Dell 27" 4k Freesync IPS Monitor (S2721QS) $417.24 Delivered @ Dell AU

170

Affiliate

Go to Deal

Cashback

Reddy Cool on 14/10/2020 - 18:02 dell.com (810 clicks)
Last edited 14/10/2020 - 23:22 by 1 other user

EPP2020

This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

Is about $10 more than the last deal, but still a great monitor if you need the better stand (can pivot, swivel and adjust the height).

Aspect Ratio
16:9

Pixel Pitch
0.1554 mm

Brightness
350 cd/m²

Contrast Ratio
1300:1

Display Position Adjustments
Height, pivot (rotation), swivel, tilt

Dimensions (WxDxH) - with stand
61.16 cm x 17.47 cm x 40.01 cm

Speakers
2x 3 Watt

Connectivity Interfaces
2x HDMI
1x DisplayPort (DisplayPort 1.2 mode)
1x Audio line-out

Display Position Adjustments
Tilt Angle
-5/+21
Swivel Angle
60
Rotation Angle
180
Height Adjustment
110 mm

VESA Mounting Interface
100 x 100 mm

Warranty
3 Years

Related Stores

Dell

• 

  Kawaii on 14/10/2020 - 18:06

  -3

  I really don't suggest anyone buy 4k 27'' monitor, it works terrible on windows

  • 

    9hundred on 14/10/2020 - 18:07

    how so?….

    • 

      lasterato on 14/10/2020 - 18:09

      Display scaling is balls…27" 4k is too small from my experience.

      • 

        9hundred on 14/10/2020 - 18:10

        ok, well i bought the 34 xiaomi anyway

        • 

          9hundred on 14/10/2020 - 18:11

          -3

          @9hundred: it VA though, so I hope it's better than my current IPS ultrawide LG.

          • 

            aukrohavelka on 14/10/2020 - 18:33

            +6

            @9hundred: Well, I have almost 4k (3200x1800) resolution on my Dell XPS 13.3 and it's absolutely stunning! (250% scaling and 286 ppi). Bought 27" QHD (100% scaling 109 ppi) and were quite disappointed, so personally I wouldn't aim lower than 4k (150% scaling and 156 ppi) nowadays. Can't even imagine how FHD on 27" looks like, must be like playing Minecraft … Never had any windows issues whatsoever.

            • 

              lasterato on 14/10/2020 - 18:40

              +1

              @aukrohavelka: 27" is for 1440 imho

              • 

                aukrohavelka on 14/10/2020 - 18:45

                +1

                @lasterato: 27" QHD is absolute minimum (still too pixelated I would say), 4k gives you twice as much of a pixel density than QHD, though everything much sharper and crisper

            • 

              AlexF on 14/10/2020 - 18:53

              +1

              @aukrohavelka:

              Never had any windows issues whatsoever.

              using U2718Q, 150% scaling. Dreamboat. I must be immune.

      • 

        lasterato on 14/10/2020 - 19:51

        I should of clarified. 27" is physically too small for a 4k display. 30"+ would be better.

        • 

          fredk1000 on 14/10/2020 - 23:05

          @lasterato: Look at this scenario, there are smartphones out there with 4K on a 6" screen.
          Even FHD on a 6" looks nice.

          The picture is sharp as, no pixels visible, text is smooth with scaling, looks nice.
          Most phones have much higher PPI that any monitor. No one is complaining here.

          Windows scaling is done well, font smoothing is nice. Like a modern smart phone.

          • 

            lasterato on 15/10/2020 - 09:55

            @fredk1000: I agree, it is nice, but at 27" to benefit you would need to sit quite close to the monitor, it's not really ideal for ergonomics. I'll stick with my 30" or bigger for 4k monitors opinion. I am very interested in the 48" CX as a 4k HDR monitor use case when it arrives in Australia.

            …and yes, I have tried a 27" 4k monitor and the display size was physically too small to appreciate the content. I returned to monitor and went back to the ultrawide.

            • 

              fredk1000 on 15/10/2020 - 13:38

              @lasterato: Fair enough, everyone is different.

              On a large screen do you need to physically turn your head left and right?

              How far do you sit from the screen with a 30" or a 48"?

              You would definitely need to move your head with a 48" if you like 40-50cm from the screen? Neck RSI? Eye strain/workout?
              With a 27", you can just move your eyeballs without moving your head left to right.

              • 

                lasterato on 15/10/2020 - 15:24

                @fredk1000: A little bit of movement with the ultrawide (34"), I sit arm's length away from the screen at the moment. I use an Ergotron arm and adjust as needed for sit/stand. With a 48", I probably would move the screen back further to about 1m from my sitting position.

                I don't get any neck pain or anything ergonomics (including chair) are key! Content that isn't important sits off the side and the middle of the screen is focus area. I rarely have anything fullscreen apart from games - which in most cases has HUD info in peripheral vision so you can focus on center screen and scan peripherals as required, kinda like driving.

