1600x900 or 1366x768 resolution of Sony Z?

Z590 offer 1600x900 resolution and Z540 offer 1366x768 resolution.
does anybody have made a comprison both of them side by side?

Questions:

1. Whether 1600x900 resolution is too small to read on such small size screen (13.1")?

2. Whether is worth to pay extra money for the 1600x900 resolution?

3. Regardless of the resolution, whether both of them have same specification? I mean brightness, contrast, etc.

Thanks a lot

 

1&2) It's personal, go check them out in real life. Other people's opinion won't help you.

My opinion: 1600*900 is too small.

3) yes very similar.

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=3897486&postcount=3097

 

on a 13.3" screen, 1600x900 will be tiny. 1366x768 should be more than sufficient.

 

:S

I'd kinda like the smaller resolution myself, but in Canada, they pretty much only sell the 1600x900 units.

 

I like hi res myself,but it is really personal-you need to check yourself.

 

yeah, personal opinion. 1600x900 for me. 1366x768 doesn't have enough real estate to work with....especially when you're used to working on a 30" 2560x1600 LCD

 

1 vote for 1600x900.it beatiful also the text not so small.

 

I would also go for the 1600x900, I have the 1920x1080 in 16.4 on my fw and the text size is fine.

people wanted my age 25, and I was originally using a 19 in monitor with 1600x1200 resolution.

 

This thread has some techniques you can use to decide:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=3901653

Obviously the best way is to see it in a store. Personally, I like the high res 1600x900 version of the Z because obviously you get a lot more working area and for me the text is still quite clear for my eyes.

 

I think you really need to see it in person. The thing is it's kind of hard in US to find stores carrying 1600x900 Z. I could only find 1366x768 Z520 in Best Buy around the area I live. You may have to find a TZ or TT instead to get a feel for the 1600x900 Z

 

I have the 1600x900 and I think it is too small. If I did not connect it to an external monitor most of the time, I would really regret my choice.

 

I think it would be good if people posted up their age (no offense!!) and how good their eyesight is. It seems that most younger people with good eyesight love the higher resolution, whole older people with not so great eyesight obviously love the lower resolutions.

It would be nice to see how many younger people with good eyesight still don't enjoy the higher resolution and wished they had a lower resolution.

 

Another vote for 1600x900, depending on your eyesight.

If you do the math, 1600x900 on a 13.1" screen yields 140dpi
On the TZ/TT, the 1366x768 on its 11.1" screen yields 141dpi

So as Skyshade noted, check out a a TZ/TT to get an idea for the resolution.

 

I have the 1600x900 and love it. The extra space is very useful for Photoshop, especially. I'm 30 and have pretty good eyesight (when I'm wearing my glasses!).

 

If you will use it without plugging into an external monitor, I would go with the lower res. Your eyes will thank you for it.

I tried the 1600x900 and even though everything was clear, I always found myself zooming into everything. I mean... really? Having to zoom on my 2000$ laptop. I think not.

 

I'm 36 and my eyesight is very good according to the latest tests, without glasses. Still I prefer a larger pixel.

It's really a personal preference, the OP should go check it out in real life, like I said 20 posts ago If they don't have a Z find a TZ or anything else with comparable PPI.

One thing is tricky though, working for 10 minutes in a store is something completely different than working 3 hours on it.

Also, working on a table is very different than working on your lap. On the lap the distance to the screen is larger.

What I would like to know is how many of the people that are voting 1600*900 actually own a Z with that resolution. Infy is one of them, but what about the others. I've owned a TZ and a Z (short while) so I know what it's like to work on it for long hours.

 

I had Z590 1600x900 for a couple of days. For my usage - Web surfing, writing papers, and misc minor gaming - I found the text on sites TOO small and had to strain my eyes while reading long stories, etc.. even increasing DPI from 90 to 120 it helped but than it caused distortion in images etc..

On the first day of using it I was VERY happy with the real estate and great color saturation of it! but.. it took more than 2 days for me to say, no I would rather have small res I cannot strain my eyes like this, I want to feel normal and not compromise.. (reading newsblogs etc)

It depends on your eyesight, sensitivity, and usage needs - do you need large screen real estate or can you be content with the lesser one with sharp easy to read text on webpages?

its a personal preference proportional to usage, I am glad I returned mine after all as those few weeks of owning it have 'really' given me perspective on what I am ordering next!

 

Right that's the way it is goes. You really need to own it for 2 days to make the judgement.

Anyone who hasn't owned it can not really judge it, in my opinion.

