Do you own more than 1 ereader?

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by kcladyz

I have same issue without glasses. You probably need glasses LOL

I have the light issues with glasses on.
Curiosity: are you near or far sighted?
Just from asking here: it seems near-sighted people have more problems with lighted devices.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I have the light issues with glasses on.
Curiosity: are you near or far sighted?
Just from asking here: it seems near-sighted people have more problems with lighted devices.

I'm near-sighted. I used to be able to see extremely well "close-up" (could work on small objects without a magnifying glass) but not as much any more. Maybe I'm heading towards "neither-sighted." I still don't wear glasses to use the computer or read. Basically they're just my "driving" or "watching TV" glasses. All other times they're off.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I'm near-sighted. I used to be able to see extremely well "close-up" (could work on small objects without a magnifying glass) but not as much any more. Maybe I'm heading towards "neither-sighted." I still don't wear glasses to use the computer or read. Basically their just my "driving" or "watching TV" glasses. All other times they're off.

I have bifocals. Hubby has tri.

[maddz]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I have bifocals. Hubby has tri.

I have varifocals and don’t have issues. I usually take them off when I’m reading (physical or digital) or doing close work like sewing. Otherwise I wear them all the time. I do have a pair of fixed focus Reactolites which I use for sunglasses or long-distance driving, especially at night, and the only other time I routinely use them is after a retinopathy screen or when the lenses are being replaced in my other pair.

I primarily read on the iPad or iPhone, and use the Icarus when I’m reading a non-Amazon purchase.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I'm near-sighted. I used to be able to see extremely well "close-up" (could work on small objects without a magnifying glass) but not as much any more. Maybe I'm heading towards "neither-sighted." I still don't wear glasses to use the computer or read. Basically their just my "driving" or "watching TV" glasses. All other times they're off.

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I have bifocals. Hubby has tri.

I have trifocals, an optivisor and a Meiji EMZ-5 Binocular Microscope. I used to only need the optivisor for the small stuff. Now, between my eyes and diamonds getting even smaller than they were, I need a microscope.



Apache

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by kcladyz

The oasis cover and ipad smart cover really does not protect. They do not seem to make cases that covers the whole device.

Yeah. We all want the thinnest, lightest case. Then, when we drop and break the device, we're like 'cheap case!'

After dropping and shattering my brand new (at the time) Nexus 6, I was 'convinced' that I had to get an Otterbox-like tank of a case for the new one. My phone is now the size of a brick. But I haven't broken it.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Apache

I have trifocals, an optivisor and a Meiji EMZ-5 Binocular Microscope. I used to only need the optivisor for the small stuff. Now, between my eyes and diamonds getting even smaller than they were, I need a microscope.



Apache

Hubby has the optivisor. It does come in handy at times. I have a magnifying glass for doing small cross stitch work.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

After dropping and shattering my brand new (at the time) Nexus 6, I was 'convinced' that I had to get an Otterbox-like tank of a case for the new one. My phone is now the size of a brick. But I haven't broken it.

I know. Every time I see these thinner and thinner smartphones I think, "Why bother? They're going to put the things in a bulky case anyhow."

[Apache]

Manufacturers are using diamonds as small as .50 mm that is .0012 CT. That figures out to 834 .50 diamonds in a carat. Setting or repairing diamonds that small requires stronger optics than an optivisor.
Apache

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Apache

Manufacturers are using diamonds as small as .50 mm that is .0012 CT. That figures out to 834 .50 diamonds in a carat. Setting or repairing diamonds that small requires stronger optics than an optivisor.
Apache

Yep, that would require a microscope.

[ucfgrad93]

No, I only own a Kindle Paperwhite 2nd generation.

[booklover6]

The Kobo Mini is much nicer, and newer, than the original Touch. (I have one of each). The battery on the Touch here is not very good. The item is large and clunky, but it does have a nice home button. Still, I prefer the Mini over the original Touch in all ways. If you can get a Mini for under $50, I'd say it would be well worth it. Especially since you don't want a lighted reader, then I'd say the Kobo Mini is the best one you can get! (Though I haven't compared it to the latest unlighted Kindle Touch).

Originally Posted by rcentros

I picked up a PRS-350 on Shop Goodwill last week, that's supposed to ship tomorrow (today). I'm looking forward to trying it out. The one Kobo I would like to pick up (if I could get one at a "reasonable price" (i.e. cheap)) is a Kobo Mini. I would love to see a 5" Kindle.

EDIT: (I shouldn't say "the one Kobo," because I'm also thinking of picking up a Kobo Touch (more likely of the two). Whatever happened to the Kobo Touch 2? It seems like it came out and was gone in the same week.)

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by booklover6

The Kobo Mini is much nicer, and newer, than the original Touch. (I have one of each). The battery on the Touch here is not very good. The item is large and clunky, but it does have a nice home button. Still, I prefer the Mini over the original Touch in all ways. If you can get a Mini for under $50, I'd say it would be well worth it. Especially since you don't want a lighted reader, then I'd say the Kobo Mini is the best one you can get! (Though I haven't compared it to the latest unlighted Kindle Touch).

$50?! I said "cheap," man, cheap! Kobo Minis are rarer then hen's teeth on eBay. I'll probably "make do" with my (soon to arrive) Sony PRS-350 as my small eReader. I'm about to cull some of my eReaders anyhow. It becomes a chore just to try to keep them all charged.

But, eventually, I want some kind of non-front-lit Kobo (and not the original WiFi, which leaves me with the Touch or Mini) so I can get a toe-hold back in the Kobo world.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by rcentros

$50?! I said "cheap," man, cheap! Kobo Minis are rarer then hen's teeth on eBay. I'll probably "make do" with my (soon to arrive) Sony PRS-350 as my small eReader. I'm about to cull some of my eReaders anyhow. It becomes a chore just to try to keep them all charged.

But, eventually, I want some kind of non-front-lit Kobo (and not the original WiFi, which leaves me with the Touch or Mini) so I can get a toe-hold back in the Kobo world.

To some $50 is cheap. To us spoiled ones, sometimes $20 is too high.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

To some $50 is cheap. To us spoiled ones, sometimes $20 is too high.

I just remember when Kobo Minis showed up all the time on eBay for about $30. I also remember when you could walk into Best Buy and see them displayed (new) for something like $60 – can't remember exactly how much, but it sure wasn't $200 like someone is asking for new Minis on eBay now. But this is the way this works. When Sony first quit selling eReaders you could find refurbished T2s and new T3s pretty cheap but, eventually, the supply runs out and they become "collectables." And that's the other problem, I'm basically just "collecting." If the Mini was going to be my "goto" Reader I might be able to justify the going prices, but it's mostly just going to sit around looking "pretty." On the other hand, Touches seem to be much more widely available so, if I'm just getting a Kobo to get my toe in the Kobo world, that would work as well as the Mini. What's really odd, is that Glos can cost about the same as Touches, but I already tried a Glo and couldn't get used to the front-light.

Sorry to ramble. I do that "sometimes."