Dan Marchant wrote in post #18589019
Because 4k monitors are new... and therefore better and your monitor is more that 6 months old and therefore (although it works perfectly) in need of upgrading.
Indeed, and for many folks quite apt, but personally my previous monitor was a good bit more than just 6 months old. I can't be sure just how old, I acquired it secondhand in return for fixing a system for which they had already bought a new monitor, thinking the one that I have had failed. I'd had it for a six or seven years when I got my new system. The laptop lashup that I was using was even older, over ten years old.
So I was in a position where I had to replace my computer system. I had used a 2.5K 27" iMac a number of times, but linear resolution wise it was only a very minor improvement on my old monitor. I had though seen the 5K iMac and was actually considering one. Looking at them in store is of course not as ideal as seeing one in the environment you will be using it in but still I was impressed. Finding that I could get the Dell with essentially the same panel kind of sealed the deal for me, as I really wanted a full tower system, so that I didn't end up with the all in one monitor, and then a load of external drives in separate enclosures.
RDKirk wrote in post #18588421
Actually, I'm not sure I understand the benefit of 4K monitors for editing photos or why everyone (except, apparently, CyberDyneSystems) is suggesting it.
Again only personal opinion you understand, but looking at images on my monitor at 218 PPI is actually very close to looking at a backlit transparency. At normal viewing distance you cannot see any individual pixel detail on the monitor. Even if I view it with a magnifying lens, I use an objective lens from an old Tasco 3-9×40 telescopic sight which has an FL of about 5"/127mm, all I can see is individual pixels, not the RGB sub elements. You know how often people will say don't worry too much, it will look great when printed? Well I almost get that same effect when viewing an image on this screen at 100%. I now often check images destined for the web at 200%, just so that I can get an idea of what they will look like on a monitor of close to average linear resolution.
I had been wanting a monitor with this sort of resolution since owning my first Samsung Galaxy Note, which had a similar resolution. My current, rather old, Note 3 has 384 PPI, and yes I would like a 27" sized monitor with a similar resolution. Why should I have my desktop display be limited in a way that my small devices are not, and have not really been in this current decade?