Are T400 and T500 screens really so bad?

I've read a lot of posts bemoaning the quality of T400 and T500 screens, especially the LED screens. The T400/T500 LED screens, so many of the posts go, are brighter but have poorer contrast than the T500 WSGA+ CCFL screens and really look horrible when compared to the screens on non-Lenova computers.

It seems that part of the problem for poor screens is something termed TN technology, older and cheaper than IPS (I'm just repeating what I've read--I have no idea how these work!). Most companies, it seems, use TN.

And yet most other companies' screens, according to many people, look much better--blacker blacks, whiter whites, truer colors--than those screens on ThinkPads.

Here is what I'm wondering:

(1) If ThinkPad screens look so much worse than those of other makers, even consumer models using screens made with the same technology, how much of the difference is due to the other makers' glossy screens instead of matte? Lenova isn't buying poorer screens for ThinkPads than other companies are buying for their computers, is it?

(2) Doesn't the reflection from those glossy screens contribute to increased eyestrain under heavy usage, which IMO negates the richer colors they produce? If this is true, I would prefer the poorer colors of ThinkPad matte screens for less eyestrain. I seriously doubt I want another glossy screen, and I probably will go with an LED screen for occasional outdoor use.

(3) Has anyone compared the T500 WSXGA+ CCFL screen against any of the T400/T500 LED screens?
​

I realize that I probably over-analyze these things, especially when something costs nearly $1K. In the end, I will be happy with the firmer, quieter keyboard, cooler temps, longer battery life, sturdier build, etc. I suspect that if I could actually see a T400 or T500 before I order, it would answer my concerns. I would like to think that the disparaging talk about T400/T500 screens of overblown, but I have no idea.

Bill

 

The difference doesn't have anything to do with the screen's finish. My old matte screen (CCFL) has better color and contrast than my T400 LED, and my girlfriend's CCFL glossy screen looks terrible in comparison to my T400.

 

Are you fairly pleased, then, with your T400 LED? Do you have the WXGA or WXGA+ resolution?

BTW, am I correct in assuming that your girlfriend's CCFL glossy is not very old?

Thanks,
Bill

 

Her CCFL glossy is not old but it is not one of the new nice ones.

I am satisfied with my T400 WXGA+ LED, but I was slightly disappointed at first when I viewed it next to my apparently nicer old CCFL.

It works fine for everyday use (for me) but it doesn't fare amazingly well when using Photoshop.

 

I had previously owned ASUS notebooks (3 of them) and an Acer notebook, business models all of them. In addition, I also used 2 different Dell Latitude notebooks at my previous workplace. My T500 CCFL screen beats all of them. Sharper, very nice colours and much more backlight, and not even a LED screen. So I don't think ThinkPad screens look so bad But this is just my opinion.

 

Dell Latitude, HP Elitebook has similar screens to Thinkpads...

 

A couple of comments. First, regardless of the laptop brand, screen quality is all about who makes the panel. So people on this board find out the original maker of the panel and that is what one should go by when determining screen quality, not Lenovo, HP, Dell, etc. An example of this in action is the Dell Latitude 6500. It has the exact same panel as the Apple Macbook Pro 15" (the generation before the unibodies). I have both of these laptops and the screen quality is outstanding. Of course, one is an AUO and the other is an LG and there are slight differences in color temperature, but they are "equivalent panels". Apple uses at least 4 different makers for their macbook pros, but in my opinion they are all of a excellent quality. They are TN screens and they're not as good as IPS screens, but given that you can't get an IPS screen easily these days, they are definitely in the top tier.

Second, not all TN displays are created equal. Some are better than the others. Same goes for LED and CCFL lighting. Again, one has to see which particular panel is made by which particular manufacturer. AUO has been praised and panned as well as LG, and Samsung. I think that like most companies they have low-end and a high-end product line.

And that's where it actually does go back to Lenovo. They do seem to source the low-end for their T400/T500/x301 laptop LED screens. Again no one would have a problem with this if it were not for three issues: 1. Thinkpads are not marketed as low-end laptops, nor are they priced that way. So why should it have a decidedly low-end screen? 2. Thinkpads are so close to being such a great laptop and they fall flat on the screen. It's like tripping over yourself at the finish line when you've got victory in hand. 3. Screen quality is only increasing in importance as online video goes fully mainstream. Ask yourself, aren't you watching more videos, movies, and tv shows than you were 3 years ago? I know that I am. Makes sense to place a premium on it.

