20" Cinema Display vs. Formac 2010

moogsmoogs
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Price-wise it seems Apple actually has these guys beat, but I've read many rave reviews about the 2010. What's more, its specs seem to indicate it is a better monitor than any of Apple's displays in terms of response time and contrast ratio (though I'm not sure if everyone uses the same measurement processes for example). I'm wondering if contrast ratio is sort of like "DMax" on a film scanner, where the spec is nothing more than a marketing gimmick.



Have any of you had a chance to use both to any meanginful degree (more than just tinkering around with them in a store)? Maybe one of you works in a studio that has both? I am very interested to hear points of comparison and strengths and weaknesses of both. I was dead set on a 2010 until Apple released the new Cinema display. Now I'm thinking twice because I could save a few hundred bucks for the same size monitor.



Usage habits are as follows in order of importance:



Editing and Color Correcting Digital Photos for output to Epson 2200 (professionally)



Web Design



Watching DVDs



Basic iMovie and FCE DV editing (hobby)



Games





Any thoughts?



[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 5
    sebseb Posts: 676member
    hey moogs, long time no type.



    I don't have any side by side experience with these monitors - never used a Formac before.



    However, I don't know which Mac you've got but if it doesn't meet these requirements (and I seem to recall you having an older G4) the decision may have been made for you:



    System requirements





    The Apple Cinema Display requires Mac OS X v10.2 or later, and one of the following systems:



    Power Mac G4 with an NVIDIA GeForce2 MX, GeForce3, GeForce4 MX, or GeForce4 Titanium graphics card or ATI Radeon 7500, 9000 Pro, or 9700 Pro graphics card





    FYI, a non ADC G4 which has been upgraded with one of the above ADC cards will not work with this monitor.



    Hope all is well.



    Edit: Apparently the 20" Apple Display is SWOP certified, so your pro color correction should be great.



    [ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: seb ]</p>
  • Reply 2 of 5
    thereubsterthereubster Posts: 402member
    Sorry, since I'm in the UK I havent seen the new Apple 20 inch Cin Display but the formac is excellent, the best LCD I have ever seen (and I've seen many) AND I notice Formac have just dropped the price today to bring it under the new Apple screen.... (£1000 in UK as opposed to £1100 for Apple 20" CD) :cool:
  • Reply 3 of 5
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    [quote]Originally posted by Thereubster:

    <strong>AND I notice Formac have just dropped the price today to bring it under the new Apple screen.... (£1000 in UK as opposed to £1100 for Apple 20" CD) :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Hmmm. The price listed on their home page remains unchanged at $1699. If they brought it down around $1200 I think my decision would be somewhat easier. Those marketing gimmicks get me every time.







    Seb: good to hear from you. I guess I should've given more context: I won't be buying this monitor until later this year - either when a 7457 based Power Mac comes out with a 200 MHz FSB, or when the (hopefully) 970 based machines come out. In other words, I'll be using ADC once I'm ready to make the purchase of the monitor.



    For right now you're right: I'd have to get a DVI card for my Mac and buy the Formac version.
  • Reply 4 of 5
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Hey Moogs, what digital body did you end up getting? Do you like it? How about a mini-review Does the fact that the CCD is smaller than a 35mm frame bother you that much since your lenses are magnified essentially 1.5x?
  • Reply 5 of 5
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Hey Jack, how goes it?



    I decided on the Nikon D100. Maybe one of these days the mysterious D2 will materialize with a Foveon chip and I'll get that. In general the 1.5:1 focal length ratio doesn't bug me because it takes me from 17-200mm (on three lenses) to roughly 24 - 300mm. It's actually advantageous in certain regards. I rarely shoot at or below 20mm, but would shoot at 300mm fairly often.



    I'll be happy to put together a review this spring once I have a chance to use a DSLR in good weather / colorful settings. My new job will provide plenty of chances too since landscape photography is part of the job description believe it or not.
Sign In or Register to comment.