njstacker22 wrote in post #17748198
Just picked up a Dell 27" 4k P2715Q. Not a single complaint for processing. Full adjustable (tilt, swivel and up/down), matte screen, 27", excellent build quality, 4k, USB 3.0 ports, IPS and amazing color accuracy (factory tuned at 99% sRGB with a color calibration factory report certifying that each monitor has a deltaE < 3).
For the price, I'm not sure it can be beat.
You do realize sRGB is the smaller color space right? Why not go for a monitor that can handle 99% of AdobeRGB instead? 99% of sRGB should be expected in a modern consumer monitor, personally I prefer a wider gamut.
WA Tiger wrote in post #17750111
It's hot more to do with the clarity you see when processing your shot and the detail you can get down to in the shot itself.
You can zoom into an image in Ps and see all the detail. 4k doesn't magically allow you to see more detail. I regularly edit at 300-400% on my NEC PA241W monitor. Having a 4k monitor would see me zooming in even farther as the image would be displaying even smaller on my screen.
As Bob_A pointed out: 4k is one of those things that just isn't at the top of the list for photo editing. For video yes, for photos no. IPS, matte screen, wide viewing angle, wide gamut, color fidelity, easy of calibration, accuracy of calibration. . . these are all more important for stills editing than 4k. Think about it, we've been editing images well beyond 8mp for years (4k is 8.3mp) without 4k monitors. If you find a monitor that has everything else you want and it's 4k I'd say go for it, but I certainly wouldn't put 4k at the top of my "must have" list unless I was primarily editing 4k(8mp) video rather than say, 20-50mp images.