For my money, the macbook pro is the only laptop that meets my (in my mind) logical criteria. I want a 15" laptop that has a great screen, good speakers, is quiet, and has a great keyboard and touchpad. The Dell Latitude E6500 was almost there except for a completely and utterly botched touchpad and pointing stick. I've used it for six months off and on and I firmly believe it's unusable. It is the worst ergonomics I've had b/c the drivers make the touchpad freeze, etc, and I've yet to see a fix in sight. T500 wsxga+ ccfl. I only had two complaints. One was this unbelievably annoying high-pitched sound that people call Penryn whine, which people swear is normal. However, I've never heard it on 3 apple laptops or the Dell Latitude. I am particularly annoyed by mosquitoes buzzing in my ear, but alot of people aren't. The other was the brightness of the ccfl screen. It was 200 nits, and that was plenty bright except when watching movies. I find 300 nits to be ideal, and that's what my macbook pro is. I'm prepared to be disappointed come January when the new T400 and T500 series out, but I'll always hold out hope.

 

The strange thing for me is why there are such extremes involved. I’ll explain…

The Thinkpad screens that people are complaining about are truly bottom of the barrel specs: in real-life tests they all seem about generally seem to measure between 100:1 and 125:1 in contrast ratio. And black levels are really ”grey” at almost 2 cd m.

That’s really bad. I used to use a Panasonic Y5 that I think had a real life contrast ratio of 150:1 or so. It was pretty dim too. And I thought that was pretty bad. Usable? Yes. Fun? No. In fact it entailed a lot more squinting than could possible be healthy. And yet even that screen rates better than most of what Lenovo offers.

The best screens on average seem to be the Apple Macbook pro screens. When tested, these seem to come in around 700:1 contrast ratio. With black levels from 0.3 to 0.5 cd m.

And yet, Lenovo Thinkpads and Apple Macbook Pros are both positioned as premium laptops. Hmmm… its not really working for me.

So what I wonder is why Lenovo really goes for the absolute lowest quality. Surely it would be possible to at least get screens that hit say a real life 300:1 contrast ratio – and I mean real life numbers not the marketing BS such as the screens that Lenovo calls 300:1 in their spec and external people test them at 96:1!!! And have say 250 nits or so.

In fact, that spec is just about what you can get from the 15" SXGA+ 1680 x 150 screen Lenovo offers for the T500 and W500 only. And the 17" UXGA. So that right there proves Lenovo knows what a decent screen is. But they very deliberately choose not to offer decent screen options in 90% of their products. Which is a strange strategy for a supposed premium computer maker.

If Lenovo at least gave buyers some options maybe hey instead of discounting, they could hold retail price better. Especially with video becoming so much more common – and the wall breaking down between “business devices” and “play devices”. I mean look at the Iphone – its one of the fastest growing corporate smart phones actually.

Lenovo needs to think smart here. They are really dragging in the stone age on this dimension.

 

Haven't played around with it much yet but my T500's screen does the job. Will have to muck about with the colour profile to get it looking right but for what it's job is it is fine.

 

Which resolution do you have?

Thanks,
Bill

 

I love Lenovo and I love Thinkpad, but the screens they use in the T400/500 really are pretty terrible. They do this so they can keep costs low - most of their users (corporate) don't care much about screen quality.

 

1680 x 1050.

I don't know what people are expecting, it is a notebook. It displays its contents and that is it.

I use a HP2475 at home so if i want to use something decent I will hook it up to that but for one the go, why do you need some super duper screen?

 

"Super duper" it does not have to be. However, it will be the only computer I will be using, so I would like a screen better than poor.

My difficulty is simply the standard by which folks judge a notebook screen and whether the matte is less lustrous than glossy and that is influencing people's judgment.

Bill

 

I have a T500 CCFL @ 1680x1050. I came from a last generation Macbook Pro with an LED screen.

I was pretty disappointed in the quality of the T500 panel coming from the Macbook. The colors are very drab and the brightness is okay. On the flip side, I really enjoy the matte finish and the viewing angles are pretty good.

