[NordicMan]

For three years, I have been using a 17" flat panel Apple monitor, which has served me well. Now I am thinking about getting a new monitor. Apple's are expensive, fairly much so. One of the monitors that I thought to get was a Lacie 22", but they are so big, even if they are a fairly well regarded CRT.

Then I noticed a review in Shutterbug on the Sony 20.1" sdm S204 lcd monitor, along with the Lacie 20"(but I had poor luck with a Lacie years ago). This can be found for around 850-900$ new, compared to the pretty 20" Apple's 1200$.

I shall take my time in evaluating this matter, as the 17" Apple is still working fine.

On this site, nor on others, have I found any comment on the Sony, which is well reviewed by Shutterbug's D. Brooks, a Mac man. He wrote the article befoe the 20" Apple lcd was available. I just like to get feedback from people on how well a product worked for others, too. Products sent to reviewers will have to be in good working order.

I know there is much discussion on the 23" Apple, it is around 2G, so I am just not going to do that, even 1.5G$ is too much.

[sodamnregistered2]

I still use CRTs. I have all Sony CRTs.

They are big, heavy, and give off a little heat, but the picture is great, bright, you can run hi-res and they are much cheaper than LCD.

I run a 21" and 19" CRT off my dual G5, both at 1600x1200. I ran three 19" at 1600x1200 on my old Quicksilver dual G4/800.

CRTs are not sexy, but they are a great value right now...

[Al G]

The modern higher-end LCDs from various manufacturers are very nice and much, MUCH better than LCDs from a couple years ago. Sony, Samsung, Viewsonic, even Dell, whatever the brand is, there's a good chance that if the specs are similar then they use the same actual screen but with different OEM packaging.

I'm a photographer, but when my CRT died over a year ago, I decided to go LCD and never look back and I have no desire to go back to CRTs.

[NordicMan]

Thanks, guys. Yes, CRTs are less expensive. The NEC Mitsubishi, which is what the 22" Lacie really is, is one of those good monitors still made in Japan, which photographers like(yes, Brooks comments on this, but so have many others).

It is so big. I am just looking around for now. The Sony 20" I mentioned has what Sony calls 'ergobright', the ability to turn a knob and turn down the brightness in order to achieve closer to natural light.

But like you say, the CRTs are less expensive. What graphics card did you have in the dual 800 to run 3 monitors?

I am far too much of an amateur babe in the woods to really have the difference between a CRT and an LCD affect me so far as photography or anything goes. However, I can see things before my eyes, and so this matter is something to consider, as one creeps along. I love good pictures, and plan to use an slr with my Mac, whether scanning, or getting a dslr, in the future.

I have not looked at what Sony CRTs are around now, I know they have a fine monitor still made in Japan, a quality piece.

[sodamnregistered2]

Sony only makes large CRTs now. I just love Trinitrons. Rich colors, no viewing angle limitations at all.

It's just personal preference. The newer LCDs are very much improved. Brightness, viewing angle and dot pitch are much better than even 2 years ago. I'm a hi-res freak though, and for the money, LCDs are only just now getting to a decent price point.

Getting two LCDs to run at 1600x1200 would still cost a pretty penny.

On the other hand, two 21" monitors would weigh 120 pounds and give off a little heat in the summer...

If you are fine with one screen, I'd consider an LCD. If you think you'd love to have two screens, consider CRT.

I had three video cards (1 AGP, 2 PCI) in the Quicksilver to run three 19" monitors.