Sony SA screen quality vs Macbook Pro.

I am just about ready to pull the trigger on a nicely customized Sony SA (13 inch) laptop. However, I keep hearing that the screen quality is not excellent. How does it compare to a macbook pro? I have had one for about four years and I plan on replacing it due to the engineering software I need on a PC. If it is worse, could someone please rate it on a scale so I have an idea?

Thanks!

 

Macbook Pro - between 7 to 8 out of 10
Vaio SA - About 5

 

Sharky can you go 15"? the Elitebook 8560W has an IPS option that destroys the MPB screen. its slso made specifically for CAD etc.

DC2 10
MBP 5
Sa 3

 

Just for fun:

Sony Z - 9
mbp13 - 7 (8 if it had better resolution)
Sony SA - 4.5

I agree the HP DC2 screen is excellent, but it will cost you a lot more than an MBP or SA and both the screen and the computer it's attached to can be very unreliable, especially when new.

If you live near a Best Buy, you can probably look at both the MBP and the SA.

 

actually minimally more than a MBP 15", never had a reliability issue, dont confuse these HP's with their consumer garbage. the 4 year NBD with accidental us an indication of this for support.

 

Points all well taken, but I was comparing the cost to the MBP13 and SA3 that the OP was considering. Also, I owned 3 (!) 8540Ws with DC2 displays and among them, had 5 DC2s until I ended up with ONE with no screen problems or other problems - mechanical and electronic. The NBD on site service is certainly a help, but at least through the 8x40 series (colleague had similar luck with the 8740W) these were more like young children to raise than reliable hardware to get serious work done on! Read some of the threads from last year in the HP Business class forum and you'll get the picture.

Glad yours is doing well. It's a magnificent machine when all is well.

 

I was an early adopter as well I went through 2 8740W's but the refreshed 60's are alot less hassle. You and I had extra work until the kinks were worked out on putting a good IPS screen into a laptop.

 

The SA is really 'just another notebook display'. Okay, the resolution is nice and it is still matte, but the viewing angles, contrast and color range are all horrible. Mainly the viewing angles are a bit annoying.

The MacBook Pro has a good display. It's IPS, so viewing angles are not a problem.

You do get used to displays quite easily though. As long as you don't regularly use 'high quality' displays you won't really notice it after a while. Aside the viewing angles perhaps, that stays annoying.

 

incorrect all MBP's and MBA's use a TN screen like most everyone else, its just a bit better than many consumer models. but gamut and non dustorted angles are not much better especially with color shift. look up your screen Id's and check, every one in my sig plus others are 6 bit TN ( TFT) from LG, AUO, CheiMei and Samsung

AFIK the only IPS units are:
X220
m6500
8740w/8760w
8540w/8560w
Lg p330
and some convertable tablets such as the x220

http://osxdaily.com/2010/07/28/find-out-what-model-lcd-panel-in-your-imac-macbook-macbookpro/

 

Oh okay, I always thought the MBP's had an IPS display. My bad!

 

Also, how the hell is the 'lipstick on a pig' 13" MBP display a 7 on that scale?

 

It's better than most displays, and generally only outclassed by the Vaio Z1/2 and MBA13 displays (in the 13" range).

 

It's the same as most 1280 x 800 displays on similar-class machines. Only it has the lipstick glass.

 

Opinion < facts.

Review Apple MacBook Pro 13 Early 2011 (2.3 GHz dual-core, glare-type screen) - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

AnandTech - The MacBook Pro Review (13 & 15-inch): 2011 Brings Sandy Bridge

Maybe if you had an IPS display, which are in rather short supply in 13" laptops... of course, it's not the 12.5" X220 IPS panel, though that panel is not issue free,


Of course, in the POV of the thread title, the MBA13 and MBP13 both crush the SA display in all ways except resolution, in which case, the MBA13 gets close.


Not that I really care, as a SA owner

 

Nicely done, Jeremy. ++1!
Not only are "facts > opinions," but they beat the tar out of bias - I should know, I'm heavily biased against Apple products (see sig) and it really pissed me off the first I read the reviews you cited, so I took a trip to Best Buy and looked at the MBP 13 display (and 15/17 - wow!) next to, well, everything else (Z included), and had to concede: MBP displays kick butt - and brightness, color and contrast trump resolution for all but certain apps. Much as I love my Z1's 900p and Z2's (coming) 1080p, they are kind of silly resolution for 13" screens most of times. There's lots wrong with Apple's "philosophy" of making laptops but displays, they got them right, very right (make the 13 1440X900 and matte, it would be a jump ball with the 900p Z.

