To me, 28" 4K is near the sweet spot: it's exactly 4 14" screens of my ThinkPad. I wish the screens had higher resolution and smaller size though.
You said you wished the screens had a smaller size? You'd want a smaller than 28in screen? Wouldn't that get pretty uncomfortably close to view, even with scaling?
[1] https://i.dllu.net/2026-09-09-20-40-23_b59cb931ec7bd913.png
However, as another commenter mentioned in the thread it seems like nearly every non-Apple monitor has some sort of negative compromise outside of port selection.
That being said $700 is a steal for that monitor easily and the price overcomes a lot of possible downsides (at least for me it would).
For graphics work, of course the answer might be different and I'm no expert. Personally I think screen size does matter, and I've noticed a fair improvment going from 28 to 32.
With 4K it feels like I have to do a lot of tabbing between apps on a single monitor.
But I get people’s experiences obviously vary since display preferences are extremely subjective and overall it seems like the 27” 5K and 32” 6K fans are in the minority.
I have 20/20 vision and a pretty normal desk setup. I run my 32 4K at 100% scaling in Windows, and while I could maybe push it down a little smaller, some of the least PPI-aware interfaces and text would start to be too small.
If you're running 6K scaled to 150%, you basically just have a slightly sharper 4K monitor - effectively 0 extra space. If you're not running it scaled, I'm betting you're sitting closer to the monitor than is recommended for long term use (or have like 20/10 vision).