. 2560x1600 would be even better, but given what the market looks like either one is acceptable to me. Personally, a 16:9 is nice for watching true 16:9 movies though 16:10 is nice for watching 16:9 movies with subtitles as I can force them a little bit out of the picture. For 2.35:1 movies, it just doesn't matter, nothing is going to fill the screen unless it's 21:9.David_K - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
I have one and can recommend it as a really good all around display.ruthan - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
No freensynch, no gsynch 60 Hz, i would like to use these for gaming too.boeush - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
God damn straight on the 16:10 laptop sentiment. I simply can't believe all the 'professional' and 'mobile workstation' laptops with 16:9 screens. Just boggles the mind, the sheer clueless stupidity of it.Nintendo Maniac 64 - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
Uhhh, there's aren't really any laptops nowadays with 16:10 because they're going for even taller ratios like 3:2 (Microsoft Surface) or 10:7 (Google Pixel).extide - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
No, it's because the panels are hard to get, just like it states in the article.Nintendo Maniac 64 - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
He's talking about monitor-sized panels, not laptop-sized. Remember, a lot of 1080p monitors use the same panels as small 1080p TVs.Lolimaster - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
They should actually start producing 3:2 monitors, is basically the best compromise for everything, excel, web reading, comic/manga reading, video, editing.boeush - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
Yeah, because why would anyone ever want to do anything besides movie watching?The first company to come to its senses and offer *rationally* designed product, would pwn the market. Too bad boardrooms seem to be stuffed with clueless empty suits these days...
zodiacfml - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
Right. I don't know of a monitor panel being re-used in a TV product or maybe, that was the case many years ago.Nintendo Maniac 64 - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
If anything it'd be more common now since small-sized 1080p TVs are more common.Sttm - Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - link
Dont see why you would buy a 24 inch 16:10 at 1920x1200 vs getting a 3840x2160 27inch 16:9. The amount of screen real estate is far greater, and knowing EIZO it wont cost much more at all.boeush - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link
Well gee, a 27" 16:10 would offer even more real estate... Why would you want to buy a 16:9, by comparison?boeush - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link
Oh, and 4k at 27" size? Unless you press your nose against the screen as a matter of habit (and/or are pathologically nearsighted or want to become thus), I'd call that overkill, over-spec'ed, overbuilt, and an overpriced boondoggle.Sttm - Thursday, February 18, 2016 - link
Dell sells one with good color accuracy for about $500 on sale. You do not have to be pressed to the screen to tell the difference. No one is selling 16:10 27inch monitors, only 24 in this case...These 16:10 fanboys stuck in 2007, 1920x1200 is pathetic, wake up.
topalu - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link
I am reading this article on a real nice 16:10 HP E241i that was a reasonable $250, but is now discontinued, so hopefully the price point is similar.robin051 - Monday, February 22, 2016 - link
There is also BenQ BL3200PTvber - Wednesday, April 13, 2016 - link
Just for the record i bought new this month a CS2420 and was faulty.It has a faulty pixel, full rgb.