Do I need an expensive monitor?

I posted this on the FM forum, but thought I'd ask here as well. So I'm researching new monitors. My budget is $500. So far I've narrowed down my choices to these:

ASUS PA249Q $463
--Pros - Excellent reviews at B&H; Color Saturation of 100% sRGB, 99% Adobe RGB, AH-IPS panel, 1073.3 million colors
--Cons - Reported issues with a high pitched tone when using USBs on monitor, Only Satisfactory rating on Prad review site; Poor customer service

Dell U2413 $439
--Pros - Very Good reviews on B&H; Color Saturation of 100% sRGB, 99% Adobe RGB; AH-IPS panel, 1073.3 million colors; Good rating on Prad review site; Very good customer service
--Cons - Only 3.5/5 on Amazon; Can only be calibrated with i1Display Pro

Dell U2412M $268
--Pros - Cheaper; Excellent reviews on B&H and Amazon; Good rating on Prad review site; Very good customer service
--Cons - Color saturation of 96% sRGB, 74% Adobe RGB, older IPS technology (not AH-IPS)

HP ZR2440w $299
--Pros - Cheaper; Excellent reviews on B&H and Amazon; Very good (highest) rating on Prad review site; Good customer service
--Cons - Color saturation of 96% sRGB, 74% Adobe RGB, older IPS technology (not AH-IPS)


Now my computer doesn't have a GPU that supports 10 bit so does that mean I will never see those 1073.3 million colors? Also, I only use Lightroom 5 and Photoshop Elements 12.

I'm no professional, but I'd like to be able to print pictures, or send them to a photolab, and have them look the same as what I see on my monitor. Does that mean I need the more expensive choices (better color saturation) or would the cheaper ones be fine by themselves? What about the cheaper ones and a calibration tool like the i1Display Pro?

When you say color saturation you mean percentage of gamut it covers. To me that's not important, so long as the colors it does show are accurate - skin tones.

Any of those monitors will be fine for an amateur, though I'd probably avoid the HP as I see no good reason to buy it. I've used TN panels and IPS panels (currently have 2212HM), once calibrated they've all been fine. Dell have worked well for me. Look at the dead pixel policy.

www.tftcentral.co.uk do great reviews, but their coverage is only ok. Check out similar models, or other monitors with the same panel.

High end monitors (Nec etc) are great if you're doing critical color matching (eg pantone), but are way overkill for most photographers, even professionals. The people who own them sometimes want to justify their own investments to themselves but telling themselves they're worth it.

Spyder 4 express is a good, basic calibrator. I use the v3.

Most 10-bit monitors aren't actually 10-bit, and use various methods to pad out the spectrum, so even if you don't have 10-bit output, you'll still get some benefit from the added dithering (which is required to prevent banding when displaying a large gamut)

Other than that, Dell monitors are pretty good overall, and another good calibration tool is the ColorMunkie display.

Thank you both for taking the time to reply! A lot of recommendations for Dell thus far (other post on FM forums)...and NEC, but they are out of my price range, except for refurbished models.

I have been using Dell for work and I just picked up one for home and I like it. I just need a calibration tool now. But overall, very happy with it.

I like my dell u2412m. I think it is reasonably priced and a huge upgrade over my old budget TN monitor

I use a U2412M for general computing and a U2410 for working in lightroom. The 2410 has better production of red hues and I would suggest the 2413 over the 2412M if you're concerned about truer flesh tones. A calibration tool is required for accurate screen-to-print matching.