lcd screen size comparison price

The cost of TVs depends heavily on their size, with larger ones being progressively more expensive. I examine this relationship by aggregating TV price data over a range of sizes and brands. In addition, I clarify how to calculate TV screen area, height, and width. Though TV screens are universally described by the length of their diagonal, I argue that area is a more intuitive parameter for comparing their sizes.

To collect data for this investigation, I consulted The TV section of Walmart’s Canadian website. Here I found 138 TVs listed with screen diagonals ranging from 19” to 75”. I recorded the size and cost of each, summarized in the graph below.

As expected, price increases with TV size. However, size alone isn’t a tremendous predictor. For instance, there were two 32” screen TVs available which were more expensive than many of the 65” screens. We can account for this through the many features which TV models differ in, beyond size. For instance, some have curved screens, some are smart TVs, and others provide 4K ultra HD. Looking at this graph, the distribution of TV models across size is also interesting. Screen diagonals of 50”, 55”, and 65” are by far most abundant. Nevertheless, the confounding factors make it is hard to isolate the contribution of physical size to TV prices from these data. In particular, we’d require the assumption that expensive TV features are equally represented across the sizes.

To tease out the relationship between TV size and price, we must compare TVs which are identical in every way except size. Fortunately, it is possible to do this: some companies sell series of TV models which offer the same features at multiple screen sizes. Although this greatly limits the data available, it does conveniently remove the confounding factors. I selected four TV series: two by Samsung (NU6900 and Tizen Smart LED) and two by LG (UK6090 and UK6300).

Each series follows a consistent trend, but direct comparison of them is challenging since they have different intrinsic values. In the interest of fully covering the range of screen sizes, it was necessary to combine the data. I normalized the prices within each series to facilitate direct comparison. Each set contained a 50” screen, so I normalized the prices by scaling the 50” option to a value of ‘1’. For instance, The LG UK6300 series costed $448 (43”), $548 (50”), $648 (55”), and $998 (65”). I normalized these prices to 0.82, 1.00, 1.18, and 1.82, respectively. This approach was successful in making each series comparable.

Here a clear relationship emerges between cost and TV screen diagonal length. Interestingly, this relationship is not linear, note the curvature of the apparent trend. As TV screen diagonal is increased, further improvements in size become increasingly costly. We can explain this nonlinearity, to do so we must review how screen diagonal is related to its area.

The size and shape of TV screens are specified by the length of the diagonal across the screen and the aspect ratio. Despite this, I believe that screen area is a much more intuitive unit for comparing TV sizes. The screen of a TV is rectangular, so we can find its area by multiplying the length of its height (H) and width (W).

Importantly, this equation reveals that screen area (A) increases with the square of screen diagonal (D). The area is also modified by aspect ratio, with maximum area at a 1:1 ratio. Since most modern TVs have an aspect ratio of 16:9, we can alternatively write:

The relationship between screen area and diagonal length helps account for the nonlinearity between diagonal length and cost. The quantity of materials required for manufacturing scales with area rather than diagonal length, so it is sensible that screen area and cost may be proportional. This turns out to be an accurate assumption, as seen by replotting the normalized Samsung and LG series data against screen area.

There is a strong linear correlation between cost and screen area (R^2=0.97). For comparison, correlating cost with screen diagonal gave an inferior fit (R^2=0.88). A notable exception to this trend is the outlier at 75” diagonal length (red data point). The deviation at this large size is likely due to current manufacturing limitations, driving up the cost. According to the vice president of TV product marketing at Samsung, there are very few fabrication plants currently operating that are optimized for producing LCD panels of this size.

Having established the relationship between TV screen area and cost using controlled data, we can return to the total data set to gain more insights about TV prices. There was a large range of prices at each TV size, mostly due to the presence or absence of various features in the different models. If the availability of such features is fairly equal across TV sizes, averaging the prices at each size may largely cancel out this variability. I tried this, and it afforded a surprisingly strong linear correlation with screen area.

​Given that these data are from averaging all of the TVs sold by Walmart, this is an impressive fit (R^2=0.89). Conversely, these data were less strongly correlated with screen diagonal (R^2=0.79). There are several implications of this. Firstly, it suggests my earlier observation that TV price is proportional to screen area is broadly applicable. In addition, it implies that expensive TV features are near equally represented across the range of sizes. Lastly, the 75” TVs are an outlier from this trend (red data point), reinforcing that this size of TV is disproportionally expensive in the current market.