But no, I'm not going to trade in my Z's for MBPs anytime soon

 

That actually proves very little. We know what they used to measure, but how? There's been a notable degree of picking and choosing when it comes to Apple (and possibly other) gear at Anandtech as of late. While complimenting Apple systems for good figures, you do tend to notice after a while that where it does badly, it's often not even mentioned.

The 13-inch gets notably better colour perception mainly by benefit of the glare-o-matic glass frontage and obviously the fact that they don't use the dreckiest of panels in-class. Aside from that it's not a standout panel in any particular way for a 13" 1280 x 800.

 

Interesting. And I always thought Anandtech and Notebookcheck.net were the most unbiased and thorough testing organizations. Another hero bites the dust! Still, I believe their evaluations of screens are based solely on objective measurements using industry standard test and calibration equipment (I think Notebookcheck.net even names the equipment used in the tests) and I wouldn't think the glossy surface would effect measurements of brightness, contrast or color gamut. I absolutely think rags like laptotpmag.com, PCmag.com and Endgadget are extremely biased and their "measurements" of display performance goes no further than: "the colors were bright and vivid in a scene from "Raiders of the Lost Ark," LOL.

 

The problem with measurements is that it can give false degrees of objectivity to a subjective or flawed test. I'm not saying it's always the case - notebookcheck is decent - but when it's simply presented as figures, we don't know what OS it was done in, whether there are control notebooks, etc.

Especially with the Apple stuff where it can run in both OS's (and also that they want to continue receiving review units), there's occasionally a tendency to pick and choose the better figure out of the two and report that without any context, or conveniently leaving out how it did in the other OS while praising its capabilities in both.

I stopped using a 13-inch a while back, but they were still getting hyped for their screen quality when I was using them - and what I see and experience across the board over extended periods in concert with comparable, and often lower-reviewed stuff, often doesn't tally with these 'objective' reviews. Unlike a tech writer who often only has something for a couple of weeks, I buy and then live with these things for extended periods, and when I'm selecting a machine for my primary carry they do go through more involved tests.

 

Apple displays are way better than consumer notebooks, but below high end PC displays, such as IPS or Sony Vaio Z.

My 15 inch MacBook Pro Matte screen kicks the out of a lot of the PC notebooks I've compared it to side by side... However, a kid in my dorm has a Sony Vaio Z13 full HD display and man, it makes my display look like a joke. It's beautiful.

 

If you compare it with something a third of the price, sure

 

I'm not comparing netbooks to MacBooks, I'm comparing MacBooks to $1000-$1200 dollar Dells, HPs, Toshibas, etc.

 

I just purchased an SA. I'll write back about the comparison. When mine is customized and shipped.

 

I've made clear that I have only limited use for benchmarks. That said, I'm familiar with the Sony and Apple displays. The MPB 13 display is not bad, but it's not a display I envy or even want. It is bright (I'm guessing Apple stores have a specific brightness setting intended to give the most "pop" factor to a casual consumer. The resolution, fidelity and other aspects are only ordinary, perhaps ordinary-plus. Unfortunately, I also find the Apple displays to be analogous to consumer-grade audio equipment that emphasizes a bright sound with thumping bass to attract attention in the store. The sonic quality is often poor and makes extended listenting abrasive and difficult. The Apple displays are going to look much better in store for a brief period then when you're doing extensive work on them.

 

To actually answer OP's question, having both machines, the MBP screen is much nicer that the SA screen in pretty much every regard except resolution (assuming you are comparing 13" MBP).

Screens go: Z>MBP>SA

SA panel is really about the worst looking 13" panel I've ever seen.

 

Woah, over-statement! I agree its not the best out there, but its certainly not the worst either!

 

Its pretty close. On a $1000 machine I wouldn't expect ISP but I at least would expect something that doesn't look like a faded painting.

 

My SA screen pretty much performs head-and-shoulder with my non-IPS ThinkPad X220 screen. SA's screen is unlikely to be the worst 13" screen, and probably far from it if you include all the business oriented machines like X220, but Sony definitely hit a new low with it for it's prized S & Z lines that started with VGN-S.