EIZO has introduced two new 27” displays designed for professionals and prosumers. The ColorEdge CG2730 and the ColorEdge CS2730 monitors share a lot of technologies and have a lot of similarities, but a number of distinctions allow EIZO to position and price them completely differently.

The EIZO CG2730 and the EIZO CS2730 displays are based on 27” 10-bit 2560×1440 IPS panels with a 60 Hz refresh rate. Based on the specifications, the monitors sport a 350 nits typical brightness, 1500:1 or 1000:1 static contrast, 13 or 10 ms ms response time, and 178° viewing angles. As for I/O capabilities, both devices are equipped with a triple-port USB 3.0 hub as well as DVI-D, DisplayPort 1.2 and HDMI 1.4 inputs. In addition, both monitors come bundled with the company’s proprietary ColorNavigator 6 software, which can set the right brightness, gamma and other settings for photography, printing and web design with the help of calibration devices.

Apart from differences in static contrast and response time, the new monitors from EIZO have a number of other important differences. In particular, the higher-end professional EIZO Color Edge CG2730 can cover 99% of the Adobe RGB and 98% of the DCI-P3 color spaces. DCI-P3 is generally important for video editors and animation designers, who do post-production work, because the standard is used for digital movie projection in the U.S. and is expected to be adopted by television and home cinema industries in the future. In addition, the CG2730 is covered with a special retardation film, which ensures depth of dark tones when viewed from an angle. Moreover, to simplify calibration without using any third-party calibration devices, the monitor features a special sensor. Finally, the professional-grade display comes bundled with a shading hood that prevents glare.

EIZO's 2016 27" Displays for Professionals and Prosumers
  ColorEdge CG2730 ColorEdge CS2730
Panel 27" IPS
Native Resolution 2560 × 1440
Maximum Refresh Rate 60 Hz
Response Time 13 ms 10 ms
Brightness 350 cd/m²
Contrast 1500:1 1000:1
Viewing Angles 178°/178° horizontal/vertical
Pixel Pitch 0.233 mm
Pixel Density 109 ppi
Anti-Glare Coating Yes
Color Gamut Adobe RGB: 99%
DCI-P3: 98%
Adobe RGB: 99%
Power Consumption 33 W ~ 95 W 44 W ~ 110 W
Inputs 1 × DP 1.2 (HDCP)
1 × HDMI (HDCP, DeepColor)
1 × DVI-D
USB Hub 3-port USB 3.0 hub
2 USB Type-B upstream ports

By contrast, the EIZO ColorEdge CS2730 is aimed at entertainment enthusiasts and prosumers. It only covers 99% of Adobe RGB color space and does not support the aforementioned pro-level features of the CG2730 (yet, it has better response time and that is important for gamers). Realistically speaking, the difference between two displays should not be too dramatic for a non-professional eye in typical applications because both are based on 10-bit IPS panels with 16-bit look-up-table and have similar brightness. Meanwhile, when it comes to contrast and the quality of dark colors, the CG2730 is expected to be significantly better than its consumer-oriented brother.

EIZO did not announce MSRPs for its new displays, but said they would be available in November. Just like other ColorEdge monitors the new CG2730 and CS2730 come with a five-year warranty, which is longer than warranties offered by some other display manufacturers.

Source: EIZO



View All Comments

  • xthetenth - Thursday, October 20, 2016 - link

    The existence of cheaper freesync implementations doesn't mean that better ones with a plenty wide range don't exist. Reply
  • Inteli - Saturday, October 15, 2016 - link

    Did you notice I was specifically talking about my use case, just like the other guy was? Any game I can't run at 144Hz I don't need to run at that high of a frame rate, and any game I do need 144Hz is easy to run.

    Besides, I use ULMB, which isn't compatible with either adaptive refresh rate standard.
  • JoeyJoJo123 - Monday, October 17, 2016 - link

    Moving goalposts.

    "What I do find unnecessary in monitors is GSync/Freesync... especially not spend an extra $200 on a monitor that eliminates it."

    My post proved:
    1) GSync and Freesync are not unnecessary advances in monitor performance; linking the monitor to the device generating the image to address discrepancies about when to refresh the screen helps to improve the fidelity of the monitor.

    2) Not all adaptive sync monitors come with a $200 price premium over non adaptive sync monitors. Freesync equipped monitors are only a small price premium over standard monitors. Gsync equipped monitors are necessarily expensive due to the extra Gsync module and integration needed for it to work.

    So if you happen to be running an AMD GPU, and you're in the market for a 144hz monitor, a $30 price premium to get the a Freesync equipped monitor is absolutely reasonable and not "unnecessary". But if you're running an nVidia GPU, then yeah, you might consider whether the benefit is worth a rather hefty ~$120 markup, or more.
  • paulemannsen - Monday, October 17, 2016 - link

    Hes playing competitively, so the added latency in Gsync/freesync is a nogo. Also with 300+ fps tearing becomes negligible. For his usecase he made the absolute right decision. Reply
  • JoeyJoJo123 - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link

    The human eye can't see beyond 480i at 24 hz, anyways. Reply
  • Despoiler - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link

    Lol I hope you are joking... Reply
  • HollyDOL - Saturday, October 15, 2016 - link

    Although, let's see from evolution perspective... Human evolved to move in low speed - max walk speed is about 2.5m/s (ok, Ussain Bolt's sprint record is 12.4m/s, but that can't really be taken as a reference as he's the only person ever to reach it) ... We are not predator species by nature. We don't need superfast super high framerate vision. For 2.5m/s speeds 20-30Hz is more than enough. And nature doesn't invest in things which are not needed. Reply
  • HollyDOL - Saturday, October 15, 2016 - link

    Bleh, tried several times to comment and it gets stuck on submit and then I copypasted just last paragraph...

    so, the beginning here:
    as for visible resolution, this chart could be useful: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

    as for refresh rate:
    In my old school notes, there is a note about Na-K bridge on optical nerve interconnect, that it takes about 100ms to rebalance to be able to send another impulse. Easy to do your maths.

    In general:
    I have asked AT folks many times to publish article with science backed analysis and reliable claims about resolution and refresh rate of human eye , never even had an answer on that.

    (And now should have come the paragraph above^^^^^ :p)
  • Solandri - Saturday, October 15, 2016 - link

    Your eyes make rapid tiny motions to overcome this limitation of the nerves. Basically, the image is quickly shifted across different nerves, so the image is always falling on "fresh" parts of the retina.

  • HollyDOL - Saturday, October 15, 2016 - link

    Interesting reading, thanks. Though, that means eyes work on pretty much 'hyperinterlaced' mode meaning instead of progressive frames the actual image in your head is 'deinterlaced' several partial frames.

    Funny thing is, if we consider this micro motion, it occupies much more bandwidth... so in total out of those 100M neurons we use 10-fraction interlacing to achive 100Hz.. leaving us with usable 10Mpix for whole vision (although it's very far from even distribution)... so I guess we can get at about 5-7Mpx for a screen scan in optimal range...

    Eh, I'd be willing to pay for an article giving complete picture. There are way too many variables here.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now