Overall, the cost of TVs is proportional to screen area. TV prices are therefore “fair,” you pay the same cost per square centimeter of screen you get. The only exception to this is the largest screens (75” and above). These are disproportionately expensive, probably due to limitations of the current manufacturing practices. It is also interesting to consider pixels in light of this. For instance, a smaller 4K TV has the same pixel count as a larger one. Here the cost per pixel is higher for the larger TV, an understandable consequence of each pixel having to be made bigger.

The fairness of these prices may come as a surprise to many consumers, since each additional increase in diagonal length appears progressively more expensive. I have shown that this is merely a consequence of the relationship between diagonal length and area. Though geometrically straightforward, some consumers may not have considered this point. It is unfortunate that screen area is not widely used for comparing TV sizes. In addition to being more intuitive, it also simplifies comparing TVs of different aspect ratios. Though most modern TVs have a 16:9 aspect ratio, older TVs usually had a 4:3 ratio. In such cases comparison of diagonal lengths is particularly misleading.

A lot goes into determining the best viewing distance, and there are several different criteria you can use. Aside from size, things like resolution and even how strong your eyesight is can affect how you see the screen. Because everyone"s eyesight is different, this is less an exact science and more of a general guide based on scientific principles of vision and resolution.

That doesn"t mean you should be sitting a foot away from your TV. Having the largest screen possible isn"t always ideal. The human visual system has a total horizontal field of view of about 200 degrees, although a portion of that is peripheral vision. While it makes some sense to get as large a TV as you can for movies, not all content is made to fill the entire field of view. This becomes very apparent if you try to watch sports from up close while fixating on a single part of the screen, which quickly starts to feel nauseating.

The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers recommends sitting at a distance where the screen fills up a minimum of 30° of your field of vision for a good experience.

This is generally good guidance, but people who use their TVs mostly for watching movies might benefit from sitting a bit closer to get a more theater-like experience. The SMPTE "reference" position for movie theaters and the THX recommendation is about 40°. The minimum angle of vision works well for most usages, though, and sitting at a distance where the screen fills 30° of your horizontal field of view should be comfortable for most people.

Our size and distance tool above is based on the 30° guideline that is suitable for mixed usage, but you can find distances for a variety of sizes at 40° here.Learn more about the human visual field.

For instance, sitting close to a 1080p TV can look almost like watching through a screen door because you can see the individual pixels, even if it"s playing a high-quality 1080p HD movie. Increasing your distance to the TV also increases the density of details, producing a better image. Since 4k TVs have such a large density of pixels, it"s much more difficult for this issue to arise. You need to be quite close to a fairly large TV for the pixels to be noticeably distracting.

With 8k TVs, that density increases further, making it even harder to notice flaws with the resolution unless you"re sitting extremely close. However, this also decreases the point at which the perceived difference in picture quality becomes noticeable. Because the pixels are more densely packed with an 8k resolution, you need to sit closer to actually resolve those details. For that reason—content aside—8k only really makes sense if you want a really big screen and plan on sitting close to it. Learn more about the difference between 4k and 8k.

This chart shows the point at which an upgrade in resolution becomes worth it depending on size and distance to the TV. Each line represents the optimal viewing distance for each resolution, but any TV that falls within the range of that color will be suitable to notice a difference in picture quality. So, for example, if you have a 65 inch TV, the viewing distance at which the eye can actually process the details of 4k content is about 4 feet. However, any distance between 4 and about 8.5 feet will be enough to appreciate the difference between 4k and 1080p on a 65 inch TV. Go too far, and the image will look identical to 1080p HD.

You"re probably thinking something along the lines of "My couch is 10" away from my TV, which according to the chart means I need a 75 inch TV. This is insane!" It"s true that if you want to take full advantage of higher resolutions, that"s the ideal size you should get. That said, this may not be possible for everyone, which brings us to budget.

The price of a TV is usually exponential to its size. Size isn"t the only factor though, as resolution, panel type, and features all play into it as well. Looking at 65 inch TVs, for instance, an OLED like the LG CX OLED is inevitably going to cost more than a budget LED TV like the Hisense H8G, and both of these will seem downright cheap compared to an 8k TV like the Samsung Q900TS 8k QLED. Fortunately, though, as technology improves and the availability of higher resolution TVs expands, larger TVs have become more common and therefore more affordable. Feel free to compare the prices of our picks for the best 65 inch TVs, the best 70 to 75 inch TVs, and the best 80 to 85 inch TVs to really see the difference that size makes.

