22' vs 24" Monitor

With the new $300.00, 22" Ultra Sharp 2209WA from Dell so far getting good reviews, I'm wondering how much benefit there is to a 24" at least double the price. For those of you who have worked on both sizes, does the small, additional 2" really make that much of a difference?

I'm about to pull the trigger on a new system and my wife tells me I'll regret it if I don't go with the larger size. I need experienced advice.

(Title should obviously be 22" not 22'. Sorry about that.:oops

I've used both 22" and 24" monitors and to be honest I didn't notice that much of a difference between them. I could be happily using a 22" with a 24" sitting next to me and vice-versa,. It matters much more what type of panel is in the monitor, if you can find out the panel type beforehand avoid TN panels.

Panels-aside, it's not the 2" which matter, but rather the increase in resolution which I appreciate. 22" LCDs has WSXGA+ resolution (1680x1050) as native while a 24" is WUXGA+ (1920x1200).

That_Fox wrote in post #7190215
I've used both 22" and 24" monitors and to be honest I didn't notice that much of a difference between them. I could be happily using a 22" with a 24" sitting next to me and vice-versa,. It matters much more what type of panel is in the monitor, if you can find out the panel type beforehand avoid TN panels.

Dell call it (the panel) e-IPS....

Thank you for the responses. Interesting observation on the resolution issue, Collins85. Never considered that. Would it be worth double the cost to you?

Pinto wrote in post #7190341
Thank you for the responses. Interesting observation on the resolution issue, Collins85. Never considered that. Would it be worth double the cost to you?

Besides the panel, that IS the issue I consider the most. Infact between the 22" and 24", I never consider the 24" due to size. The 2" is pretty negligible IMO. On the other hand, the resolution isn't - the 24" has noticably larger desktop real estate.

I'm sure some others would disagree, but to me, yes it's worth double. In the past I've owned 20" 4:3 (1600x1200), 22" widescreen and 24" widescreen - and I found 24" to be the perfect balance between resolution and quality.

Another option you can consider if you're buying for PP work are dual 22". That'll give you a heck of alot of screen real estate. The typical setup here is one monitor for all the Photoshop toolboxes/menus while the other is dedicated entirely towards the shot being processed.

Collin85 wrote in post #7190398
Besides the panel, that IS the issue I consider the most. Infact between the 22" and 24", I never consider the 24" due to size. The 2" is pretty negligible IMO. On the other hand, the resolution isn't - the 24" has noticably larger desktop real estate.

I'm sure some others would disagree, but to me, yes it's worth double. In the past I've owned 20" 4:3 (1600x1200), 22" widescreen and 24" widescreen - and I found 24" to be the perfect balance between resolution and quality.

Another option you can consider if you're buying for PP work are dual 22". That'll give you a heck of alot of screen real estate. The typical setup here is one monitor for all the Photoshop toolboxes/menus while the other is dedicated entirely towards the shot being processed.

Thanks. I'll have to think about the resolution issue. I don't think I have the room for duals.

+1 for 24. also very nice for movies

just my two bits. I have a 22" Samsung at home, I had dual 19" at work and was recently upgraded to dual 24" HP monitors. The desk space is amazing and as was mentioned, even the space on a single monitor is far superior to the monitor I have at home. If I had it to do again I would go 24" every time as long as I could afford high-quality.

theague wrote in post #7195613
just my two bits. I have a 22" Samsung at home, I had dual 19" at work and was recently upgraded to dual 24" HP monitors. The desk space is amazing and as was mentioned, even the space on a single monitor is far superior to the monitor I have at home. If I had it to do again I would go 24" every time as long as I could afford high-quality.

Thanks, but you guys are making this a tough decision.

Pinto wrote in post #7197381
Thanks, but you guys are making this a tough decision.

I have always bought the best quality I can afford. If you can't afford what you really want, keep saving.

I use a three year old 19" non-widescreen LCD monitor and i'm happy with it.

theague wrote in post #7199018
I have always bought the best quality I can afford. If you can't afford what you really want, keep saving.

Thanks for your response. But it's not a matter of being able to afford the 24". As I indicated in my original post, with the introduction of the new 22" IPS Dell UltraSharp 2209WA Monitor with, thus far, good reviews at $299.00, I am asking if 2" is worth a minimum of another $300.00.

As far as quality goes, all my current systems use CRTs, so I would guess that LCD is a actually a step down.

Pinto wrote in post #7190178
I'm about to pull the trigger on a new system and my wife tells me I'll regret it if I don't go with the larger size. I need experienced advice

Your wife's got the key!

I have Dell's 2408 Ultra Sharp. It's a S-PVA Samsung Panel. Well made, and with calibration, you will get good stuff out of it. They recently had a deal for 25% off. Any good S-PVA or IPS panel and you should be fine, after calibration.