At first I was also saying i would prefer 1600*900.

 

...ok... so I just found I can get the Z540 here in Canada off of sonystyle.ca.

I do kinda fear that 1600x900 is too small on a 13.1" widescreen... I think I'm going to lean towards it.

Are there any distinct differences between the 540 and the 590, or is the screen resolution the only true difference between the model numbers?

 

definitely personal. I love the 1600x900 because I use Office a lot...I also use the + - magnification on the Sony Function keys that work well, you can also scale with the wheel+ctrl, or magnify with the glass. Sooo many options to go larger. BTW the screen is really clear.

 

I believe the 1366 mode comes with 128 DDR3 VRAM, while the 1600 models come with 256MB. But better double check that.

 

Yep. just checked. You're right on PhilFlow. Only differences appear to be:

Resolution size
VRAM amounts
Capacity to add blu-ray burner.

That's about it.

 

Also the z590 offers SSD and Premium Carbon Lid, while the z540 does not.

 

How much effective difference would there be in terms of VRAM differences?

Is 256 vram significantly better than the 128 vram?

 

man threads around here get off topic so fast...video ram has nothing to do with screen resolution

 

Not entirely Buddy17.

With the smaller res, you are forced to 128 mb VRAM, and are given no SSD or blu-ray options. With the higher res, you're forced to 256 mb VRAM, and have SSD/blu-ray options.

Its more covering all the bases rather than not saying anything at all. I would personally prefer to know more than less.

 

Not really. In gaming there might be a small difference, but even then people say 128MB is enough for Nvidia 9300.

 

I'd went for the 1600x900 which is one of my main reasons for getting the Sony Z.

As mentioned, there so are so many options to go larger.

My eyesight is far from perfect as i have a Fujitsu work laptop @ 1440 x 900 but the screen is awful. I find it too small, dull, grainy basically a very poor screen.

With the Sony Z, even though the resolution is even smaller, it's so so clear to read because of the screen quality.

I would say pop into a Sony Store and see one for yourself.

 

The comments about what you intend to use it for are very relevant to this choice. If I were to be browsing the web, programming and using the Z as my main/sole PC, I would definitely prefer the lower res.
But as my Z is secondary to my main work and home systems, I prefer the extra screen real estate of the higher res. For video watching and Photoshop use when out and about, the higher res is great. (I also use my Z for some browsing and coding etc, but not often for hours at a time - I use my desktops for that.)

 

^ Good point. I mainly used it as a deluxe netbook.

 

One of he Reason's I bought the Z was that this 13.1" Screen indeed does support 1600x900. What a nice tiny resolution and I love it every day.

BTW, I am 40+ years old and wear glasses.

Still I like it small. On my desktop PC I run 2560x1600. Alright, on a 30" Screen, but still.

Rambler

 

I'm only 21 and I got the Z555N 2 months ago, 1600x900 is too tiny for me !

 

To each his own huh?

Well... I got the 1600x900... here goes nothing! XD

I'm probably sure i'll just get used to it an enjoy it. I didn't have problems reading 1280x768 on my friend's 10 or 11" VAIO... so I'm hoping this is similar.

 

Hi,

I own the Z11 with 1600x900 as well as the Macbook Air with 1280x800. The first 3 days I had it, I was in marvel with the screen. Now, about 1 week later I still am in terms of sharpness. But... for websurfing, I have to zoom in. I have perfect eyesight, and can read it without zooming. However, 2 hours of reading without zooming would make me tired, so I zoom in. Then again, on google search results, I zoom out to see more. It's not funny anymore. Friend of mine saw it today and said the same: wow! And after 2 hours... : "better lower res" So I found my love for my Macbook Air again ;-)

For picture viewing: perfect! For movies: don't think so, since it would need to interpolate anyway.

By the way: I should have known better, since I owned about 6 months a Sony TX (1330 on 11") and I allways got agressive after 3-4 hours of working.

 

If someone gets the 1600 x 900 resolution and scales it down to 1366 x 768, how bad would the resulting picture look? Do people actually use non-native screen resolution?

I had 14.1 inches screen with 1280 x 800, and the font looked comfortable. I will assume the 1600 x 900 on a 13.1 will be much much smaller right?

On my desktop, the screen resolution is 1280 x 800 on a 22 inches screen, while the native recommended is 1680 x 1050. The highest just looks way too small =(

 

Imagine that resolution on a 13" instead of 22" and you get the picture.

 

Well... I use 1680x1050 at home, and I sit about two meters from my monitor, and I can read fine. I'm estimating about half a meter away from my laptop most of the time... so I think I should be ok... hopefully. Please?