We recommend a field of vision of about 30 degrees for mixed usage. In general, we also recommend getting a 4k TV since lower resolution TVs are becoming harder to find. To easily find out what size you should buy, you can divide your TV viewing distance (in inches) by 1.6 (or use our TV size calculator above) which roughly equals a 30-degree angle. If the best size is outside your budget, just get the biggest TV you can afford. These are guidelines, after all, and since most TVs nowadays are 4k, you can"t really go wrong with the size that works for you, especially since picture quality also depends a lot on the content and viewing conditions. Ideally, you would optimize the capacity of your TV by getting one that"s large enough for you to notice all the visual detail that 4k has to offer, but ultimately, you should watch however feels most comfortable to you, whatever the size and distance may be.

Even though some say the picture quality of an LED TV is better, there is no straight answer for which has better picture quality since both TVs use the same kind of screen. For instance, a higher-end LCD TV can have a better quality than a low-end LED TV, but if you look at high-end models of either TV, the picture quality will be comparable.

LED TVs use energy-efficient light emitting diodes (LED) for backlighting. These consume less power than cold cathode fluorescent lamps (CCFL) used in traditional LCD televisions. Power savings are typically 20-30%.

Edge-LEDs (the most common) are positioned around the rim of the screen and use a special diffusion panel to spread the light evenly behind the screen.

Flat Screen LCDs, about an inch or two thick are more expensive, but also more popular because of their sleek look and the flexible options of standing on a surface or mounting on a wall.

Front projection LCDs or projectors, which project an image onto the front of the screen. The TV itself is just a box installed anywhere in a room, which projects the image onto a flat screen hung on the wall as large as 300 inches.

Rear projection LCDs, where the image is sent from the rear of the TV to the screen in front. Rear projection LCDs are wide, heavy and only available in large sizes (60" and up).

Contrast ratio is a measure to compare the darkest black with the whitest white. Plasma TVs score well on this parameter with a contrast ratio of up to 3000:1. LCD TVs have a contrast ratio of up to 1000:1; however, this metric is calculated differently for LCDs so it"s not an apples-to-apples comparison. Plasma TVs, in general, offer a better contrast than LCDs.

Older models of Plasma TVs can suffer from burn-in produced by static images. After extended periods, stationary images "burn in" the screen and produce an after-image ghost which remains permanently on the screen. This no longer affects new Plasma displays, as they continually shift the image around to prevent the image from being stationary.

LCD TVs do not suffer from burn-in. However, it is possible for individual pixels on an LCD screen to burn out. This causes small, visible, black or white dots to appear on the screen.

In comparison, the nature of LCD technology – where a backlight shines through the LCD layer – makes it hard for it to achieve true blacks, i.e. true absence of light. There is always some light leakage from adjacent picture elements in an LCD panel.

LCD TV displays reproduce colours by manipulating light waves and subtracting colours from white light. This makes it more difficult for maintaining colour accuracy and vibrancy. But, LCD TVs have colour information benefits from the higher-than-average number of pixels per square inch found in their displays.

In plasma TVs, each pixel contains red, green, and blue elements, which work in conjunction to create 16.77 million colours. Colour information is more accurately reproduced with plasma TV technology than it is with any other display technology, including LCD TVs.

Plasma TV displays refresh and handle rapid movements in video about as well as normal CRT TVs. LCD TVs were originally designed for computer data displays, and not video. Refresh rates are therefore not as good, but LCD TVs are fast catching up.

LCD TVs life span is typically 50,000-60,000 hours, which equates to about 6 years of 24/7 use. However, LCD TVs will actually last as long as its backlight does, and those bulbs can be replaced - so in essence there"s nothing which can wear out.

Plasma TVs do not use Mercury while LCD TVs do in their CCFL backlight. However, this issue is a red herring. Most common high-efficieny phosphorescent lamps use mercury and it is not a big deal. The amount of mercury used in LCD TVs is very small and besides, the user never comes in contact with it.

Most electronics retailers carry both LCD and Plasma TVs, including Best Buy, Amazon.com, Wal-Mart, Dell, Target, P.C. Richard & Son, Sears, Costco and hhgregg.com.

There are plenty of new and confusing terms facing TV shoppers today, but when it comes down to the screen technology itself, there are only two: Nearly every TV sold today is either LCD or OLED.

