Is the paperwhite worth it over the basic kindle?

[Tarana]

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

I've had a couple of full spectrum lights, but didn't like being limited to one location, and they always seemed to cast a hot spot or create shadows on the page. I do like them for hand sewing etc. My eyes are really sensitive to non-diffused light, partly from a neurological issue I have.

The evenness of the front-lit screens really works well for me.

That's why I often qualify my suggestions. If you have vision problems, you have much more specific requirements than someone who has none. I have issues myself, but I remember what it was like before I started losing vision!

[Victoria]

I love my paperwhites, and I would definitely agree they are a better investment, if you can afford it. But I still use the older 1st generation kindle touch, for reading in bed every night. (Backlit screen lights supposedly intrupt our sleep cycles.)

The older model works just fine, though it does have a book cover with a built in light. If I’m interested in the book, I’m not at all distracted by the lower quality screen. And the new basic model you’re considering would be a step up in screen quality, weight, etc, from my kindle touch. So you can get some great reading in, whichever way you go. Good luck with your decision!

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

If you always read in a well-lit room or outside, the basic Kindle is a good choice. The lack of any layer in front of the E-Ink screen makes it nicer, IMO, even though it's only 167ppi.

The one reader I brought with me in my bag when I moved to Boise, was the Kindle Basic. (Other readers will follow, some in the mail, some when I go get our stuff in the spring.) I tend to like whatever reader I'm using at the time but, with the ability to add my own fonts, the Kindle Basic is a very nice reader. Front lighting is nice in dim light, but it's a different experience than reading an unlit screen. If I have enough light, I prefer no front light.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Victoria

I love my paperwhites, and I would definitely agree they are a better investment, if you can afford it. But I still use the older 1st generation kindle touch, for reading in bed every night. (Backlit screen lights supposedly intrupt our sleep cycles.)

Perhaps, but no Kindle has a backlight, of course, and frontlighting is no different to any other external light falling on the screen.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I managed to leave my Kindle at home when on holiday last year, and I bought a basic Kindle at the airport. I must admit that I was pleased with it.

I got to the airport and sat down to read while waiting, and realized that I hadn't loaded the book I was going to read to this Kindle Basic. Then realized I could use my Blackberry Q10's hotspot feature to download the book. Worked great. Technology is sometimes kind of cool.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps, but no Kindle has a backlight, of course, and frontlighting is no different to any other external light falling on the screen.

It looks completely different — at least to my eyes. To me a non-front-lit reader has sharper fonts and (without the light layer) a screen with better contrast. Front-lit readers are very nice in dim light or in the dark, but (for me) non-front-lit readers are superior in good lighting. I understand it's personal taste, but it's what I see.

[BookCat]

I bought my paperwhite when I moved to a house with poor lighting. I still haven't changed the previous owner's silly lighting fixtures. At my former house, the lighting was great and I used my unlit Sony prs 505 for years.
If the OP's budget is really tight, maybe go for the Basic, but if the OP can stretch to it, the paperwhite is great incase you find yourself staying somewhere with poor lighting, or have a partner next to you.

[newkindlefun]

Personally, I can't read on a non-front-lit Kindle. I read in cafes, inside my room, at night... and even turning on the house light doesn't give me a good enough reading experience. It was a nightmare for me to try to read on it. (But I also keep my Paperwhite up to 8-12 when reading in the dark, which many people think is too bright).

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Pankh

I used to read a huge amount a few years ago, but the ease of just throwing up a youtube video on my phone before bed resulted in me not reading nearly as much as I used to. I'm looking to get a kindle get back into reading, but I'm not sure whether the paperwhite is worth the extra for me. I would always be reading with lights on, or in daylight, so I'm not sure that I would use the backlight very often. I don't need the waterproofing, and I kind of prefer the smaller footprint of the basic kindle. I am on a bit of a budget, so is there any reason why I should be getting the paperwhite over the basic version?

As stated above, the paperwhite is clearly better but how much better is (ahem) in the eye of the beholder. Your personal use case should guide you. If the price differential is significant you'll do fine with the basic. Otherwise the extra Paperwhite features add up to a more flexible and pleasing gadget.

If price is a factor do remember that Amazon runs regular sales before major holidays such as Valentine's day and Mother's Day. (Or even for no specific reason.) If you can wait you can get the Paperwhite for close to the regular price of the Basic or the Basic at an even lower price than normal.

[patrickt]

Right now we're talking a $20 difference. At regular price it's a $50 difference. Our opinion is being solicited but here's a URL of the OPs preferred sources.
https://youtu.be/RaCFj0-jrOw

[pdurrant]

It's interesting that the entry level kindle is faster on page turns and image zooms.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

It's interesting that the entry level kindle is faster on page turns and image zooms.

Probably due to the fact that it has a much lower-resolution screen, hence less data to move around.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Probably due to the fact that it has a much lower-resolution screen, hence less data to move around.

Well, yes, but in that case Amazon should have beefed up its processing power. Making the screen refresh slower than it is forced to be by the EInk screen seems foolish to me.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Well, yes, but in that case Amazon should have beefed up its processing power. Making the screen refresh slower than it is forced to be by the EInk screen seems foolish to me.

It seems acceptably fast to me. I don't recall anyone complaining about the speed of page turns.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It seems acceptably fast to me. I don't recall anyone complaining about the speed of page turns.

I'd never complained about the speed because I assumed it was the EInk limitation, and so there was no point in complaining.

Finding out that it's actually a processing speed limitation was a surprise.