Kobo Sage or Elipsa - move from 7"

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by meeera

The print is definitely too small for me to read comfortably!

I find that with almost all PB/MM paperbacks now. Even the 1950s to 1980s ones of same small print (6pt?) vary tremendously in reading quality. Also I've a lot of books printed more recently with poor smudged print even though it's larger (and some hardback), whereas my Victorian and pre 1914 printed books are perfectly easy to read.

So I've stopping buying fiction on paper.

[salamanderjuice]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Well, the photo shows a text that looks larger than the ebook screen, so either you've pasted wrong image or wrong paperback or mysterious ereader that's less than 7", or it's a strange optical illusion.
I've a Libra H2O and Libra 2 and loads of paperbacks where the text would fit on the screen. The Sage though is more paperback sized if you have margins, or fits the same amount as a larger paperback with small margins.

Despite what Amazon thinks you don't need much margin on ebooks. No issue with print registration, spine and opening it or dog-eared edges. Time Amazon stopped wasting the expensive eInk screen.

That's a Libra 2 in the photos. The screen is 7 diagonal. The screen is 5.6" long. A mass market paperback will be longer.

Here's a Libra Colour compared to a smaller than an English mass market paperback Japanese Bunkobon alongside a ruler:

https://imgur.com/Aed3sbo

It's still longer than the screen of the Libra, but you actually get the same content at a bigger font size because of margin differences:

https://imgur.com/iSgsb4d

EDIT: I don't get how image tags work here...

[cellaris]

Originally Posted by meeera

Comparing text areas instead of covers, here's a Libra 2 and a mass market paperback.

Sure, but you have to open books to read them, and the space they take up when open is the same as a 10" e-reader in landscape mode (where you effectively have the equivalent of two 7" e-readers side by side).

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by cellaris

Sure, but you have to open books to read them, and the space they take up when open is the same as a 10" e-reader in landscape mode (where you effectively have the equivalent of two 7" e-readers side by side).

The space taken is irrelevant.

Also humans can only read one page or column at a time. The physical nature of saving paper by 50% is why printed books use a two pages per leaf. There is no point in duplicating that on an electronic reader, though prototypes have been made. Obviously some non-reflowable content is printed on paper to use two leaves side by side. Almost only on illustrated books. Exceedingly rare with novels or normal textbooks.

The only real advantages of 10″ and larger
* Much bigger font for same amount of text
OR
* Able to read content that's not reflowable.

I had an Elipsa, and weirdly (or perhaps inevitably) the reMarkable has come back. I still have a working 9.7″ DXG, that amazingly still connects to Amazon (by EDGE version of 2G rather than 3G now).

So my experience, and everyone I know here*, is that 6″ to 8″ is fine for reflowable novels, with 8″ best in the house, and the 10″ is inferior for reflowable novels.

Also if it's not reflowable, even 10.3″ is often too small. I use 14.25″ for comics & PDFs and the 8″ Sage for novels.

Obviously having both sizes is handy. Though the 10.3″ eink isn't big enough to proof two page up PDFs for POD in landscape. I thought it would be, but it's not. The 14.25″ tablet only just manages that, but is OK.

(I think 17 people in the "family" now have eink ereaders, about age 10 to 75, the 90+ aged user reading under the blankets with front light has passed on)

But many other people I know only read on phones. In fact most bought ebooks are read on apps on phones, i.e. the majority of readers of ebooks.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by salamanderjuice

T

EDIT: I don't get how image tags work here...

Mostly they don't. Upload attachments.

An image tag will display an image elsewhere on this site.

Also external images can vanish (sad) or be changed later (moderation issues).

[cellaris]

Originally Posted by Quoth

The space taken is irrelevant.

It is relevant in terms of reading habits. A reader of printed books usually handles books that are bulkier and more difficult to hold (and heavier) than a 10" e-reader. And that is something that is often forgotten when discussing whether or not 10" e-readers are suitable for reading novels. The preference for smaller e-readers (and here everyone sets their own limit) has nothing to do with whether they are more or less similar to a printed book.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Well, the photo shows a text that looks larger than the ebook screen, so either you've pasted wrong image or wrong paperback or mysterious ereader that's less than 7", or it's a strange optical illusion..

I have not, so again please stop condescendingly correcting me when you are wrong. This is a Libra 2. Shorthanded ereader measurements are not the length dimension of the reader, they're the diagonal dimension of the display.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by cellaris

It is relevant in terms of reading habits. A reader of printed books usually handles books that are bulkier and more difficult to hold (and heavier) than a 10" e-reader. And that is something that is often forgotten when discussing whether or not 10" e-readers are suitable for reading novels.

It's definitely not forgotten by me - I have hand arthritis and hypermobility, and have all but stopped reading paper books for this reason.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by meeera

I have not, so again please stop condescendingly correcting me when you are wrong. This is a Libra 2. Shorthanded ereader measurements are not the length dimension of the reader, they're the diagonal dimension of the display.

Yes, obviously I'm mis-seeing the images. I'm not intending to criticise or be condescending. I was just confused.

However the size of the book or the size of the ereader isn't so important as the size/area of text of the paperback, excluding header and footer, versus the size of the screen. Obviously also the diagonal of the text size on paper is only a rough indication as aspect ratios vary. Display aspects also vary, but not so much for most eink.

[cellaris]

Originally Posted by meeera

It's definitely not forgotten by me - I have hand arthritis and hypermobility, and have all but stopped reading paper books for this reason.

Indeed, certain physical impairments are a good reason to prefer smaller, lighter e-readers. I have pointed this out in other threads (although in these cases, I think 6" is a more suitable size than 7" or 8"). However, the opposite can also be true, in which case you may need a larger screen due to vision problems.

