Displayport 1.2 Cable Vs 1.4 Difference Between

I don't know what the haters have been smoking, but obviously they haven't educated themselves... I've been using the DisplayPort 1.2 setting in the monitor menu and using a DisplayPort 1.2+ capable cable since 2018 with no issues running the monitor at 4k at 60hz since 2018. I think the haters haven't even opened their settings menus to confirm if they're using the highest version of DisplayPort on their monitor lol. It takes 15 seconds to navigate to the menu, if it's not working then switch your DP cable because you're probably rocking a 1.1 or less version that's been sitting in your closet for too long. This is one of the best value 4k monitors besides using a small 4k value tv. It has impressive color range and accuracy with 10 bit color vs the usual 8 bit you'll see even modern tvs still using, and if you haven't made the switch to 4k or even 1440p yet and wonder if the difference is worth it, trust me I have a fine pair of glasses on and the difference in clarity is night and day resolution wise for reading text like this and detail for movie viewing is quite nice and the viewing angles are amazing for value LED, the next step up from here is getting a higher refresh rate 4k oled for me eventually.

I was using this with an older DisplayPort cable, which was not DP 1.2 compatible. Lots of noise and flickering on screen. After upgrading my DP cable, everything worked great with this adapter. Have it running a screen at 4K @ 60Hz, from a Mac Book Pro.

First be sure to get the IOGEAR DisplayPort 1.4 Male Cable to get 60hz refresh rate. A standard HDMI will only give you 30hz and the monitor will feel sluggish and pixelated. Second, wow, what a bargain. I bought this monitor for photo editing and I'm blown away with the clarity, color, and vibrancy. Albeit, it was a big upgrade from my 10 year old monitors, but I really couldn't ask for anything better. I even played a few games that ran smooth as butter. I might even buy a second one.

Taking photos for 50yrs and I own both the Sony 50 f/1.2 and this 50 f/1.4 can't tell the difference on a Sony a7RV except in cost size and weight this 50 f/1.4 goes with me everywhere

I'm giving this five stars based on quality for the money and compact size. Photography is my full time living so I test every lens I buy both in the studio with ISO 12233 targets and in the field. Although there are some subtle differences between this and the Fujinon 56mm 1.2 R which I also owned for a few years, they are not significant. The Viltrox is slightly sharper in the center from f1.4 through f4 then the difference is less noticeable from 5.6 and smaller. The Fuji is only slightly better at the extreme edges and corners. If you're using this as a portrait lens the difference is immaterial. I love that it's also small and lightweight. Although I really loved my Fuji 1.2, it's not worth 3X the price, the extra bulk and weight and I rarely shoot at 1.4 much less needing 1.2. Unless you shoot film, apertures that wide are more about trying to impress others than practicality. If you focus on someones eyelashes at f1.2 there's a decent chance their cornea will be out of focus. Many times the Eye-AF system can't even be accurate enough for 1.4 or 1.2. I still want to use this in everyday shooting some more for the final word but so far it's a keeper.

Very sharp, very contrasty, perfectly smooth bokeh, even for a 35mm. The build feels pretty much perfect, and focusing is precise. It's a big lens on a rangefinder, but the performance more than makes up for it. It is as good on film as it is on the M 240. Being that it's a Distagon design, it also performs pretty well on Sony bodies. Of course, it was made the M mount, and it's best on a Leica or Zeiss Ikon. For a fast 35 your only other options are the Leica, and 2 Voigtlanders (not counting the 'classic' 35/1.4 because it's a special effect lens in essence, and the modern optics just do a different thing). Vs the 35/1.2: The Zeiss is sharper with more modern Bokeh, and better contrast. Though if you like classic character you may prefer the 35/1.2. Size is the same. Vs. the 35/1.7: I would say this lens is the only real competition. It's a lot cheaper and has 85% of the performance. But it's not a 35/1.4, and doesn't have the Zeiss signature with color images. Vs. the Leica: The Summilux FLE is very good, but not better. It's main advantage is size. Is that worth double the money? Not to me. I'm going to get years and years of use out of this lens in both professional and artistic applications, and I can't really imagine wanting more from a 35/1.4. Buy with confidence.

The Pearstone USB C to DisplayPort 4k Cable (15') is a super long well made cable. I primarily use this cable to run a preview monitor from my MacBook pro to a client or other crew member. It keeps extra people out of the main area where I am working and it does a great job of this since it's so long. There isn't a ton to say about a cable but this is built well, supports 4k, and is super long so I'm happy. (I received this item in exchange for my honest review)

It's always better to have single cable, than to use an adapter and a cable. This one does the job of connecting a DisplayPort to HDMI device.

I carry a Canon 1DM3, 16-35L, 85 1.2L, 50 1.4 and a 580Ex2. And it does not look bulky at all! Love the weathered look and that it is so compact looking. Would have spent the extra $ before I got all the other bags... had used Lowe Pro Stealth Reporter, Crumplers before I got to this... totally no regrets. Only downside is probably the padding could have been thicker.

have used the EF 85 1.2 I, EF 85 1.2 II, and the EF 85 1.4L IS. first week impressions of this on an R5 compared to my previous 5dmiii... super impressive. comparative AF speed to the EF 1.2 (any version) is lightning fast, first day testing, focus hit rate wide open on fidgety/moving young children with the R5, really, really good. reserve final opinion on subjective image quality, but first impressions, also very positive. if you nailed a wide open exposure on the EF 85 1.2, any version, you would have the chance of it just having that magic... looking at the picture, you knew it was the 85 1.2. Never had those kinds of results with the EF 85 1.4 IS. Solid, consistent, but lacked the magic of the EF 85 1.2s. (I also never seemed to run into an instance where the IS really saved me, and that was on a non IBIS body). RF 85mm 1.2 feels like the magic is back, with the benefits of AF improvements. downside (beside cost)... big. You know it's big from the specs, but bigger than it reads. Actually feels just fine in the hand, less awkward and forward balanced than you may think, but it's by no means discrete, especially with the hood.