505 Light wedge and Reviewed the 700

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by johnnyr

My problem is, how enjoyable it is to read, is my biggest concern
John

The screen is just one component of the reading experience. Speed and ergonomics are imho even more important, once you have a decent screen.

I started with Ebk1150 which had amazing speed and very good ergonomics - outside of weight/look - and then used the 770 for several years because of the better screen/software and pocketability, while in ergonomics it had some better qualities using the buttons customization, some slightly worse.

Then I tried the 500 and while the screen was excellent, it was so slow and had so poor ergonomics compared to what I was using that I just could not use it that much.

505 was pretty much the same as 500 in those 2 categories, maybe slightly faster and slightly better ergonomics but still far from what I wanted there - I tested it several times in the past year - but for me 700 was such a surprise in speed after hearing proclamations that eink *will always* be slow and the touch adds so much to ergonomics that until you use it you do not know what you miss.

So again it depends a lot on whatever is important for you.

[johnnyr]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

The screen is just one component of the reading experience. Speed and ergonomics are imho even more important, once you have a decent screen.

I started with Ebk1150 which had amazing speed and very good ergonomics - outside of weight/look - and then used the 770 for several years because of the better screen/software and pocketability, while in ergonomics it had some better qualities using the buttons customization, some slightly worse.

Then I tried the 500 and while the screen was excellent, it was so slow and had so poor ergonomics compared to what I was using that I just could not use it that much.

505 was pretty much the same as 500 in those 2 categories, maybe slightly faster and slightly better ergonomics but still far from what I wanted there - I tested it several times in the past year - but for me 700 was such a surprise in speed after hearing proclamations that eink *will always* be slow and the touch adds so much to ergonomics that until you use it you do not know what you miss.

So again it depends a lot on whatever is important for you.

The screen is the most important thing to me, you are right about that. I don't think that the 700's screen is even "decent" though, so it simply does not work as a reader for me.

When I was in the Sony store, I did a speed test. The 505 was roughly the same as the 700 as far as page turns. Was it faster? Maybe, not noticeably so. Yes, the ergonomics are nice, but the screen is just so dull, fuzzy, and....old looking, compared to the crisp clean, almost-white e-ink screen of the 505.

I just don't see how anyone can NOT see the huge difference in these screens. I know =X= said the difference for him was negligible, but I really don't understand how that is possible, since me, the 3 salesmen, and my fiance, who has never seen a reader in her life, all agreed the 700's screen looked terrible compared to the 505. The 700 has significantly shorter battery life as well.

Bottom line, all of this is just my opinion (and the opinion of others) but that doesn't mean I'm right or wrong. We are all entitled to our own opinions, and our opinions may differ.

My advice is to make sure you SEE the 700 before you buy it. If its acceptable to you then great, to each his own. But to blindly buy the 700, especially if you currently own a 505, just isn't smart.

It just boggles my mind how sony can release this knowing the screen does not look as good as thier previous model. It makes no sense to me.

[astra]

I wrote it somewhere else:

For some reason I really doubt that Sony, whose leading pro was always the hardware bit, would make such a blander.

On the other hand, people who want touch screen with fingerprints' smudges all over ebook reader screen most likely would not care/notice contrast issue. Anyone who would notice the issue would be reluctant to buy touch screen for book reading in the first place

It is all down to our personal preferences.

johnnyr
I am with you on this one. For me the huge difference in screens between 500 and 505 was the single motivation to upgrade, because screen's quality is the most important factor for me. To prove my point: I never read from phone, PDA and any other hand-held gadget. I do not even consider them as devices that provide means to read a book.

[ewiplayer]

Originally Posted by astra

I wrote it somewhere else: It is all down to our personal preferences.

To this and the parent... well said! Maybe we could put this to bed now?

[astra]

Originally Posted by ewiplayer

To this and the parent... well said! Maybe we could put this to bed now?

Sweet dreams

[=X=]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

I think that it is misleading a bit to argue that the 505 is NOT crisper than the 700. There is a clear difference in crispness - whatever technical terms you want to use for that.

Well I hope this comment was not targeted to me because I clearly stated the 505 looked better. See quote below

Originally Posted by =X=

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=

Originally Posted by =X=

I just don't see how anyone can NOT see the huge difference in these screens. I know =X= said the difference for him was negligible, but I really don't

Simple it's called personal preference. To answer your question I honestly believe you are grossly exaggerating the screen differences, but I recognize it comes down to preference and I respect your choice.

It's obvious you think little of the 700, and I think the screen is that that much worse than the 505.

