Touchscreen vs. non-touch

I read some time ago that the CF-29 touchscreens had worse outdoor readability then the non touch version. Is this still true of the latest cf-30?

Also is it true that the touch screen can make things slightly washed out compared to a non touch? (can somebody provide a side by side comparison picture of this effect?)

thanks

 

Sorry, I just sold my touchscreen (was non functional though) CF-29, so can't provide a pic. However, I kept the non-touch one because the screen is brighter and crisper without the touchscreen. I believe the way it works is that the touchscreen is actually another transparent layer in front of the LCD, so it makes sense that some light is lost and the image is slightly blurred when viewing the screen through the touch layer.

FWIW, I'm very happy with my non-touch CF-29's screen's viewability, but was somewhat disappointed with the viewability of the touch screen. I'd say it lost about 10% brightness, and the pixels were quite noticeably blurrier (in comparison to non-touchscreen LCD). This was all really important to me as I plan to use it about 50% of the time outside, and my eyes aren't all that great anyway.

Aerik

 

The CF-29 models are rated at 500 NIT I believe... Both touch and non-touch models. The touchscreen does take away some of that brightness but it then depends on the age and condition of the LCD.... I have a CF-29 that is almost as bright as my CF-30.

The CF-30 comes as 500 NIT for non-touch and 1000 NIT for touchscreen models. (At least when I bought mine.... Perhaps offerings have changed on MK3 models?) My CF-30 will BLIND you at 1000 nit and I have never had an issue reading it outside. As a matter of fact... I normally turn it down substantially.

 

As I spend a lot of time to play with my PDAs, so now I can not use non-touch screen CF-29 even if the brightness and clear view is better than touch-screen.

But actually, the view of touch-screen still is really good.

I usually use Photoshop with my finger since I got touch-screen. I even if forgot my big expensive logitech mouse. LOL.

The most important thing is that, I don't use my TB outdoor much, just about 5% of time or less. So the screen just is good enough for me.

However, I found that, the combination of a Touch panel from old version touch screen + LCD of Mk5 = the best view (I used a Mk4 with touch-screen, and since I swap them together to get that combination, the brightness of my touch-screen gained at least 25% compare with the old one, and I am so happy with that "invention" LOL ).

 

has the blurriness of the pixels gotten better with the cf-30s compared to the 29s or is it simply inherent to touchscreens and can not be fixed?

 

Please re-read post #3

 

I can't speak of the 29's screens, just on the 30's.
I have a MK2 500 Nit Non Touch, and a MK3 touch with 1000 Nit. I find when I am outside the Touch screen could be brighter, meaning 1000 Nits could go up in my opinion. When you are inside though, 1K Nits is pretty dang bright.

The 500 Nit is kinda wierd. It's like I never find myself saying I wish I had another 500 Nits so I can see.... Though I don't use my MK2 outside anymore. She is my inside queen now, my MK3 gets it rough.

I cannot tell any difference at all with the clarity between the 2.

 

Sorry for not being clear; I meant the blurriness of the pixles (sharpness?) not the brightness difference.

Could you take side by side pictures, indoors and comparable brightness? Maybe a screen with a lot of text on it would be good measure of the difference in pixel definition between touch and non touch.


thanks