The biggest between the two is in how they work. With OLED, each pixel provides its own illumination so there"s no separate backlight. With an LCD TV, all of the pixels are illuminated by an LED backlight. That difference leads to all kinds of picture quality effects, some of which favor LCD, but most of which benefit OLED.

LCDs are made by a number of companies across Asia. All current OLED TVs are built by LG Display, though companies like Sony and Vizio buy OLED panels from LG and then use their own electronics and aesthetic design.

So which one is better? Read on for their strengths and weaknesses. In general we"ll be comparing OLED to the best (read: most expensive) LCD has to offer, mainly because there"s no such thing as a cheap OLED TV (yet).

The better LCDs have local dimming, where parts of the screen can dim independently of others. This isn"t quite as good as per-pixel control because the black areas still aren"t absolutely black, but it"s better than nothing. The best LCDs have full-array local dimming, which provides even finer control over the contrast of what"s onscreen -- but even they can suffer from "blooming," where a bright area spoils the black of an adjacent dark area.

One of the main downsides of LCD TVs is a change in picture quality if you sit away from dead center (as in, off to the sides). How much this matters to you certainly depends on your seating arrangement, but also on how much you love your loved ones.

A few LCDs use in-plane switching (IPS) panels, which have better off-axis picture quality than other kinds of LCDs, but don"t look as good as other LCDs straight on (primarily due to a lower contrast ratio).

OLED doesn"t have the off-axis issue LCDs have; its image looks basically the same, even from extreme angles. So if you have a wide seating area, OLED is the better option.

Nearly all current TVs are HDR compatible, but that"s not the entire story. Just because a TV claims HDR compatibility doesn"t mean it can accurately display HDR content. All OLED TVs have the dynamic range to take advantage of HDR, but lower-priced LCDs, especially those without local-dimming backlights, do not. So if you want to see HDR content it all its dynamic, vibrant beauty, go for OLED or an LCD with local dimming.

In our tests comparing the best new OLED and LCD TVs with HDR games and movies, OLED usually looks better. Its superior contrast and lack of blooming win the day despite LCD"s brightness advantage. In other words LCD TVs can get brighter, especially in full-screen bright scenes and HDR highlights, but none of them can control that illumination as precisely as an OLED TV.

OLED"s energy consumption is directly related to screen brightness. The brighter the screen, the more power it draws. It even varies with content. A dark movie will require less power than a hockey game or ski competition.

The energy consumption of LCD varies depending on the backlight setting. The lower the backlight, the lower the power consumption. A basic LED LCD with its backlight set low will draw less power than OLED.

LG has said their OLED TVs have a lifespan of 100,000 hours to half brightness, a figure that"s similar to LED LCDs. Generally speaking, all modern TVs are quite reliable.

Does that mean your new LCD or OLED will last for several decades like your parent"s last CRT (like the one pictured). Probably not, but then, why would you want it to? A 42-inch flat panel cost $14,000 in the late 90"s, and now a 65-inch TV with more than 16x the resolution and a million times better contrast ratio costs $1,400. Which is to say, by the time you"ll want/need to replace it, there will be something even better than what"s available now, for less money.

OLED TVs are available in sizes from 48 to 88 inches, but LCD TVs come in smaller and larger sizes than that -- with many more choices in between -- so LCD wins. At the high end of the size scale, however, the biggest "TVs" don"t use either technology.

You can get 4K resolution, 50-inch LCDs for around $400 -- or half that on sale. It"s going to be a long time before OLEDs are that price, but they have come down considerably.

LCD dominates the market because it"s cheap to manufacture and delivers good enough picture quality for just about everybody. But according to reviews at CNET and elsewhere, OLED wins for overall picture quality, largely due to the incredible contrast ratio. The price difference isn"t as severe as it used to be, and in the mid- to high-end of the market, there are lots of options.

The display has rounded corners that follow a beautiful curved design, and these corners are within a standard rectangle. When measured as a standard rectangular shape, the screen is 5.42 inches (iPhone 13 mini, iPhone 12 mini), 5.85 inches (iPhone 11 Pro, iPhone XS, iPhone X), 6.06 inches (iPhone 14, iPhone 13 Pro, iPhone 13, iPhone 12 Pro, iPhone 12, iPhone 11, iPhone XR), 6.12 inches (iPhone 14 Pro), 6.46 inches (iPhone 11 Pro Max, iPhone XS Max), 6.68 inches (iPhone 14 Plus, iPhone 13 Pro Max, iPhone 12 Pro Max), or 6.69 inches (iPhone 14 Pro Max) diagonally. Actual viewable area is less.