However we do agree on one thing that the person buying it should look at the product before they purchase it. And we should leave it at that.

[guguy]

Originally Posted by =X=

Well I hope this comment was not targeted to me because I clearly stated the 505 looked better. See quote below






Simple it's called personal preference. To answer your question I honestly believe you are grossly exaggerating the screen differences, but I recognize it comes down to preference and I respect your choice.

It's obvious you think little of the 700, and I think the screen is that that much worse than the 505.

However we do agree on one thing that the person buying it should look at the product before they purchase it. And we should leave it at that.

I totally agree with you. Once more, as already stated, since the PRS-700
has got twice as much ram as the 505 and a much faster cpu new features
added later to the 700 will probably not be available on the 505, just like the
500 hadn't enough RAM to support adobe de. So considering this fact and
all the new features already available on the PRS-700, even if the screen of the
505 is a bit better it is still a very good choice to buy a 700.

[johnnyr]

Originally Posted by =X=

Well I hope this comment was not targeted to me because I clearly stated the 505 looked better. See quote below






Simple it's called personal preference. To answer your question I honestly believe you are grossly exaggerating the screen differences, but I recognize it comes down to preference and I respect your choice.

It's obvious you think little of the 700, and I think the screen is that that much worse than the 505.

However we do agree on one thing that the person buying it should look at the product before they purchase it. And we should leave it at that.

I want to like the 700, I really do, but yeah, the screen is a dealbreaker for me, along with the 5 hour battery life.

=X=, could you please post some pictures of your 700? I suppose there is still a chance that there is some variation in the sceens, and perhaps you got one of the good ones?

[astra]

I don't believe any pictures will do the job. One has to go and have a look at it.

[johnnyr]

Originally Posted by astra

I don't believe any pictures will do the job. One has to go and have a look at it.

I would agree, except that I've already done that, and as I said, all three salesmen, my fiance, and one other on-looker all agreed the 700 was dull, fuzzy, and not as enjoyable to read.

I'm trying to understand how =X= could think differently =)

Here's a pic I took. 700 is on the left (as if you can't tell) The picture accurately represents what it looks like...and in fact may make it look a bit better then what it is.

[MerLock]

Originally Posted by johnnyr

I want to like the 700, I really do, but yeah, the screen is a dealbreaker for me, along with the 5 hour battery life.

Where did you see just 5 hours of battery life? I checked the sony us website and under specs. I see

"Battery Life (Approx.) : Up to 7,500 continuous page turns (or up to two weeks worth of reading)2"

Isn't that like the 500 and 505? A 5 hour battery life def. would be another bummer.

[johnnyr]

The 5 hours was accordiing to the sony rep. He said this was without the light. He may have been exaggerating, but by how much I don't know.

[igorsk]

Originally Posted by guguy

I totally agree with you. Once more, as already stated, since the PRS-700
has got twice as much ram as the 505 and a much faster cpu new features
added later to the 700 will probably not be available on the 505, just like the
500 hadn't enough RAM to support adobe de.

The "500 hadn't enough RAM to support adobe de" is like an urban myth. It is just a hypothesis proposed by some of the posters here and was not confirmed by Sony in any way. I'm quite sure the real reason was business logistics and not hardware limitations.

[guguy]

Originally Posted by johnnyr

The 5 hours was accordiing to the sony rep. He said this was without the light. He may have been exaggerating, but by how much I don't know.

When performing heavy calculations the cpu of the PRS-700
(freescale i.MX31) consumes about as much at 533mhz than the one of the
PRS-500/505 (freescale i.MXL) at 200mhz, that's to say around 1W
(according to datasheets). And the i.MX31 includes much more efficient
power saving capabilities. The epson controller may need more juice but
definitely not enough to drain the battery life significantely faster.
So the only factor remaining is the screen, since it's the same one as on the 505
with a pressure-sensor touchscreen it means it consumes as much
as the one of the 505 when the touchscreen isn't used and you would really
have to use it intensely to drain the battery in five hours !

Conclusion : the guy who told you that is definitely smoking too much
weed.

[guguy]

Originally Posted by igorsk

The "500 hadn't enough RAM to support adobe de" is like an urban myth. It is just a hypothesis proposed by some of the posters here and was not confirmed by Sony in any way. I'm quite sure the real reason was business logistics and not hardware limitations.

Hadrien, who was still recently planning to launch a reader supporting epub files,
told me once that you need 128mb to read them properly so I don't even know
how they did to get adobe de working on the 505.