RCA Evolution M27PG135F

[Inle]

The RCA Evolution M27PG135F is a very capable 27-inch IPS gaming monitor. It boasts a 2560x1440 resolution, 240 Hz refresh rate, impressively low input lag, and several interesting extras, most importantly a USB-C port with DP Alt Mode and 90 W Power Delivery.

Show full review

 

[bug]

Looks pretty well-rounded. And priced decently, which isn't that common these days.

 

[SSGBryan]

I'd like a 32" version of this.

 

[Chrispy_]

Much like Kodak and Polaroid, these companies are dead and bankrupt - their brand names were sold to the highest bidder in China by the liquidators.

This product has nothing to do with the original RCA which folded and was saved from liquidation by GE, sold about five or six times to various IP trolls like NBC and Comcast, and is now just a name for sale to any manufacturer who wants to pay the license fee to slap their label on it.

Anyway, now that I know I'm reading a review of a generic, no-name Chinese monitor, I'll read the rest of the review


Edit:
So, the monitor seems okay, if you're fine with somewhat smeary dark motion responses that aren't dissimilar to many VA panels but for the asking price my main concern was warranty. In the US at least, it appears to be a 2-year return-to-base warranty where RCA at least pay the shipping. I'm not even sure these are sold outside the US - there appear to be zero google results which usually means the answer is "no".

 

[Chry]

It's funny how companies fail to read the room and miss out opportunity to sell full-glossy monitors while there are crowds waiting for them with virtually nothing to choose from. So instead we get more of the same and now this panel has to compete with a ~100 others with same specs.

 

[evernessince]

It's funny how companies fail to read the room and miss out opportunity to sell full-glossy monitors while there are crowds waiting for them with virtually nothing to choose from. So instead we get more of the same and now this panel has to compete with a ~100 others with same specs.

Glossy displays are not as versatile as matte, which means lower sales. I personally hated the glossy monitor I used to have. Hard to view during the day unless you crank up the brightness and would always reflect room lighting.

On the review, seems like a pretty good monitor save for the low contrast ratio. Less than 900 is below average.

 

[Chry]

Glossy displays are not as versatile as matte, which means lower sales. I personally hated the glossy monitor I used to have. Hard to view during the day unless you crank up the brightness and would always reflect room lighting.

On the review, seems like a pretty good monitor save for the low contrast ratio. Less than 900 is below average.

It's not for everyone, but there are still huge crowds of people who want them and they have little to nothing to choose from. It's an untapped market and arguably it would be more profitable to target that market than a slightly wider market that is already over-saturated with similar selection.

 

[Chrispy_]

It's not for everyone, but there are still huge crowds of people who want them and they have little to nothing to choose from. It's an untapped market and arguably it would be more profitable to target that market than a slightly wider market that is already over-saturated with similar selection.

It's weird that nobody makes a matte TV for rooms with lots of potential glare from common light sources like table lamps, overhead lights, the sun coming through your (hopefully) bright and airy living room.

Meanwhile, almost nobody makes glossy monitors. The last one I had was a 27" curved 120Hz Samsung thing from about 12-13 years ago and it had fantastic contrast but I actually wish it had been matte, given that the curve seemed to catch reflections from a wider angle behind me.

I suspect a lot of the reason monitors are matte is because in several major sales regions, glossy panels are illegal for employers to provide to employees for work in a typical office environment. Your employer in most of Europe, for example, has an obligation to reduce screen glare as part of their health and safety law. I doubt it's ever stringently enforced, but the fact that glossy monitors can't be sold to around half the potential customers in those regions because of government guidelines probably makes them harder to sell, driving a higher street price, which made them less appealing to buyers, so sales numbers worsened to the point that panel manufacturers just packed it in at stopped bothering.

It's also worth noting that glass-fronted touchscreens are often criticised by laptop reviewers around the world for being difficult to use in bright lighting or outdoors, and whilst they're usually praised for their rich contrast when watching movies, it never seems to be a net positive for review sites to have a glossy screen on a laptop.

 

[JasBC]

Much like Kodak and Polaroid, these companies are dead and bankrupt - their brand names were sold to the highest bidder in China by the liquidators.

