Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dell 3007WFP (not the -HC version) for sale...what should I offer?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
January 21, 2010 1:34:46 AM

Hey all, I need some help. I'm doing some research myself, but I thought I'd ask on here.

I have a friend who is offering to sell his Dell 3007WFP, as he's getting a more up-to-date monitor. This thing came out 4 years ago, and as of 3 years ago, was selling for about $1350. The successor, the 3007WFP-HC and the 3008WFP are both selling for around that now. There have been sales for them, new, at $1000, and as low as $900. Remember: this is a USED monitor!

What do you think is a fair price, assuming he is not my friend, assuming he's just some random guy.

I was thinking of offering somewhere between $400 and $600, as it's used, but it very good condition. I can't imagine paying much more than that for 4 year old technology, ya know?
a b C Monitor
January 21, 2010 4:56:15 AM

Well, the fact that it is 4 years old isn't as significant as you might think (monitor technology hasn't progressed nearly as much as most computer tech in that time). I'd say that $600ish is fair though, assuming everything is in effectively new condition. It's still an excellent monitor, and worth quite a bit.

Out of curiosity, why is he selling it? Newer 30" monitors won't be that much better - there'll be an improvement, but not enough of one to be worth the $600-800 loss that he would take by selling the 3007 to get a 3008 or similar.
m
0
l
a c 195 C Monitor
January 21, 2010 2:13:37 PM

The most likely answer for the difference in price that I can think of is the fact that the 3007WFP has standard color gamut of 72% where as the newer 3007WFP-HC has wide color gamut of 92%.

Color gamut basically dictates the spectrum of shades / color saturation the monitor can display. Not to be confused with the number of different colors the monitor can display which is 16.7m. Wide color gamut monitors tend to put a little more emphasis on green saturation, so compared to a standard color monitor images appears to be a bit greener.

Standard color gamut is good for color accruate images displayed on the screen. Wide color gamut is good for color accurate images for printed media. Therefore, if you are an artist / photographer who simply have a online gallery of images, then having a standard color gamut monitor is preferred since you can fine tune color accuracy on the screen. Of course if someone with a wide color gamut monitor looks at your images, they will tend to be slightly green.

Wide color gamut monitors are better for individuals who would want to display a lot of printed materials because the colors will look a lot closer to what is being displayed on the screen of a wide color gamut monitor than standard color gamut monitor. This has to do with the fact that monitors use 3 primary color (Red, Green, Blue = RGB) to create all kinds of different colors. Printers on the other hand use 4 primary colors to produce the entire rainbow of colors (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black = CMYK).

Currently, most monitors produced are wide gamut. Why? I don't know. Because the number 72% looks better than 92% (or higher) on paper? Bigger is better, right?

Additionally, the 3007WFP uses a slightly older IPS panel of 11ms or 12ms response time compared to 8ms response time for the 3007WFP-HC monitor.


m
0
l
January 21, 2010 3:40:42 PM

jaguarskx said:
The most likely answer for the difference in price that I can think of is the fact that the 3007WFP has standard color gamut of 72% where as the newer 3007WFP-HC has wide color gamut of 92%.

Color gamut basically dictates the spectrum of shades / color saturation the monitor can display. Not to be confused with the number of different colors the monitor can display which is 16.7m. Wide color gamut monitors tend to put a little more emphasis on green saturation, so compared to a standard color monitor images appears to be a bit greener.

Standard color gamut is good for color accruate images displayed on the screen. Wide color gamut is good for color accurate images for printed media. Therefore, if you are an artist / photographer who simply have a online gallery of images, then having a standard color gamut monitor is preferred since you can fine tune color accuracy on the screen. Of course if someone with a wide color gamut monitor looks at your images, they will tend to be slightly green.

Wide color gamut monitors are better for individuals who would want to display a lot of printed materials because the colors will look a lot closer to what is being displayed on the screen of a wide color gamut monitor than standard color gamut monitor. This has to do with the fact that monitors use 3 primary color (Red, Green, Blue = RGB) to create all kinds of different colors. Printers on the other hand use 4 primary colors to produce the entire rainbow of colors (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black = CMYK).

Currently, most monitors produced are wide gamut. Why? I don't know. Because the number 72% looks better than 92% (or higher) on paper? Bigger is better, right?

Additionally, the 3007WFP uses a slightly older IPS panel of 11ms or 12ms response time compared to 8ms response time for the 3007WFP-HC monitor.


Thanks for the responses!

As for the monitor above, alas, he's not bunging at $775, and that's too high for me.

However, another friend of mine brought up something when I was telling him about this monitor. He bought a refurbished TS-24W8h for his girlfriend a while back, and she didn't want it, so he'd sell it to me for $150. does anyone know anything about this rebranded monitor? Technology, etc?
m
0
l
!