Sony Vaio SA screen - is it really that bad?

I'm thinking of buying this laptop but I have no idea what the screen is like, only seen reviews.

I've never seen a Vaio Z laptop screen (I know its one of the best out there and everyone seems to compare the SA to that and saying that the SA is bad) and i've only seen the lower end Vaio SB screen (no matter what shop I go in - even the Sony shop - I can't see a SA, even asked them if they have it in the back, nope) and the screen wasn't great.




I just want to know how the colours are, if they are good, im not really bothered about viewing angles or brightness, just the colours really, i've heard the black is more of a grey and that gloss screens (what I currently have) have better colour than matt screens but could anyone tell me anything else?

Thankyou

 

its a Vaio Display plus screen... the quality is the same as Vaio SB...

it's the middle range of Sony's screen

crap series such as E series uses the low-end range

 

Just use the SB screen as your guide, the SA has what appears to be the exact same model, with more pixels.

If graphics are your cup of tea, then head down the Z line. An older used/refurbished Vaio Z will have incredible colour reproduction. (There is one for sale in the BTS section)

I'm regretting my choice to stick with the SA (I work with a lot of 3d rendering software), for a small sum more at the time I could have gotten a refurb Z with an excellent screen, at a small cost of CPU/Graphics power.

 

If you don't do any colour critical work like graphic design and printing then you can adjust remarkably well to all sorts of different displays - even poor quality ones. The display I use at work for example is awful but after a couple of minutes I really don't notice its awful. I've seen the SA display and I could definitely get used to it (after owning a Z1 and an F12, both of which had excellent displays).

The main problem with the SA display is common amongst notebooks - its the poor viewing angle stability. I wouldn't recommend it for graphics work because if you get up and sit down and move around alot the colour/contrast shift will mess you up. If you don't do graphic design/photo/print critical work then it doesn't matter so much. Then again, I wouldn't really recommend any notebook display for graphics work. Thats really something you still want to do with calibrated desktop displays which have unparalleled viewing angle stability.

I don't find adjusting to it a problem because I don't do graphics work but you wont have 3 people side by side watching a movie on it. It won't be a pleasant experience for the suckers who aren't in the middle.

I do mostly sound design on my PC and we get a similar problem to viewing angle stability. If you use powerful speakers in small rooms that don't have controlled acoustics, you may notice that by moving your head around the sound shifts dramatically as your ears pass in and out of null points. You kind of have to sit very still otherwise you hear something very difficult. If you are mixing, its more effort than its worth and its just better to relocate to a room with controlled acoustics.

For recreational listening its certainly usable and you wont screw up any work because of it, but it isn't always a pleasant experience. Only you can really decide if the SA screen is something you can live with. Issues like these tend to be incredibly personal.

 

I find the SA screen worse than the Z screen but it is not as bad as it seems. I suggest you get a look at it in real life before you make your decision.

 

Agreed. As I have posted elsewhere, the screen in my "microsoft store" SA is quite good. The viewing angles are exactly what I expect them to be, and this means they are designed for exactly what I use them for: sitting in front, my retinas parallel to the screen, centered on it The point is that anyone, graphics designer or else, who complains about their inability to have 3 people sitting 20 degrees apart and seeing different hues, or not being able to walk around and keep their gaze fixed on the screen, is I believe missing the point. Yes, there are screen that may allow you to do that, but they DO NOT exist in a 3 pound 1000$ laptop, at 1600x900 resolution. AS far as I know.

That being said, calibration is key, and we have already established in other posts that different profiles work for different people in different ways. which brings me to my next point: could owners of SA,SB and SC go in the device manager, click on "monitors", and get the hardware ID for their screens. Mine says SNY06FA. I'm just wondering, perhaps too eagerly, whether their may be more than 2 screens out there (1366/1600)? perhaps the hardware ID in the device manager is not the way to distinguish that anyway, but it's a start. Maybe we can get more info on the screen in software, without having to open them up

anyway, the screen I have is a GOOD screen. High resolution for 13", no dead pixels, faithful colors, quite bright, no bleed. Blacks could be darker, but then again I didn't want a glossy screen.

 

BTW, the Device ID is overwritten by Sony

 

hence my assertion that it might not be the way to know which is which, but that there must be such a way...

 

mine is SNY06FA as well.

 

It is very bad. The main problem is that contrast ratio is 150:1 which is why everything seems "washed out". There is no way to fix that by calibration.

 

No, it's not that bad. It's just not as good as the Z's screen.
For regular use of a notebook it should not bother you.

I had a Z before my SB and it was hard to get used to the screen, but now I'm pretty much used to it and enjoy the great brightness outside.

 

it's a decent screen if you've never used a Z, it's a pretty bad screen if you've been using top notch screens.

 

I wasn't wowed by the SA's screen, but it wasn't all THAT bad. Not as bad as you'd think from comments on this site. Not great for watching movies, but it wasn't so bad that I'd notice it during day-to-day tasks or maybe even gaming (where I'm more busy watching what's happening instead of how bright the colors are).

 

When I first saw an SA in the Sony store, I was surprised by how reasonable the display is. It's not as vibrant as the Z's display, but it really isn't that bad at all. I just bought a Z2 myself, but for me, the main decider was weight, not screen quality.

 

The real answer is for DC to find an SA in a local shop and try before buying -- there is no substitute.

My own opinion is that the SA screen is not at all bad. But it's not the Z screen.

 

Thanks everyone for all your replies, I went to the Sony shop again and they still didn't have the SA in (they said it would have to be a special order for the SA) but the screen on the SB looked fine and the SA can't be any worse! I will be watching movies on the laptop rarely but it seems fine for that imo so I will be ordering my SA in the next couple of days

 

The Z2 has the same panel ID, so I think it's safe to say that that information is 100% useless (sadly).

 

^
As I mentioned in the SA/SB/SC owners lounge, if a Panel ID starts with SNY or Sony then it means the actual panel ID has been overwritten by Sony.