Polaroid is Dutch and makes decent stuff nowadays, I think I read they're returning to manufacturing their own photo-stock even.

Kodak still exists, doesn't deal in consumer facing-stuff anymore though.

 

[bug]

It's not for everyone, but there are still huge crowds of people who want them and they have little to nothing to choose from. It's an untapped market and arguably it would be more profitable to target that market than a slightly wider market that is already over-saturated with similar selection.

What huge crowds? Glossy is only good for TVs, they're impractical for PC monitors with any sort of light around. Plus, you get to watch your every move reflected back. I had laptop with a glossy monitor once, I was constantly distracted by my own fingers typing.

 

[Chrispy_]

Polaroid is Dutch and makes decent stuff nowadays, I think I read they're returning to manufacturing their own photo-stock even.

Polaroid went bankrupt in 2001. Nothing is left - 0 employees, $0 revenue, $0 assets.
The logo and brand was licensed out to just about anyone who would pay by the bank's holding company for years, I believe it's still happening as I saw some ultra-cheap eWaste with the Polaroid brand in last year's Black Friday sales.

The Dutch thing you're thinking of is "Project Impossible", setup by a Polish billionaire who had been manufacturing Polaroid-compatible film in the Netherlands with rights bought when Polaroid themselves went bankrupt. As of 2019 he bought out the holding company with rights to manufacture the camera hardware and has been reviving that part of the business which finally went live in March 2020.

Kodak still exists, doesn't deal in consumer facing-stuff anymore though.

Anything you think of as Kodak isn't Kodak Rochester, the multi-billion-dollar film and photography corporation of 122 years' fame and reputation. That Kodak went bankrupt in 2012 and they do practically nothing apart from license their brand to other manufacturers now. If you see a piece of hardware with the Kodak logo on sale, it's just the brand being licensed by someone else. The only other think the present-day Kodak has done is launch some failed cryptocurrency that is now worth nothing at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak#Post-bankruptcy

Kodak film still exists but the because that part of the old Kodak was sold, along with the Kodak name to a company in Hertfordshire, England.

 

[trsttte]

Polaroid is Dutch and makes decent stuff nowadays, I think I read they're returning to manufacturing their own photo-stock even.

Polaroid was originally American before going bust and being sold off. The current dutch iteration is a lucky case of someone trying to pick up the pieces to continue a classic product that eventually even got hold of the original brand name.

Kodak still exists, doesn't deal in consumer facing-stuff anymore though.

And that was the point, there are still kodak consumer products that are manufactured by whoever bought the rights to the brand

"Project Impossible", setup by a Polish billionaire who had been manufacturing Polaroid-compatible film in the Netherlands with rights bought when Polaroid themselves went bankrupt

Not just rights, he bougth some of the original machinery as well

 

[Dr. Dro]

Glossy displays are not as versatile as matte, which means lower sales. I personally hated the glossy monitor I used to have. Hard to view during the day unless you crank up the brightness and would always reflect room lighting.

On the review, seems like a pretty good monitor save for the low contrast ratio. Less than 900 is below average.

Both types of monitors have their use cases, IMO, but glossy has the clearer image - matte panels always diffuse at least some light. Matte displays are more resilient to influence from ambient light, however, and will tend to look better in high sunlight conditions. A glossy panel in a dark room will look the purest, again, IMO.

Nice to see the RCA brand around, even though it's like the Philips monitors... some Chicom OEM behind them, no doubt. I've always had fond memories of the few RCA products I've owned, particularly the Lyra MP3 player. Looked it up, an RD1028. Wish I could find one that has been forgotten by time somewhere.

 

[MachineLearning]

Is this compatible with my 1949 Victrola? No backwards compatibility = No buy.

 

[Tahagomizer]

It's funny how companies fail to read the room and miss out opportunity to sell full-glossy monitors while there are crowds waiting for them with virtually nothing to choose from. So instead we get more of the same and now this panel has to compete with a ~100 others with same specs.

I'll be honest, while I know there are people who like them, I never in my whole life personally met such a person. To the contrary, I met numerous people vigorously disliking their glossy screens when they were pushed by manufacturers around the year 2010, so I'm not sure there are "crowds waiting" for them. To me it's a decent screen for a particular type of consumer and making it glossy would shrink the target group to almost nothing.

