New Monitor or Retina iMac?

[cenny]

I liked dell monitor. I used. But very expensive in Turkey.

 

[martyp]

I'd opt for the 5k iMac as your iMac won't drive 4k which is the next logical step.

I use an NEC 31.5" UHD/4k monitor with my Late 2013 15" MBP and it struggles when minimising windows, displaying the 'fan' slide on the folders in the dock etc. It does however, run full resolution (although scaled to 3008x1692px) at 60Hz over mini-DP (Thunderbolt) to Display Port.

Ordered a 6-core MP w/D700s at the weekend which should have no hassles driving it though - hopefully!!

 

[RavingMac]

Well . . . I still haven't bought a Retina iMac.

I am considering using a 4K HDTV as a 2nd monitor for my late 2012 MacMini. The HDMI port is limited to 1080p (1920x1200). All of the Thunderbolt to HDMI adapters I am seeing also top out at 1920x1080.
Any thoughts on getting 2560x1600 on a 40in 4K TV from my mini?

EDIT: found some adapters that support higher resolution, but comments and reccomendations still welcome

 

[pigoo3]

Well . . . I still haven't bought a Retina iMac.

At least you're not rushing into things!

- Nick

 

[pm-r]

Hmmm…??? Questionable… One of those 27" Retina iMacs just might work better and would make a nice retirement present to yourself.
Using 4K displays and Ultra HD TVs with your Mac
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202856

 

[RavingMac]

Did I mention before that I am cheap . . .

Just to be clear, I'm only trying to get Apple Thunderbolt resoloution on a larger screen, not 4K.

 

[pigoo3]

Did I mention before that I am cheap . . .

Just to be clear, I'm only trying to get Apple Thunderbolt resoloution on a larger screen, not 4K.

A 27" retina iMac can be purchased (refurbished) for as little as $1699. A lot less than the $2499 price when this thread was started. Of course $1699 is still no paltry sum. But better.

- Nick

 

[pm-r]

And they can run a 27" at a full 5K which is sometimes needed for overhead, not just at 4K, as well as supporting a pair of 27-inch Thunderbolt displays at 2560x1440 each if needed. Not too shabby at all.

 

[RavingMac]

I'm still tempted by the Retina iMac, but right now I am more interested in being able to get a lot more screen real estate, while still looking half-way decent.
I currently have/use a wall mounted 27in ViewSonic Monitor (1930x1080) and my complaint with it isn't so much the resolution, as I wish it were substantially larger.

 

[pigoo3]

I'm still tempted by the Retina iMac, but right now I am more interested in being able to get a lot more screen real estate, while still looking half-way decent.
I currently have/use a wall mounted 27in ViewSonic Monitor (1930x1080) and my complaint with it isn't so much the resolution, as I wish it were substantially larger.

I'm sure you must know this…but just in case I'll mention it. The native "screen real estate" of a 27" retina iMac is exactly the same as a 27" Thunderbolt display (2560 x 1440). Of course at this resolution on a 27" retina iMac…everything is sharper than a 27" Thunderbolt display.

But. If the sharpness & crispness of the retina display is not important…more screen real estate can be had by adjusting things in Display Preferences. A maximum screen real-estate of 3200 x 1800 can be gained. Of course everything will be a bit smaller than the native resolution of 2560 x 1440. I've done this…and everything does get smaller. But not so small that a magnifying glass is needed.

Here's an Everymac.com article explaining things in more detail:

How to Run iMac Retina 5K at Full Resolution @ EveryMac.com

- Nick

 

[RavingMac]

I'm sure you must know this…but just in case I'll mention it. The native "screen real estate" of a 27" retina iMac is exactly the same as a 27" Thunderbolt display (2560 x 1440). Of course at this resolution on a 27" retina iMac…everything is sharper than a 27" Thunderbolt display.

But. If the sharpness & crispness of the retina display is not important…more screen real estate can be had by adjusting things in Display Preferences. A maximum screen real-estate of 3200 x 1800 can be gained. Of course everything will be a bit smaller than the native resolution of 2560 x 1440. I've done this…and everything does get smaller. But not so small that a magnifying glass is needed.

Here's an Everymac.com article explaining things in more detail:

How to Run iMac Retina 5K at Full Resolution @ EveryMac.com

- Nick

Not sure I understand, or that I am communicating well.

My issue is my eyesight is declining noticeably, to the point where I would like to be able to use a 40 or 50in Monitor, at the same viewing distance that I currently use my 27in monitor.
Obviously, I could do that, but I have a feeling that 1920x1080 won't look so good, so want to pump resolution up a bit.

EDIT: BTW, thanks for the link, Nick. Interesting read.

 

[chscag]

Large screen monitors with a high resolution display are going to cost big bucks: Here's one from Dell that sells for $1999.99. That's 2000 big ones Mike.