Apple makes quite a few iPhones nowadays and they’re all slightly different – both with respect to specs and size. Here’s a handy iPhone size comparison chart to give you a visual idea of the differences

As of right now, Apple’s latest iPhone is the iPhone 13 – and iPhone 13 range, including the iPhone 13 mini, iPhone 13 Pro, and iPhone 13 Pro Max. As you can see from the table above, Apple’s iPhone 13 is pretty much exactly the same size as the iPhone 12 – it is slightly thicker, however, to accommodate larger batteries.

iPhone 13 Pro Max & iPhone 14 Pro Max / 14 Plus:The iPhone 14 Pro Max and iPhone 14 Plus both run 6.8in OLED displays. The iPhone 13 Pro Max also runs the same size Super Retina XDR OLED screen. As of 2022, these are the biggest iPhones you can currently buy. The iPhone 14 Plus does not have Apple’s ProMotion display though. For that, you’ll need to go Pro or Pro Max.

iPhone 7 Plus/iPhone 8 Plus – The iPhone 7 Plus and iPhone 8 Plus look the same. The only difference between them is to do with the camera and the internal specs. In the hand and with respect to performance, there’s not much to separate these two phones. Both have a 5.5in 1080p LCD display and while this isn’t as good as OLED, it is still a very good display. And the really cool thing about Apple’s older flagship models is that you can now buy them for hardly any money at all.

Apple’s entry-level iPhones for the last couple of years have also been fairly large too; the iPhone XR has a 6.1in LCD screen size and so too does the iPhone 11, iPhone 12, iPhone 13, and the iPhone 14. The iPhone 11 used an LCD screen, whereas the iPhone 12 and iPhone 13 use OLED.

In 2020, all iPhone models (inside the iPhone 12 range) will feature OLED displays. You also have the most choice with respect to size with the iPhone 12 too – it comes in three distinct screen sizes: 5.4in, 6.1in, and 6.7in.

However, different sizes are better suited to different people and to different use cases. So to help you find the right size iPhone for you, below we’ll look at what the good and bad points of each size is, and what type of user they’re best suited to.

We’ve split Apple’s iPhone selection into three different size ranges for this article, and one of the three will likely be ideal for you, so read on to find out which.

The biggest iPhone models have screens of over 6 inches. These include at the very top size the 6.7-inch iPhone 14 Pro Max, iPhone 14 Plus, iPhone 13 Pro Max and iPhone 12 Pro Max, followed by the likes of the iPhone 11 Pro Max at 6.5 inches and the iPhone 14 at 6.1 inches. The chart below details all the iPhone models in this size range.

These phones are of course trickier to use with one hand than smaller iPhone models, and may prove especially awkward if you have small hands. The large size also makes them less friendly to small pockets.

Though it’s worth noting that all of these biggest screen models have the modern iPhone design that lacks a home button. That means smaller bezels, so while the screens are big, the overall footprints aren’t always any bigger than some of the 5.5-inch models below.

For example, the iPhone 12 with its 6.1-inch screen is 146.7 x 71.5 x 7.4mm, while the 5.5-inch iPhone 8 Plus is 158.4 x 78.1 x 7.5mm, making the phone with the smaller screen longer, thicker and wider.

On that note it’s also worth noting that the iPhone 14 Pro and iPhone 14 Pro Max feature an even more modern design, with no notch. This has little impact on the size though.

That caveat aside, a big screen (as opposed to just a big phone) is beneficial if you want a large view of apps, games, and videos. It’s especially useful for videos, games and photos, where having a larger view can make a real difference (after all, watching a film at the cinema is better than on a TV, and by the same logic it’s better on a large phone than a small one).

If you want the most immersive screen possible though then size is only one factor – you should also opt for OLED rather than LCD (as the former offers better contrast and is generally superior). Better yet, go for one of the newer OLED models – the iPhone 13 Pro and 14 Pro are both OLED for example, but the 14 Pro is better, as Apple improves the tech with each generation.

Though interestingly the iPhone 13 Mini and iPhone 12 Mini are actually the sharpest of all, as while their resolutions are the lowest of the range, their pixels are packed into a much smaller screen. The difference is still small though, so you only really need to worry about pixel density when buying an older iPhone or a budget one like the iPhone SE (2022).

iPhones of between 5 and 6 inches are the mid-size ones, though in practice they’re almost all more towards the 6-inch end, coming in at either 5.5 inches or 5.8 inches, with the exception being the 5.4-inch iPhone 13 Mini and iPhone 12 Mini.

iPhones in this size range are still a reasonable size but – particularly in the case of ones with a fairly modern design (meaning a notch at the top and no home button) – they’re fairly manageable in the hand.