 

1366x768 for me. 1600x900 is just too small for me. Yeah, dizzyness and constant eyestrain. I wear glasses.

 

after almost a month, I have finally got used to 1600x900, although I wish I took 1366x768. Everything too small for me, especially Outlook and I use text zoom for FF. Comparing to TZ (1366x768,11") on Z everything looks even smaller (a bit smaller, but still smaller). As I said I got used to it, but it was real pain in the eyes first few weeks. Never had this "adaptation issue" with SZ.

BR
Miki

 

I have the high res screen. Its not so bad, I have to enlarge fonts on websites once in a while but its just like reading a big cellphone screen. The image quality of photos and graphics for Photoshop, however, is great. If you do a lot more graphic editing then reading then the high res is probably better.

 

IMO, screen resolution is subjective. My suggestion to anyone who is still pondering on the "correct" resolution to get is to have a hands-on feel of the different displays at your nearest Sony outlet/store, if possible. The reason is that no matter what anyone tell you, only you (the buyer) can decide for yourself what is the "right" resolution. Good luck.

 

I agree. I've debated this issue non-stop for a few months. Fact is, no amount of input can truly persuade me to one vs the other. It's just so dang subjective.

Unfortunately, not everyone can see both (or even any) in person (like me!). So I completely understand trying to figure it out with some input.

I am going to go for the 1600 x 900, more to avoid the "what if's" that will ensue if I don't give it a try. And hopefully I'll be one who likes it. LOL. If not, I'll be extremely grateful for Sony's return policy.

 

I went for 1600x900 beacause I find that mobile productivity is greatly hampered when you can't fit enough on the screen. Programs I'm mostly likely to use when my laptop isn't in a docking station include MS Word, PDF reader and MATLAB (programming platform). Anyway, in these three cases I have a clear benefit to the high-res screen: in Word, the ribbon will take less space and the document is set to "fit to width", which means that the text is the same physical size yet it is rendered at a higher DPI and I can see more lines at any one time (no drawbacks here). Same thing goes for a PDF viewer. Last, for MATLAB, I find with the wide high res screen I can have a script window docked next to the command window (two halves of the screen) whereas on my SZ I had to toggle between the two as separate windows.

For web-browsing, I'm used to Ctrl++ on my TV (it's impossible to see 1920x1080 text from 4 metres back!). But on the Z, if I'm web-browsing when not plugged in to a big external moniter, then I'm fine to zoom the same way (though rarely do).

My alternate suggestion for web viewing is to turn the default font-size in your web browser up. Go (in FF) TOOLS > OPTIONS > CONTENT > FONTS AND COLORS and change 12 pt up to 16 or something. It will then increase the font on all web pages in a subtle way without stretching out images etc..

I also made the point in another thread that Win7 will be out Q3/Q4 next year, and it purportedly has extensive improvements for seamless custom DPI. I've played around with DPI in Vista, and although it works OK, after a while you'll notice the bugs.

 

Just saw the 590 and 540 in person at the sony store...Im so sad to say that the not only is the resolution sharper (duh) but i could have sworn, the colors are more vibrant...the blacks contrast even better...It just looks better...

Why is this sad? Cause I was set to buy a 550 at Frys today for 1699+ tax...

Am i going crazy or have you guys noticed this as well?

 

I doubt there are differences in vibrancy or contrast between the two resolutions. With them both being display models, somebody's probably been messing with the settings on one or both of them...

 

I think you're right...

Just got the Z last night and I've been spending time with it today...Absolutely fantastic screen....Thus far, Ive had no regrets about getting the 1330 x 768

 

Anyone want to trade their 1600x900 for my 1366x768? I have a Z570 that is literally brand new and want the higher rez.. if so shoot me an email at infamous.sneek at gmail dot com

 

I got the lower res (mentioned before in this thread). But after some time with it, I'm just so happy I chose the lower res. Sometimes your eyes get tired and small resolution makes a difference.

I do a lot of website reading... that's a big factor for me. By the way, for those who find the res too small and want to scale websites - Mozilla is the way. It evens remembers at what level of scaling you want to see a website.

 

Yea I had a Z555 for 2 weeks (Canadian) with the 1600x900.. However I could no stand the stupid keyboard.. Not to mention I scored my Z570 for $700 cheaper... I will try to get used to the lower res.. but I have my doubts.. I am running Fedora 10 and Windows 7... Fedora I can manipulate the windows quite well to give the effects of a higher a res.. so hopefully I am ok..