 

[bug]

I'll be honest, while I know there are people who like them, I never in my whole life personally met such a person. To the contrary, I met numerous people vigorously disliking their glossy screens when they were pushed by manufacturers around the year 2010, so I'm not sure there are "crowds waiting" for them. To me it's a decent screen for a particular type of consumer and making it glossy would shrink the target group to almost nothing.

I've met a few that liked glossy better. Coincidence or not, all Mac users.

 

[Dr. Dro]

I've met a few that liked glossy better. Coincidence or not, all Mac users.

Apple was the only offering glossy screens on high end computers for a while so probably not

 

[Chry]

I'll be honest, while I know there are people who like them, I never in my whole life personally met such a person. To the contrary, I met numerous people vigorously disliking their glossy screens when they were pushed by manufacturers around the year 2010, so I'm not sure there are "crowds waiting" for them. To me it's a decent screen for a particular type of consumer and making it glossy would shrink the target group to almost nothing.

Depending on where you ask, in the polls I've seen, 10-30% prefer glossy. That's a huge untapped market niche.

It should also be said that this is particularly important in gaming monitors as gaming is where it benefits most and gamers are most likely to arrange their setup in a way that reflections will be a non-issue. Personally, I've had glossy and matte panels and always preferred the glossy ones due to sharpness and color expression. In the end, this is not a question of preference but a question of simply having an option, which at this moment, I don't (there is only one glossy gaming monitor that I know of an it's also curved and ultrawide, both of which are dealbreakers for me.)

Luckily it seems Alienware and ASUS are both planning to release glossy OLED displays, that will be not curved nor ultrawide, in early 2024 so looking forward to that (and saving money heh).

 

[Wirko]

Is this compatible with my 1949 Victrola? No backwards compatibility = No buy.

Slim chance. This thing doesn't even have RCA outputs for audio.

 

[MachineLearning]

Slim chance. This thing doesn't even have RCA outputs for audio.

Yes, I was totally serious...

 

[Wirko]

Yes, I was totally serious...

As you should be! Your 1949 Victrola could conceivably have a mono RCA jack input for ... whatever could output line-level audio in 1949, there' wasn't much choice, maybe a 1948 RCA tape recorder. This 2023 RCA monitor could conceivably have a stereo RCA jack output for an amplifier. Two Victrolas and two mono RCA-RCA signal cables and here you are, full compatibility, and stereo sound too!

 

[bug]

Depending on where you ask, in the polls I've seen, 10-30% prefer glossy. That's a huge untapped market niche.

It should also be said that this is particularly important in gaming monitors as gaming is where it benefits most and gamers are most likely to arrange their setup in a way that reflections will be a non-issue. Personally, I've had glossy and matte panels and always preferred the glossy ones due to sharpness and color expression. In the end, this is not a question of preference but a question of simply having an option, which at this moment, I don't (there is only one glossy gaming monitor that I know of an it's also curved and ultrawide, both of which are dealbreakers for me.)

Luckily it seems Alienware and ASUS are both planning to release glossy OLED displays, that will be not curved nor ultrawide, in early 2024 so looking forward to that (and saving money heh).

That's just placebo. I do photo editing on my matte monitor. It's as sharp as it gets and it's calibrated almost perfectly.

 

[trsttte]

Depending on where you ask, in the polls I've seen, 10-30% prefer glossy. That's a huge untapped market niche.

What polls, in monitor/tech enthusiast forums? The marketing research departments of major panel manufacturers are probably bigger than the number of answers on those polls

 

[PLAfiller]

I came for responses on the monitor review....and stayed for the interesting discussion. I actually prefer glossy screens for laptops. I still have a Dell Inspiron N5111 with one, better than any other laptop matter I ever had. I don't think I've ever owned a glossy screen for a desktop.

Polaroid is actually a pretty interesting case. @Chrispy_ and @trsttte got it right. I see they are trying different stuff, like manufacturing 3d Printers, spool holders, filaments. Actually their cameras are making a come back. It's the consumables where they get your money, not so much from the cameras themselves. What in my very humble opinion is missing is: 1.) they drop support very fast for some of the new stuff they make, 2.) too proprietary, no spare parts for these things in the long run.