It is actually 80 or 100 cd/m2:
http://www.eizo.com/global/iblick/spec/?id=CG221, bottom of the page, note 5:
For other monitors, the warranty period of the backlight is warranted only if they are used within the recommended brightness of up to and including 80 cd/m2 for the CG222W; 100 cd/m2 for the CG232, CG221 and CG211; 120 cd/m2 for the CG303W, CG301W, CG275W, CG245W, CG243W, CG241W and CG223W
That’s not a recommendation, its a
requirement for warranty (which sucks)! Its a better, higher value that been quoted above but silly. A better reality check on their site is in this PDF:
http://www.eizo.com/global/support/wp/pdf/wp_06-001A.pdf
Page 2. For whatever stupid reason, Eizo doesn’t allow us to copy, paste or print the PDF. Between this and their silly warranty (got to read the fine print), much higher cost than NEC, I wonder again why anyone would go there. Notice the TCO and ISO reference. One is a
required setting of 150cd/m2 (presumably matched to a spec for print viewing) and ISO that defines a minimum but says 100cd/m2 or higher!
They further blow it by saying in terms of Contrast Ratio, higher is generally better. Wrong. Not for critical print to display matching where the best you may see from a glossy print is perhaps 300:1. They allow you to control this precisely, like NEC which is critical. But the recommendation that more is better is only to serve their marketing hype when providing such spec’s.