 

[RavingMac]

Large screen monitors with a high resolution display are going to cost big bucks: Here's one from Dell that sells for $1999.99. That's 2000 big ones Mike.

Which is why I was trying to see if there was any way I could reasonably use a $600 to $800 TV instead.

 

[pm-r]

Large screen monitors with a high resolution display are going to cost big bucks: Here's one from Dell that sells for $1999.99. That's 2000 big ones Mike.

And that's only a 32" model and it will sure need some GPU horsepower to utilize it properly and even more for a larger display and that "declining eyesight" will need all the extra pixel density that can be had, and maybe even SwitchResX to get it all working properly.

A trip to a store with such a similar setup would be a good idea before any purchase. And I can't imaging using a suggested 40 or 50in Monitor at the same viewing distance. And in all honesty, I'm not sure the poster can either, and certainly not without checking the bank balance.

 

[RavingMac]

And that's only a 32" model and it will sure need some GPU horsepower to utilize it properly and even more for a larger display and that "declining eyesight" will need all the extra pixel density that can be had, and maybe even SwitchResX to get it all working properly.

A trip to a store with such a similar setup would be a good idea before any purchase. And I can't imaging using a suggested 40 or 50in Monitor at the same viewing distance. And in all honesty, I'm not sure the poster can either, and certainly not without checking the bank balance.

I find it more comfortable to read without my glasses, if I can get close enough to the screen. Normal viewing distance for me with my iPad Mini is about 4 inches for a display that is ~8 inch diagonal.
So, I can easily see myself with my nose 20 inches from a 40 inch display.

EDIT: honestly, the Retina iMac at 27 inches would be ideal, if I could comfortably get close enough to the screen to use it the way I want to. Maybe I need to look for a fancier extended arm for the Monitor instead.

 

[techiesteve]

Photography is my main hobby, and I find the quality of the display i use very important. I use a Viewsonic VP2770, it has an IPS LCD and runs at 2560 x 1440. To me this resolution in a 27" display appears ideal. Viewsonic now have the new VP2772 available. Only yesterday I installed a Mac Pro and an Eizo ColorEdge CX271 for a customer, the display was amazing and I thought to myself I'd like one too. Back home I found my current display adequate for my use, so my savings towards a new long fast zoom remained intact.

One useful fact, if using the VP2770 via an Apple MiniDP to DVI adapter it will only display at 1920x1080. If you buy and use a DisplayPort to MiniDP cable it will display the full 2560 x 1440.

I see Mike runs his current 27" display at 1920 x 1080. To me this resolution would appear more defined on a smaller screen, so either a 27" 2560 x 1440 display or a 27" iMac would be a better option for photo editing. Don't forget almost all displays need calibrating for colour accuracy.

 

[bobtomay]

Everyone finds it more comfortabel to read without their glasses. I've about given up on that. I can enlarge the font enough to read my paperwhite without glasses when I feel like turning pages once every 5 seconds instead of the glasses.

You're going to find a problem 20" from a 40" monitor. You'll be moving your head instead of your eyes when reading or looking at just about anything on the screen - full screen games are particularly not good if you're too close to the screen when you need to have everything on the screen within quick view. Several years ago I upgraded from a 27" to a 32" and discovered I had to move 2 feet farther away from the screen for game play. It was nice for some other things where you're only looking at individual areas of the screen.

I would agee if you're going to by doing photo work, you'll want a resolution higher than 1080. On a higher resolution monitor, you can always adjust the resolution up and down as you move between reading or photo editing.

Because my primary uses are web browsing, movies and gaming, I use a 24" 1080p gaming specific monitor on a swivel arm that I can easily swing toward/away from me depending on what I'm currently doing.

 

[pm-r]

With these various comments on displays and resolutions, I'll just mention that I got an email for a special price on SwitchResX today only, for those who don't have/use it or might need it later on:
SwitchResX for Mac | MacUpdate

I already have my copy but haven't really needed it lately. Just a messenger here.

 

[chscag]

With these various comments on displays and resolutions, I'll just mention that I got an email for a special price on SwitchResX today only, for those who don't have/use it or might need it later on:
SwitchResX for Mac | MacUpdate

I already have my copy but haven't really needed it lately. Just a messenger here.

How well did it work for you when you used it? I have seen mixed results with using it, however, most negative results are from folks using the program to overcome the operating limits of their monitor. I usually do not recommend SwitchResX for that reason.

 

[pm-r]

SwitchResX worked well for us when we needed it and used it last to just use a second monitor basically as the main monitor. We had also used it previously ages ago but I can't recall why, but never experienced any troubles when using it that I can recall.

Some settings wouldn't stay after a restart in its "free" mode, but the FAQ explained that and I ended up paying for it which did and was close to $30.00cdn I believe at the time.