Switching from a Sony?

[Latinandgreek]

I would probably have a look at the new Sonys (350, 650 and 950) and the Kobo. If you live in the U.S. you might want to have a look at the new Nook as well. I moved from a PRS-505 to a 350 and I love it. While the Kindle seems like a great device, I personally wouldn't want to have to go through the trouble of converting all of my books, especially since there are some great devices being sold that can read ePub. Also, I really like the Sony's UI and the added dictionaries.

[geertm]

Originally Posted by chas0039

You can have your opinion, but you are wrong. I have looked at both and my judgement is backed up by reviewers here and here and here and here and here.

There seems to be a small difference in screen quality sometimes, but that is not caused by the touchscreen. There is no touchscreen layer! Infrared light is invisible!
The difference is probably caused by the font rendering. There is a long complex thread in the Nook forum here at Mobileread that explains why depending on the book and the chosen font, font rendering of the Nook Touch is not always optimal. As this is all just software I expect this will be improved with future updates.
Anyway, in real life this is really not such a large, visible difference.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by chas0039

You can have your opinion, but you are wrong. I have looked at both and my judgement is backed up by reviewers here and here and here and here and here.

Holy irrelevance, Überbat. How do a series of comparisons between the Kindle, various Nooks and the iRiver pertain to a discussion about PRS-generation Sony Readers with Pearl touchscreens, especially since half of the non-Sony eReaders compared don't even use a Pearl screen in the first place?

Most of the blogs seem to be comparing the K3 to the iRiver Story HD, which no one here has even mentioned. The one comparison that talks about the Nook ST is more relevant, but I still didn't see comparisons to the PRS series.

Additionally, in every case in your post, you've linked to the entire blog and not the individual entry, which effectively makes anyone who wants to know what you're talking about have to do your homework: (1) Figuring out which of twenty entries on the page is the one you mean, (2) attempting to determine why you mentioned the one relevant entry and (3) what words or phrases might get the reader closer to said relevant post, which the reader would know if you gave some sort of synopsis in your links.

I don't usually demand that strangers posting on the internet observe my personal hyperlink grooming habits, but for the love of Yahweh Crochet, if you want us to accept your point, shouldn't you be a wee Hank less indolent about presenting corroborating evidence?

BTW: One of your blog entries contains this phase, which alludes to differences in presentation, subjective or not, being caused by something other than the screen itself. I know that doesn't address the point you're making, but it does address EatingPie as quoted by DP:

[M]y eyes, which are used to the Pearl Screen as implemented for the Kindle 3 . . .

[afv011]

Nevermind.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by chas0039

You can have your opinion, but you are wrong. I have looked at both and my judgement is backed up by reviewers here and here and here and here and here.

It is not an opinion, it is a fact: adding an infrared grid on top of an eInk screen does not affect contrast or glare.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by afv011

It is not an opinion, it is a fact: adding an infrared grid on top of an eInk screen does not affect contrast or glare.

Specifically the infrared transmitters and receivers are embedded in the frame... there is NOTHING overlaying the screen unless you're some weird mutant that has eyes capable of seeing into the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum...

[chas0039]

Look, I'm not going to get into an argument with people who have technical reasons why things that do look different should not look different.

I had a nook for a year until I found something better; the Kindle has more contrast.

I have seen the nook touch and the Kindle has more contrast.

I have read NUMEROUS articles and impartial reviews that say touch screens have LESS contrast, specifically the nook touch. Even Amazon is concerned about the loss in their new touch model.

I have seen numbers of pictures from others pointing out the same thing. Look at my links.

If you have some links to any reviews that state that the nook touch has the the same contrast as the Kindle 3, I will be happy to read them. Until then, I'll stick with my statements.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by chas0039

Look, I'm not going to get into an argument with people who have technical reasons why things that do look different should not look different.

I had a nook for a year until I found something better; the Kindle has more contrast.

I have seen the nook touch and the Kindle has more contrast.

I have read NUMEROUS articles and impartial reviews that say touch screens have LESS contrast, specifically the nook touch. Even Amazon is concerned about the loss in their new touch model.

I have seen numbers of pictures from others pointing out the same thing. Look at my links.

If you have some links to any reviews that state that the nook touch has the the same contrast as the Kindle 3, I will be happy to read them. Until then, I'll stick with my statements.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, you stated, in no uncertain terms, that - and I quote - "touch screens, they have lower contrast than the Kindle". That was true of the original touch screen devices that had an additional layer for the touch, but it is no longer true of today's devices.

