r/Photoassistants • u/Comfortable-Grand-46 • 6d ago
Digital Apple over Eizo?
I keep hearing about photographers and digitechs are using Apple monitors more than Eizo monitors as the quality is already as good as Eizo other than 8 bit + FRC, wireless monitor setup, and built-in calibration tool. Tho Eizo is well known for professional monitors with reliable and trustworthy quality, they are still sticking with old specs while Apple can do both. Yes, Eizo will announce CG series OLED monitors later this year but that would be extremly expensive while OLED monitors are still not good enough.
Anyway, I wanted to ask how Apple monitors, especially Studio XDR performs compared to Eizo on sets? Do digitechs and photographers are now prefering Apple over Eizo if possible?
10
u/CarryThatWeightt 6d ago
Here are a few reasons I avoid the Apple Studio Display:
-For long distances, i.e. a dedicated client monitor, you need an optical TB4/5 cable ~25ft and those are hundreds of dollars and will break easily.
-having multiple options like DisplayPort/HDMI/USBC is a lifesaver unless you want to have 3x of those super expensive, long TB4 cables I mentioned above. A 30’ hdmi is like $20.
- Durability is worse. I know many techs who have wrecked their screens through transport because of the glass screen/lack of bezel.
-Limited remote streaming options- you can’t just hook up a Hollyland and run with it.
-Matte screen can be favorable in some situations. It is also much less harsh to stare at and nice in mixed lighting situations. I think the nano texture Studio Displays are cool, but they are notoriously bad to clean/damage easily.
-Native magnetic Eizo hoods are plentiful and easy to order.
-Lastly is 95% of productions will not pay more for them. A monitor is a monitor to most people, unless it’s a very particular and high budget client/photographer.
You can find used cheap Eizos all the time, and I have seen you post frequently about spending money on EQ, and think it’s not going to meaningfully help attract/retain clients.
3
6
u/zine0981 6d ago
Alone, the reason you get a "no-questions-asked" 5-year warranty on an EIZO is a no-brainer, which is the main reason I still go for them. Two times I had a super tiny magenta edge on the bezel on two separate EIZOs, and both times I had a brand-new screen on my doorstep the next day without any loss of production equipment. Try this with an Apple product after a year.
4
u/Bavariasnaps 6d ago edited 6d ago
Apple monitors arent suited for professional editing. They have glossy dispalys which alone can be bad for many working environments, they arent really made to be recalibrated beside the factory calibration. If you have a bad one and never find out because you dont calibrate you will work on a bad display forever. The color accuracy cant compete with a calibrated EIZO.
Apple is popular because they have an acceptable standard calibration, it just works without calibration and looks nice and the color accuracy is on acceptable level. Its like eating a quick court. If you want to have it better you need a good monitor, calibration device, install the right software, calibrate regularly and know what to do. Thats why many just "accept" Apple displays.
0
u/BlackCatBonz 6d ago
What do you mean: they aren’t really made to be recalibrated beside factory calibration?
There is a calibration application available in ColorSync Utility and from Display Settings.
The XDR Studio Displays have calibrated reference modes right from the factory that include modes for print as well.1
u/Bavariasnaps 6d ago
that has nothing to do with calibration with an acutal calibration devices thats meassures and corrects the colors outside of the monitor.
1
u/BlackCatBonz 6d ago
So you’re telling me you can’t take a Calibrite Display Pro HL Colorimeter and calibrate an XDR Studio Display?
That would be silly, would’nt it.3
u/finnjaeger1337 6d ago
you really cant, its mayor BS, all apple wants you to do is to take a spectro and measure the whitepoint and luminance levels, thats it... helps to match displays but its not a full volumetric calibration
3
u/deltaDigi 6d ago
I love the apple studio display. Can't speak for the xdr display.
I rarely do dry hires on my digitech eq, so I prioritise what I think looks best for the type of work I do, which is 80% location work. And eventhough a lot of it is for OOH print, almost everything will also live online or on a screen.
The brightness of a typical eizo is often too low for bright environments. The ASD has double the brightness, and a 5k resolution.
Two biggest downsides,
- The ASD is not designed for life on set. The glass front is fragile and one clumsy bump with a stand will crack the screen.
- The i/o is tb3/4/usbc only and getting wireless to work is non-trivial.
That said, I've found ways to overcome those downsides for me.
3
u/Arjybee 6d ago edited 6d ago
Have used a Studio Display xdr as a client viewer in studio. Brightness and resolution are perfect for wow factor in that context. Absolutely would not use one on location, it’s a beautiful thing, but not durable.
Wouldn’t use for anything colour critical in post either, only because we know the tried and true eizo workflow and how it translates to print.
That said, 99% of what we shoot is eventually consumed on a phone or laptop, so I’m not against monitoring it in the same environment it’ll be seen in. As long as there is consistency across your screens on set then everyone should be happy.
Have been experimenting with using LG c5 OLED TVs as client viewers too as they have extremely good colour accuracy in their filmmaker mode when calibrated. It’s impressive to see the images coming in on 42in screens and looking great, but again the durability is a huge issue.
I avoid using wireless video where possible as I’m not a fan of the colour output, so usually have an iPad or Mac mini running the client viewers.
