LG C2 42" is 8.3 megapixels vs. this monitor's 7.4 megapixels.
This monitor offers 88% of the pixels the LG C2 does but compresses them into half the surface area. It also costs half the price.
For the same amount of money you can have 14.8 megapixels at higher PPI in a much more flexible format. 4K seems like a lot of real estate but at standard->lower PPI (large screen few pixels) realistically you don't get that much more real estate, especially compared to the 2560x1440 (and multiples thereof) displays.
I used to use a 55" LG OLED as a monitor but in practice, coming from dual 27" 2560x1440 monitors, I rarely did deep work in quadrants of 1920x1080. I tended to use a 2560 main slice and then the leftovers for reference and my terminals. I found 55" 4K as a monitor to be overly large and lacking in usable detail and I'm not sure I trust 42" to be small enough to make up for that.
This monitor offers 88% of the pixels the LG C2 does but compresses them into half the surface area. It also costs half the price.
For the same amount of money you can have 14.8 megapixels at higher PPI in a much more flexible format. 4K seems like a lot of real estate but at standard->lower PPI (large screen few pixels) realistically you don't get that much more real estate, especially compared to the 2560x1440 (and multiples thereof) displays.
I used to use a 55" LG OLED as a monitor but in practice, coming from dual 27" 2560x1440 monitors, I rarely did deep work in quadrants of 1920x1080. I tended to use a 2560 main slice and then the leftovers for reference and my terminals. I found 55" 4K as a monitor to be overly large and lacking in usable detail and I'm not sure I trust 42" to be small enough to make up for that.