Of course, the trade-off is that the smaller screen makes them slightly less good for things like watching videos and playing games, where a larger screen makes for a more immersive experience, and in the case of games also allows more room for any on-screen controls.

As with the larger models above there are also a few other considerations beyond just screen size. Firstly, there’s whether to go LCD or OLED – and again, OLED is the better choice, as it’s a typically superior display technology, with the newest OLED models (the iPhone 14 range) being the best of all.

Then there’s the fact that old-style iPhones such as the iPhone 8 Plus, which have big bezels above and below the screen, can actually be a lot bigger than modern-style iPhones, even if they have a smaller display. The 5.5-inch iPhone 8 Plus for example is larger overall than the 6.1-inch iPhone 12 Pro.

So if you’re more concerned about overall size (which affects how easy it is to use one-handed, and fit in a small pocket) than screen sizes (which affects viewing immersion) that’s something to bear in mind.

It’s worth noting also that the iPhone 13 Mini and iPhone 12 Mini are the only recent iPhones in this size range – all the other models are getting on a bit, so it’s clear that Apple is more focused on bigger phones.

The smallest iPhone models are those that are under 5 inches, and this isn’t a size range that Apple often goes in for anymore, though the company has of course launched the iPhone SE (2022) and the iPhone SE (2020), which each have a 4.7-inch display.

At the time of writing these are the only particularly recent iPhones of under 5 inches, so they’re probably the ones you’d be considering (and generally the only ones you should consider). And from a screen and overall size perspective these two phones are identical, with the iPhone SE (2022) gaining 5G, a faster chipset and a higher price tag, but not much more.

Those caveats aside, there are plenty of reasons you might want a compact iPhone, the main reason being just how comfortable and easy such a device is to use with one hand, as most people will easily be able to reach right across the screen without employing a second hand.

That means you can operate your phone while holding, say, a drink in your other hand. And the small size also means these models easily fit in even tiny pockets and bags.

However, all compact iPhone models at the time of writing sport Apple’s older iPhone design, meaning big bezels above and below the screen, so they’re not always quite as tiny as you might expect from the screen size. They also all use LCD, which is inferior to the OLED screens on some other iPhones.

The small size plus the use of LCD means they’re significantly worse for watching content on, or even playing games and viewing photos, than some of the larger iPhone models. So that’s a mark against them.

LCD display doesn’t operate the same way as CRT displays , which fires electrons at a glass screen, a LCD display has individual pixels arranged in a rectangular grid. Each pixel has RGB(Red, Green, Blue) sub-pixel that can be turned on or off. When all of a pixel’s sub-pixels are turned off, it appears black. When all the sub-pixels are turned on 100%, it appears white. By adjusting the individual levels of red, green, and blue light, millions of color combinations are possible

The pixels of the LCD screen were made by circuitry and electrodes of the backplane. Each sub-pixel contains a TFT (Thin Film Transistor) element.  These structures are formed by depositing various materials (metals and silicon) on to the glass substrate that will become one part of the complete display “stack,” and then making them through photolithography. For more information about TFT LCDs, please refer to “

The etched pixels by photolith process are the Native Resolution. Actually, all the flat panel displays, LCD, OLED, Plasma etc.) have native resolution which are different from CRT monitors

Although we can define a LCD display with resolution, a Full HD resolution on screen size of a 15” monitor or a 27” monitor will show different. The screen “fineness” is very important for some application, like medical, or even our cell phone. If the display “fineness” is not enough, the display will look “pixelized” which is unable to show details.

PPI stands for number of pixels per inch. It is kind of pixel density. PPI describes the resolution of a digital image, not a print. PPI is used to resize images in preparation for printing

But you see other lower resolution available, that is because video cards are doing the trick. A video card can display a lower LCD screen resolution than the LCD’s built-in native resolution. The video cards can combine the pixels and turn a higher resolution into lower resolution, or just use part of the full screen. But video cards can’t do the magic to exceed the native resolution.

Aspect Ratio:  You might hear 4:3 which is full screen, 16:9 is for widescreen; 21:9 is for ultrawide computer monitors and televisions, as well as cinematic widescreen projectors. Some ultrawide monitors are trying to replace dual monitor.