                • 

                  fredk1000 on 15/10/2020 - 22:40

                  @lasterato: Yeah I was looking for the words "peripheral vision" in my comment.

                  Cool.

                  Gaming would be disadvantage then when playing FPS games on a large screen. A small screen you can see (in focus) everything at once. You may get those guys sneaking from the side of your screen!

                  Thanks for your comments.

                  My chair sucks too…

                  • 

                    lasterato on 16/10/2020 - 08:21

                    @fredk1000: It's actually awesome playing FPS. Highly recommended!

                    The super-ultrawides, like the 49" Samsung would be a bit much though. But the 34" ones (like the Xiaomi you see on here often) are perfect.

  • 

    DSOTM on 14/10/2020 - 18:14

    I agree. MS Outlook is barely readable on a 1440P screen on Windows. The only large size 27" I really love and gets it right is the 5K iMac Retina. Amazing.

    • 

      Kawaii on 14/10/2020 - 18:18

      +1

      yep, iMac is great

      • 

        DSOTM on 14/10/2020 - 18:19

        It's an incredible screen for photo and video editing.

        • 

          Kawaii on 14/10/2020 - 18:29

          @DSOTM: hmmmmmmm upgrade 128GB of ram

          • 

            DSOTM on 14/10/2020 - 18:31

            @Kawaii: Yep. I bought 128GM of OWC RAM for mine on US eBay for under a hundred bucks. One of those one-offs you see once in a blue moon.

            • 

              Kawaii on 14/10/2020 - 18:33

              @DSOTM: what specs do you have and what year? I'm considering buying one but still waiting for Apple Silicon too

              • 

                DSOTM on 14/10/2020 - 18:39

                @Kawaii: I have the 2019 i9 3.6GHz 8-core with 128GB RAM, 512GB SSD, Radeon Pro 580X. I looking at replacing my other Mac, a 2012 Mac pro with another iMac but at this stage will probably wait for the new one, or if prices drops on the current Intel version. I do notice that the fans work extra hard with 4K editing on my i9 standard iMac. I hear that the Pro version is better suited to this type of work.

                • 

                  Kawaii on 14/10/2020 - 18:40

                  @DSOTM: current intel version isn't bad, how much did you spend on RAM?

    • 

      incipient on 14/10/2020 - 18:53

      +1

      Are you using scaling? It may not automatically set the right scaling without the monitor's drivers installed.

    • 

      AlexF on 14/10/2020 - 19:14

      MS Outlook is barely readable on a 1440P screen on Windows. The only large size 27" I really love and gets it right is the 5K iMac Retina.

      Huh? UHD on 27”, ppi is 163 and on iMac 5K it’s 218, so, iMac requires even more scaling.

      • 

        mikk on 14/10/2020 - 22:35

        Yes, a higher resolution screen would generally be better if you are going to scale. More scaling = smoother scaling. More pixels means smoother image and more detail. Unless of course you don't scale, just keep everything at 100% so everything stays pixel perfect.

    • 

      mikk on 14/10/2020 - 22:31

      For a 27" at 1440P, I always run 100% scaling in rather than doing something like trying to turn 1 pixel into 1.5 pixels and smudging everything. If you're going to scale then you're better off going to 4k or higher.

      A 23" at 1080P is only 12% less dense than that and windows doesn't scale by default with that setup. There are few people who would have a problem with that resolution and wouldn't have any readability issues.

      But each to their own. There was a guy at work who needed glasses but refused to wear them, and he loved using a 1920x1080 27" monitor and scaling up on a 24".

  • 

    Beyond on 14/10/2020 - 19:14

    +2

    I love my 4k monitor, the scaling is on 150%, which is the recommended setting.

    I'm using the ASUS MX27UQ, not a gaming monitor though.

  • 

    SummerZero on 14/10/2020 - 23:00

    i cant agree. bought one in the last sale and have to say it looks very crisp.

    i also have a 4k ips laptop and the screen is significantly better looking than HD.

  • 

    fredk1000 on 14/10/2020 - 23:06

    Maybe try upgrading to Windows 10 from Windows 3.1

• 

  ozbbcuk on 14/10/2020 - 18:12

  +1

  I ordered from last deal on 3rd Oct and it still hasnt shipped out yet.

  • 

    SummerZero on 14/10/2020 - 23:00

    mine only shipped out and arrived today (sydney).

• 

  HeelTaker on 15/10/2020 - 13:39

  Maaan just waiting for a decent sub $500 deal for 4K with at least HDR600 for SINGLE player gaming (already got a 165Hz for MP).

  Am I dreaming?

• 

  fredk1000 on 16/10/2020 - 23:51

  A youtube review;
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0VFYYI384M