I would take a picture in a heart beat. The problem is I don't have have a camera with a macro lens, so the images would be blurred just like those that have been posted here.
Okay lets get a little background here. The question that was posted here was how good was the screen quality based on some of the comments and concerns some posters made.
The comments I have seen is folk make was on how the 700 had an "inferior resolution", "inferior contrast" and "smaller screen".
Now I have a technical back ground and those terms mean something to me. Resolution means: What is the smallest level of detail you can see with your eye before something gets lost in obscurity.
Contrast means how many different shades of gray are seen and how far apart the shade are.
In my test, not scientific, remember I loaded my books and started to read them there. I maintain that the contrast and resolution of the 505 and 700 are the same. (The PDF books I read have very tiny fonts and where just as readable on the 700)
What johnnyr is pointing out is the loss in image quality caused by the plastic screen layer that is shipped with the 700.
For johnnyr this is a huge problem. For me the loss was negligible. (You would think that a person who has read with his 505 for over a year would have a bigger problem with this than a person who doesn't have either
)
The fact that there is such a polar view on the effects of the plastic layer I think it will be prudent for the person purchasing the product to check for themselves. I would however suggest that people not rely on the photographs posted here. Here I hold a firm position that those photos are not representative to how the 700 looks. At least wait until professional quality photographs are taken.)
=X=