The 10 Main Differences in a NutshellImage quality: the A7 IV has more resolution, a bit more dynamic range and updated colour profiles with better skin tonesAutofocus: the addition of real-time tracking and Eye AF for Birds is the major improvement. Eye AF also works in video mode, unlike the A7 III.Continuous shooting: the two cameras have the same 10fps burst speed, but that decreases to 6fps with uncompressed or lossless compressed RAW on the A7 IV. The latter has a better buffer when using the expensive CFexpress Type A card.Video: there are a lot of improvements on the new model including 10-bit 4:2:2, no recording limit, 4K 60p (crop mode), a bit more dynamic range and better skin tones. The A7 III has less noise at high ISOs.Image stabilisation: there is a minor improvement for still photos, and the Active mode for video on the A7 IV is useful when walking with the camera.Design: subtle changes make the new camera more comfortable to hold, while also giving it more customisation and a better menu systemViewfinder / Monitor: more resolution and frame rates in the viewfinder, multi-angle LCD screen and more touch capabilities for the new modelMemory cards: dual SD card slots on both cameras. The A7 IV can also use one CFexpress card (type A), but it is only worth it for specific needs.Extra features: the mark IV has extra settings and options, like using it as a webcam with a simple USB connection (no plugin required).Price: the A7 III is less expensive.

The Lossless version is close to the Compressed version in terms of file size. As for the quality, a strong 4Ev exposure recovery didn’t highlight a relevant difference between the three options.

The mark IV model sees a significant boost when it comes to the autofocus software and machine learning. It has real-time tracking and real-time Eye AF that works for humans and animals, including birds. Eye AF works for video as well (including for animals and birds). Overall, Sony says that the accuracy of Eye AF has been improved by 30% in comparison to the A7 III.

If you’re interested in using the electronic shutter (to take pictures in silent mode for example), you need to remember caveats such as distortion when panning quickly for example (rolling shutter effect). Here, the mark III model defends itself well by distorting a bit less in comparison to its successor, as you can see below.

You can see an example below with the following two images. There is an inexpensive LED strip behind the shelf, and when I lower its brightness, flickering appears on the screen. The first shot is taken without the variable shutter and has visible banding. I tried different shutter speeds (normal 1/3 steps) and couldn’t get rid of the problem. The second image has no banding after adjusting the shutter speed precisely to 1/64.2s with the function enabled.

Both cameras record in full frame mode with full pixel readout and no pixel binning. Because the A7 IV has more sensor resolution, it over-samples from a 7K area versus 6K on the A7 III. In short, the mark IV model uses more pixels to create the 4K footage, which should result in a bit more sharpness and detail rendering in comparison to the mark 3 model (which is already very sharp in my opinion).

The A7 IV has a green tint dominance in comparison to the A7 III, but I find it less visible than for stills. The same conclusion goes for skin tones, which have more red / magenta on the mark III model.

With a fixed shot, the performance improves in comparison to using IBIS only. When walking, you can appreciate the benefit of using the Active mode but it is not perfect with annoying jerks appearing every now and then.

The A7 IV is compatible with the digital audio interface (via the multi-function shoe) which allows recording at 24-bit with 4 channels when using compatible microphones. It also has a full sized HDMI port (vs Micro size on the A7 III).

Finally, the battery is the same for the two cameras (NP-FZ100) but the A7 III retains a better rating (CIPA): 710 frames versus 610 on the mark IV model (when using the LCD screen). Both cameras accept USB charging and power delivery.

The size of the OLED panel remains the same (0.5-in), and so does the magnification (0.78x) and the eye-point length (23mm). On the A7 IV however, you can boost the refresh rate to 120Hz, whereas on the older camera it doesn’t go beyond 60Hz.

The A7 III has a LCD screen that can tilt up and down, whereas the A7 IV has a vari-angle mechanism that allows you to flip it to the side and rotate it 180˚. The resolution hasn’t changed much however (0.92M and 1.04M dots respectively).

One annoying thing is that the terminal covers and the cables connected to the headphone or USB ports easily get in the way of the LCD screen if you rotate it when flipped 180˚. The covers can’t be removed (or I couldn’t find a way to do it without damaging them).

Metering with five different options (multi, centre weight, Spot Std, Spot Large, Entire Screen Average and Highlight). Both cameras meter in the same way.

The original A7R III has been discontinued and replaced by the A7R IIIA. The differences are minor, with the most noticeable thing to highlight being the extra resolution of the LCD monitor (2.36M vs 1.44M dots). An easy way to distinguish them is the absence of the Sony logo beneath the LCD monitor on the ‘A’ version.