The screen used in the Kindle 3, Nook touch, Kobo touch, Sony 650, ... are all based on Pearl. Within the tolerances of different batches, the screens perform identical on all devices, whether there is an infrared grid on top or not. There are additional, minor, differences due to the font rendering engine, but those should be minor. The point remains that all these devices have the same screen technology, and the screen is not affected, to any degree, by having an infrared grid used for touch interface.

[Ditchleyportrait]

look, can we get someone with both kindle and nook to settle this.

op get the kobo touch. they have kobo programmers or developers on the kobo forum at mobileread.

or iriver story hd. but in your case it seems like kobo touch would be optimal. just a hunch. iriver story hd has best screen. native google ebook support.

[Pomtroll]

Well I have the Kindle 3 & Sony 350 & decided to compare them last night side by side. And I kept trying to find a difference & to MY eyes I could not. Not scientific, but satisfies me.

[delphin]

The idea that the newer 'touch' readers with IR touch screens have lower contrast is absurd, and indicates a total lack of understanding about how these newer touch screens work.

Just to clarify what has already been pointed out, the touch sensing is accomplished by an infrared sensing array that is built into the bezel frame surrounding the screen, SO THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE IN THE SCREEN ITSELF.

There are differences in the default fonts, and slight differences in font rendering, but these differences tend to be fairly subtle.

If you arrange a test where a Sony, Nook STR, and Kindle are all displaying the same text, in the same font, at the same character size and spacing, then the differences are pretty small.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by chas0039

You can have your opinion, but you are wrong. I have looked at both and my judgement is backed up by reviewers here and here and here and here and here.

What we need to see if the same picture on screen. It's not a good idea to compare the nook's screen to the Kindle's when the nook has a substandard font rendering engine that can render the font lighter then it should be. If you think that eink is cheating the public by making different Pearl screens, you do so.

[vishcompany]

Originally Posted by libraryaddict

My Sony PRS-505 has died. Cracked substrate, apparently, and it will cost more to repair than to replace. I loved it, but it was only two years old, so I'm not terribly impressed with the durability. I'm thinking of switching to a Kindle - partly for the wifi, partly because the screen seems good. BUT

- I have quite a large library of epub and Adobe files. Could I convert it using Calibre? Is it difficult?
- Would the Kindle be any more durable?
- I don't really like the idea of being tied to Amazon as a bookseller

Has anybody here made the switch? Any advice?

Thank you!

(I know Sony has new models coming out in October, but I have a two week holiday in September, and I'd like a new reader before that!)

Durability:
As was stated already before, the glass substrate does brake, no matter, which company installed it in whatever device. However, a sturdy frame gives better protection and if I'm not mistaken, Sony is the company, which provides this asset by using a metal body, contrary to amazon, kobo and nook.
If the screen of your 505 broke after two years, a kindle/kobo/whatever-housed-in-plastic screen probably would have broken already much earlier.

Booksellers:
I buy books from various sources, including Amazon. They all go through calibre first: It's a great and simple-to-use tool to manage your books. I didn't even bother to register the sony to ADE. Apprentice Alf is your friend, if you don't want to be tied to any bookstore.

Screen Quality:
If you liked your 505 (just as I liked my Gen3), you will love any device with a pearl screen (the latest models of Amazon, Sony, Kobo and nook). The little discussion about screens - though it took a lot of space - is of minor relevance to the decision, you have to make.


I have made the switch, though the other way around: Going from a Gen3 to a 350 and I love it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by chas0039

I have read NUMEROUS articles and impartial reviews that say touch screens have LESS contrast, specifically the nook touch. Even Amazon is concerned about the loss in their new touch model.

IR touch screens have NO impact on image quality. That is not an opinion; it's a simple fact. There is nothing "physical" above the screen TO affect the image.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by chas0039

I have read NUMEROUS articles and impartial reviews that say touch screens have LESS contrast, specifically the nook touch. Even Amazon is concerned about the loss in their new touch model.

Can you post links to any of these articles that are from more reputable sites then the one you previously linked? I'm just curious if they are recent or old articles. I have a 650 and I have seen the Kindle and the nook STR. There is nothing impeding the clarity of the screen. These articles may have been talking about the touch layer that was previously used. IR touch has no effect on screen clarity as it adds nothing to cover the screen.