For me it's just one element of a bigger picture. The build quality, keyboard feel, finish and look as well as the uber useful TrackPoint help to offset the screen limitations.

 

You're right--it's the big picture I'm trying to get into focus. That's what I was getting at in the OP--putting the screen in perspective of all the ThinkPad assets. I had started thinking about a Dell E6500 till I started going through the reviews on the Dell outlet site. Heat and a flimsy keyboard, IIRC, were two negatives on the Dell, though the screen was applauded.

It looks as though it's hard to have everything for an affordable price. With all my research, I keep coming back to the T400/T500, probably the T500 because of the display port.

BTW, I just read your MacBook Pro to T500 thread. I was considering an MBP, though I rely on Windows programs. Your points were very helpful.

Bill

 

I'll post some thoughts when i buy my T500 in a couple of days. It has the WSXGA+ CCFL screen. A while ago i had had quite a shock moving from a 15,4" WSXGA+ glossy screen into this matte 14" SXGA+.. (and it's over 3 years old )

All in all, i'm quite happy. The most useful little feature IMO is the thinkvantage software with it's little quirks and settings.

 

This view seems to go against the strive for excellence, which is what makes ThinkPads the wonderful machines they are. Following that line of reasoning, you can also ask:

"Why do you want a good keyboard & trackpoint? It allows you to type things and that is it."

"Why do you want a well-built case? It keeps the hard drive and the memory from falling out and that is it."

Besides, we are not even asking for excellence; we only ask for something that is at least mediocre. I claim that you cannot find a desktop LCD display released in the last 3 years that has measured contrast ratio lower than 300:1. Yet Lenovo manages to put LCD screens with 100:1 contrast ratio on the ThinkPads. (The comparison is fair because laptop panels and desktop panels are manufactured the same way, only cut differently.) It is as if Lenovo has a team dedicated to tracking down the worst LCD panels in existence and put them on ThinkPads. I mean, Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot?

I definitely share skagen's frustration.

 

Great, glad I could help. You really can't wrong with either T400 or T500. Good luck.

 

I can see this comes down to preference. I would never buy a TN panel for a desktop, I cannot stand them. However when it comes to laptops I do not expect the same.

Also they are not just cut differently. You do not really get 19 x 12 15/17" monitors for sale. That is 24" and up so they are not really comparable at all.

Seriously. It displays the image, it looks fine and if you don't like it adjust the brightness, gamma, and contrast in the gfx card control panel till it looks better. Contrast ratio is not the be all end all. Specs very rarely tell you anything about how a monitor looks or feels.

Just my opinion and the OP would be well advised to remember that anything posted is just opinions and some people have very screwed up ones at that. Not attacking people, just saying that in every area of life their is someone who is to pernickity about things and if trusted too much can be misled.

 

I should have clarified that I am more of a X series person, so my rant may not apply to T400 or T500. The OP should probably just ignore me.

My expectations are not that high either. I just want the screen on my next ThinkPad to measure up to the crappiest, most god-awful desktop LCD monitor released in the last 3 years.

I do not see how difference in resolution and pixel density affects image-quality measures such as contrast ratio; there is no such correlation among the desktop LCD panels. I maintain that there is no inherent reason why a laptop screen should be vastly inferior to a desktop screen; we can agree to disagree.

Specs can mislead or lie, but measured contrast ratio -- measured using a colorimeter -- does reflect user experience. A screen with low contrast looks washed-out.

I single out contrast ratio because contrast is what allows users to see things on screen. It is not the be all end all, but you do want it to be reasonable. Good desktop screens have measured contrast ratio around 1000:1, mediocre ones 600:1, and crappy ones 400:1. 100:1 is ridiculous.

A measured 100:1 contrast ratio means that 100:1 is all you get in ideal situations. There is no way to raise contrast in GFX settings or what not. If you calibrate your monitor to get rid of a yellow cast, contrast goes down. If you look at the screen from an angle, contrast goes down. If you start at 300:1, you can afford to take some hits. If you start at 100:1, then not so much.

I fully agree that my opinions are just my opinions. If you love ThinkPad and love their screens, good for you. If you love ThinkPad but hate the screens, well, welcome to the club.