The 10 Main Differences in a NutshellImage quality: the A7 IV has a small edge in terms of dynamic range perfromance (shadows), but the R3 models defends itself really well at high ISOs, in addition to offering more resolution. The mark 4 model inherits the latest colour profiles, with a bit more green overall, and less red on skin tones.Extra colour resolution: both cameras feature 5-axis stabilisation with very similar performance, but the A7R III takes advantage of this technology with a function called Pixel Shift Multi Shoot, a tripod-only mode that increases the colour resolution.Autofocus: the A7 IV has more AF points and comes with the latest software algorithm, which includes real-time tracking and Eye AF for birds. It is faster overall and delivers a better keeper rate for portraits, as well as birds in flight.Speed and buffer: they share the same maximum speed of 10fps, but the A7 IV has better buffer capabilities when using the CFexpress card.Video capabilities: the A7 IV has no recording limitation, and offers more advanced settings such as 10-bit 4:2:2 internally, higher bitrates, and gives you the maximum quality in full frame mode, unlike the R3 model that delivers the best performance in Super35 mode. Dynamic range is comparable, and the R3 defends itself well at high ISOs.EVF and LCD: the viewfinder is exactly the same, whereas the LCD has a different mechanism on the A7 IV (multi-angle) than on the A7R III (tilting only).Design and controls: the A7 IV has a larger grip, upgraded buttons and dials, and more customisation, as well as a much better organised menu system that can also be used with the touch screen.Memory cards: two SD card slots on each camera, but the A7 IV also takes one CFexpress Type A card in slot #1.More features: the A7 IV has extra functionalities for stills and video, such as variable shutter, breathing compensation, USB streaming and more.Price: the price is similar, if not equal, depending on the currency and location. However, the R3 model is more likely to receive discounts, and is easier to find second-hand.

Up to 8fps (Hi setting), you see live view with blackouts in the viewfinder or LCD screen. At 10fps (Hi+ setting), there are no blackouts but live view is disabled: what you see are the images that have just been recorded, as opposed to what is happening live in front of your lens.

Other things worth highlighting on the mark 4 model are the Breathing Compensation function, which eliminates any breathing produce by the lens (see which lens is compatible on the Sony website), and the handy red frame that surrounds the LCD screen when recording.

The rear LCD presents a few differences however. First, the one on the A7 IV has a multi-angle mechanism and includes the 180˚ orientation. On the A7R III, the monitor tilts up and down only (max. 90˚, approx).

Another difference is the resolution. The A7 IV screen has 1.04M dots, whereas the original A7R III had 1.44M dots. The replacement A7R IIIA has a much better monitor with 2.36M dots.

Both LCDs are touch sensitive but the A7 IV gives you more options, including navigating the menu. On the R model, you can only move the AF point or double tap to activate focus magnification.

Both Nikon Z7 and Nikon D850 have Full frame sized 46.0 MP resolution sensors so sensor size and resolution is not a differentiator between these two cameras.

Nikon Z7 and Nikon D850 have the same sensor sizes so they will provide same level of control over the depth of field when used with same focal length and aperture.

The iPhone 13 is a gradual upgrade over the iPhone 12, but compared to the iPhone 11 it brings a world of a change. Not only you get the new iPhone design with flat sides, but you also get a completely different screen technology, faster processor, upgraded cameras, a boost in battery life and then some more. The iPhone 13 is also both lighter and prettier (in our subjective opinion, of course).

Thanks to smaller bezels and a new design, the iPhone 13 is more compact while still featuring the same 6.1" screen size as the iPhone 11. See, the iPhone 11 is extra wide because of the thicker borders around the screen, which add width and make it hard to grasp with one hand.

While both phones have the same 6.1-inch screen size, the iPhone 13 uses an OLED display with deeper blacks and superior contrast compared to the older LCD type screen on the iPhone 11, where blacks appear washed out and colors don"t look quite as lively, plus you get a ghosting effect while scrolling. In addition to that, the iPhone 13 also has a higher resolution at 1170p compared to just 828p on the iPhone 11, another visible difference.

One modern feature that is missing on both, however, is a fast refresh rate. Unfortunately, the newer iPhone 13 still runs at 60Hz, just like the iPhone 11. Apple has reserved the super smooth 120Hz ProMotion screens for its iPhone Pro series that cost quite a bit more.