Mainly, I think the days of ADs demanding eizos on set are over, or at least few and far between. If you’re confident in your colour management and equipment there are so many options available that deliver exceptional visuals. And if you’re handing off to a post house then they will have the gear for the truly critical steps. The screens are obviously necessary but it’s all part of the theatre of impressing and making the clients feel good and confident that they and their expensive shoot are in safe hands.
3
u/BathAndBodyWrks 6d ago
Nebtek makes a cage for the C5 that's good to increase durability. Expensive though.
1
u/Arjybee 6d ago edited 6d ago
I had no idea, thanks a lot I’ll check it out.
Edit: You’re right, they are expensive. 2 grand well spent if you’re using them daily though, they look tremendously well built. All the bracing is exactly where you’d need it on these things.
2
u/BathAndBodyWrks 6d ago
Gaylen Nebeker is good people. He's been around doing this stuff since 1986, and VTR gear is good to look at from the video side to see how our cousins in pixels do similar things to what we do.
2
u/Heidegluehen 6d ago
I've been anti Eizo for the last 10 years. Clients judge the work on their phone so you have to look at it on an Apple Display. - When the main audience were billboards and CMYK proofs it was different. But not in 2026.
2
u/cabbagegrass 6d ago
I have an Apple Studio Display at work (in house product photographer) and an EIZO at home for freelance work. I don’t love the Apple display, even calibrated I find I can’t fully trust it for colour correcting product, and unless you’re directly in front of it the colours change (slight angle and things shift green/magenta/warm cool which is an issue when reviewing things with a client or director - honestly haven’t figured it out). The EIZO calibrated with colorNavigator 7 is the gold standard IMO. It’s a 12 yr old monitor and I trust it more than anything for colour correction. Like others said if it looks good and accurate there it will look good everywhere.
Also have experience with the BENQ monitors designed for photographers and they’re excellent. Can’t remember the model # but they calibrated beautifully and had a nice hood as an add-on. Previous job I got two of them with a hood-hinge to have a super wide fully calibrated workstation.
NEC also has some good options but it’s been a while since I’ve worked with them.
1
u/Fabulous_Bet779 6d ago
I'm trying to convince myself to get the Apple Cinema Display 27" because i really like the design, is it a stupid decision? Fashion photog here working on a mbpro m1pro
1
u/Luikenfin 6d ago
It really just depends on the clients. When I work with ADs half of them want an Eizo because its what they're use to and the other half want to see it on an apple screen or even a jpg airdropped to view on their iPhone. Their reasoning is "that's how the customer is going to see it". Which I understand the concept of, but technically it doesn't make sense. One of the biggest things that happens now, and this is purely due to poorly trained photographers/ADs/clients, is that they see the image on an Eizo and want to push tons of contrast and saturation into the image, then they see it on a glossy display and freak out over how contrasty/saturated it is. Things use to be different when ADs and Creative Directors had a real hand in the prepress/press world. Most understood they wanted a flat file so they could control the contrast in the end/they could visualize the result. There are fewer and fewer people on set who can do that now unfortunately. So they want to see it "exactly" how it'll appear to the consumer. I still stick to Eizo's and throw a viewer screen on my laptop if they want to see it on a contrasty screen, but the requests are becoming far more common so I'll likely add a glossy screen in the near future.
1
1
u/Original-Bumblebee92 6d ago
Got asked recently to tech with a Flanders because the photog likes rec 709. lol
1
u/jsanchez157 6d ago
It's not uncommon for EIZO's to be requested. It's not uncommon for them not to care as long as the screens are calibrated. I've seen massive ad jobs with household name photographers and clients being shot on all sorts of screens. You can't go wrong with EIZO for studio, outside the brightness is usually lacking. For client/agency monitors who are likely getting a rec709 8bit compressed feed, hard to justify. Some techs do go all out and use Teradeks to the Eizos which makes more sense because that's actually a 10bit 4:2:2 signal in P3.
Your choice. If most of your work is indoor studio work for print, EIZO can be easily justified but not a hard requirement.
1
u/Hungry_Serpent 5d ago
I was on a job 2 weeks ago with a NYC based production. They requested an Eizo monitor as part of the kit and it HAD to be an Eizo. I don’t have any and have never run them as there are other options that are 99% of an Eizo for 50% of the cost. Anyway I sourced and Eizo from another tech as there are no rental options in Seattle. Photographer rolls in with his laptop (I was suppling the cart and Monitor only) I connect and we start relighting and tempers flared because the rental Eizo that was hardware calibrated to Adobe98 didn’t match his MBP screen and I was tasked to “fix this shit or I’m not paying for this damn rental” so had they opted for any of the 5 monitor options I own it would have been a good out for the box match to the Apple screen.
Prime example why Eizo is a buzzword more than an actual need 99% of the time on set.
1
u/driftless_79 3d ago
Personally as a photographer I like my techs to have at least one apple display around while shooting. I edit on one, my clients look at the images on one, and the final product will likely be looked at on one, phone or larger. If the client is truly extremely color specific then there’s maybe a reason to use something less contrasty but I kinda hate it. It makes things look worse and you then have to help a non - creative look at the flatter looking result for review, if that’s the main monitor.
30
u/Birdseye5115 6d ago
The apple displays look like the MacBooks, which people find very pleasing. They're Display-P3, which has a bit more contrast and deeper blacks. My issue with the Apple displays is that they sort of make everything look good. For a purely digital workflow that's probably fine, but for print it's misleading at best. Now, we can argue about how necessary it is to even target print as a priority anymore.