Anyone using SONY F520?

[xpeter]

I have read some negative reviews on the SONY F520 CRT at Amazon.com so I want to
know if someone uses this monitor and can write some wordsa bout it. I would like to
buy this monitor because of the resolution of 2048 x 1536 @ 85 Hz but people on Amazon.com
wrote the texts are from 1600 x 1200 very blury and overall it's picture is very unsharp.
Is it true?

 

[TourGuide]

I don't have the F520, I have the G520P, but to your question - Getting a monitor you're happy with is very much a matter of insistence. You have to insist on a high quality product and you also have to understand that NO monitor is going to be perfection. All CRTs have some degree of imperfection about them and you have to decide what is important to you. For me my top priorities are - gemoetry, color purity, text clarity. The degree to which I get the rest is just bonus. What you want to do is buy from a vendor who will treat you right on exchanges, etc and keep exchanging until you get one you're satisfied with and understand that it may take some time to do this.

The F520 is an amazing piece of hardware. You ought to be able to find one you're happy with .

 

[xpeter]

Originally posted by: TourGuide
I don't have the F520, I have the G520P, but to your question - Getting a monitor you're happy with is very much a matter of insistence. You have to insist on a high quality product and you also have to understand that NO monitor is going to be perfection. All CRTs have some degree of imperfection about them and you have to decide what is important to you. For me my top priorities are - gemoetry, color purity, text clarity. The degree to which I get the rest is just bonus. What you want to do is buy from a vendor who will treat you right on exchanges, etc and keep exchanging until you get one you're satisfied with and understand that it may take some time to do this.

The F520 is an amazing piece of hardware. You ought to be able to find one you're happy with .

what resolution are you running at your G520 @ what refresh?

 

[iwearnosox]

G520 and F520 are not the same beast by a long shot. I had a G500 and sold it at a big loss just to get rid of it- hated it more than a Ricky Martin video. The F520, on the other hand: I have a F500 and wouldn't give it up for anything. I'm typing to you on it now at 1600x1200.

I'm very picky and have blown through a bunch of monitors till this one. Highly recommended, if it's the same technical core as the 500.

 

[iwearnosox]

Ok I just switched over to 2048 x 1536, the text is super sharp still but I can't handle the 60 cycles. I guess the 520 improves on that.

 

[xpeter]

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
Ok I just switched over to 2048 x 1536, the text is super sharp still but I can't handle the 60 cycles. I guess the 520 improves on that.

Yeah thanks for the post, the F520 is about the same as F500, of course I know G class is somewhere else. I just want to
buy this CRT because I would like to use the 2048x1536 resolution but non of my computer supliers has this model on the
stock so I can't see the quality and the price is enough high so I don't want to buy something stupid.

I am running right now 17" IIYAMA HM704UTc at resolution of 1280 x 1024 @ 85 Hz but need more workspace ;o) I am used
to extreme resolutions as you see if I had a 19" screen I would use the 1600 x 1200 res so I wonder you use this res
on a 21" F500, why? My IIYAMA has DIAMONDTRON M2 CRT and everything is super sharp on this resolution I am running at.

 

[iwearnosox]

The F500 can only supply 85 cycles up to 1600x1200, then it drops. My eyes start hurting if I deal with lower refresh rates. 1600x1200 isn't too bad, though.

 

[xpeter]

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
The F500 can only supply 85 cycles up to 1600x1200, then it drops. My eyes start hurting if I deal with lower refresh rates. 1600x1200 isn't too bad, though.

oh than it's alright F520 does 110 Hz @ 1600 x 1200

 

[TourGuide]

what resolution are you running at your G520 @ what refresh?

For default desktop stuff I usually run 1280x1024 @ 100hz. I recoginze this isn't a true 4:3 aspect ratio, but I like the increased workspace. If I need a true 4:3 aspect ratio then I run 1280x960 @ 120hz. I also run 1600x1200 for some graphics and large document work and that I run at 100hz as well. 100hz is comfortable for me. 85 or below on a large monitor hurts my eyes.

 

[iwearnosox]

(older AT members apparently chime in.)