But what I am trying to point out is that the size and weight of a 10" e-reader is not unusual compared to what a reader of printed books is used to. I was reviewing the list of best-selling printed books in my country last month, and all of them are larger than a 10" e-reader and weigh more than 400 grams. These are books that you can find in any bookshop and that people buy and read regularly without any major problems (and not just at home). My bookshelves are full of books of different sizes, large and small, and to say that one size is better than another for reading novels seems absurd to me. All sizes, both in printed books and e-readers, are suitable for reading novels. And when deciding between one or the other, many factors come into play that each person must assess individually. But it is still a matter of personal preference.

Is there really an ideal size for reading novels among the books in the attached image, and are other sizes unsuitable? Why can you read novels in a large book but not on a 10" e-reader, which is smaller in size and weight?

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by cellaris

Why can you read novels in a large book but not on a 10" e-reader, which is smaller in size and weight?

Well, I can't. I nearly always read mass market paperbacks, very seldom hardcovers or large trade paperbacks, and those were a major pain to read. I definitely can't hold a 10" ereader comfortably.

[cellaris]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Well, I can't. I nearly always read mass market paperbacks, very seldom hardcovers or large trade paperbacks, and those were a major pain to read. I definitely can't hold a 10" ereader comfortably.

On the other hand, many other people can. They have no problem reading books measuring 23 x 15 cm, weighing more than 400 g.

(Right now, I'm reading on a 10" e-reader while eating at the table, and I have no problem with the weight because I'm not holding it. The situations in which people read are very diverse, and personal preferences vary greatly. Everyone should choose what suits them best, but I still don't see why I can't read a novel on a 10" e-reader).

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by cellaris

Everyone should choose what suits them best, but I still don't see why I can't read a novel on a 10" e-reader).

YOU can. I can't, or at least not in any way that would be comfortable for me.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by cellaris

Is there really an ideal size for reading novels among the books in the attached image, and are other sizes unsuitable? Why can you read novels in a large book but not on a 10" e-reader, which is smaller in size and weight?

I think that's a simple question with a complicated answer, that varies per person.

Part of it is text width:
1. If you need a really big font, then 10″ is better than 6, 7 or 8.
2. At common font size the lines might be too long on 10″, but you can read two pages side by side in landscape or have big margins.

Weight: Obviously a book with more than about 50,000 words at a reasonable font size, or highly illustrated on "art" paper, or a serious text book is heavy. It's not that people choose to read heavy paper books because they are heavy, it's an unavoidable side effect of the content. A 32 Gbyte ereader with only illustration-free novels might be able to hold 18,000 ebooks. That could be 175 bookcases, a considerable weight to move. So many people like to be able to read an ebook of LotR or War and Peace, or 600+ page fantasy epics or a Bible without the weight. Personally I read heavy books (weight) for decades before getting an ereader and I don't miss that.

Size, as in width and length: Paper novels tend to just get fatter, though many novels have an outer larger length than even 8″ ereader. Some books, especially with photo illustrations, are much larger than a 10″ ereader, but if it's a novel, in reflowable text, then a more portable ereader is nice. Sadly 5″ are gone. The 6 and 7 are more portable than 8″, though there are jackets that take an 8″ Kobo Sage I've not seen one that takes a 9.7″ or larger. You can use a bag of some description. If you only read at home then a 10″ might suit.

For some content there is no affordable eink large enough, or with good enough colour, then a 14.25″ TCL Nxtpaper 14 (or similar, not a shiny tablet) is a good compromise.

I'd like a new 300 dpi 5″ for very portable. I have the old falling apart Sony PRS-350 in that size. The P47L mini ereader (4.7″ elongated) was too small and limited and my Nxtpaper phone is better. I have also 6, 6.8, 7, 7.8, 8, 9.7 and 10.3 inch approx 3:4 aspect ereaders in eink. I have two ancient LCD ereaders.

I read reflowable novels most on 8″ Kobo Sage eInk. Notes on a 10.9″ TCL Nxtpaper 11 (approx 10:16 aspect and PDFs, magazines, comics, etc on a 14.25″ TCL Nxtpaper 14 (2:3 aspect or 3:2 aspect for two page in Landscape).

So most flexible solution is to have all the sizes of ereader, after all, printed books come in roughly miniscule A7 sized to huge A3 size.

There is no perfect answer till there are ereaders like the communicators in Earth: Final Conflict.

Cost: You can buy a mono 6″ Kobo, 8″ Kobo and 14.25″ Nxtpaper 14 (non-pro) and covers and pens all for less than the price of a decent iPad. Maybe less than the price of a PS5 pro with 2T storage.

A Sage in Ireland is about the cost of 25 local average non-discount paperbacks (we have a high VAT rate for electronics and paper books are zero VAT).

My original reason for buying an ereader wasn't to buy ebooks. I'd been trying to read Gutenberg free ebooks on screen for over 15 years. Also printing a draft of a novel was expensive and time consuming. So now I've about 7,000 PD ebooks and have saved a fortune in ink, toner and paper by proof & anotating on Kindle, then Kobo for more than a decade. Maybe 160,000 A4 pages saved.

I copy / paste to LO Writer, or save HTML with wget to read larger amounts of web content as decently formatted epub, via docx and Calibre.

Get as many sizes as possible, or at least two sizes.

[salamanderjuice]

The dimensions of a 10.3" eReader screenreally aren't that big. As shown by my post on the first page it's less than a typical hardcover novel (~9" x 6"). For people that like the hardcover experience it makes sense. You're going to get similar content at the same font size with smaller margins.

Yes, it's heavier and bigger and that doesn't work for all. But it does make total sense why someone might enjoy reading a novel on a 10.3" screen. It's certainly not outrageously big nor too wide.