Quote:
Originally Posted by el.astrologo
From what I've read the 700 screen has glare and requires a more.. let's say "conscious" approach on the user's part to avoid being affected by it; if we don't forget about that "fact" (and I use the word loosely as I have no first person experience with the device) I think it's safe to say that we can't expect there to exist " identical lighting and angle conditions", for the reading angle of one will greatly differ from the other.
|
That's an excellent point, el.astrologo, and very well put besides. I'd kinda thought about what you've summed up so well, but I hadn't put it in nearly as clear a terms.
I wish I could say that was what I was thinking at the time that I took the photos, but I can't. However, I can say that I took the photo of the 700 in each set first, and then swapped it for the 500 -- I didn't think it out, I just happened to do it that way.
But in effect, I took the best pic I could manage of the 700 and then replicated the positioning, lighting, angle, and such for the 500 pic.
Something I should have touched on specifically in the review is that while I did notice that the 700 wasn't as clear and contrasty as the 500 when I first started using it, I really stopped noticing it after a couple of days. I also stopped noticing the extra consciousness (to use your word) that it required to deal with the glare. By the end of the two weeks, all that had faded firmly into the background, but I
was impressed anew by the clarity of the 500's screen when I switched
back.