On June 24th Kobo officially released the Kobo Elipsa, a new ebook reader and notebook hybrid device with a 10.3-inch E Ink Carta “1200” screen.
On E Ink’s website they say the Kobo Elipsa “is the first to feature Carta 1200 E Ink technology”. E Ink claims their new “Carta 1200” screens have 20% faster response times and 15% better contrast.
On Kobo’s product page for the Kobo Elipsa they say it “is the first to feature Carta 1200 E Ink technology for a faster display, quicker page turns, and deeper contrast.”
That all sounds great so naturally the first thing I did when my purchased Kobo Elipsa arrived yesterday was closely examine the screen.
When I first powered up the Elipsa and loaded an ebook my first thought was the screen looks great. I really like having Kobo’s advanced font and layout options on a 10-inch ereader—it’s a better reading experience than using Android apps that aren’t even designed for E Ink screens like with most other large-screen ereaders.
Then I compared the same PDF on the Onyx Note2, which has the same resolution as the Kobo Elipsa but is uses a flexible Mobius screen instead of a glass-based Carta screen. It’s hard to see much of a difference at all when it comes to text contrast and background color, but when it comes to things like images and bold headings the black ink is noticeably darker on the Kobo’s screen, so it would seem there is some merit to E Ink’s claim of better contrast.
However, I then compared the Kobo Elipsa with the Remarkable 2, which apparently has the earlier E Ink Carta 1000 screen if the Elipsa is the first to have the 1200 screen, and I was surprised by the result.
When compared side-by-side it looks like the Remarkable 2 is the one with the upgraded screen. There’s no question about it. The background is noticeably lighter and text and images look darker, despite what E Ink says about newer Carta 1200 screens having better contrast.
Not only that but the Remarkable turns pages faster when comparing the exact same PDFs, so just because the new screen has 20% faster response times doesn’t actually mean it’s faster.
I think the contrast difference all comes down to the extra layers that are added over the top of the E Ink screen so improved contrast of the screen itself doesn’t mean anything if the added layers are lowering contrast. The Kobo Elipsa has a frontlight, which is great, but the added layer clearly has a negative affect on contrast compared to the Remarkable 2 without a frontlight layer.
They might use different capacitive touch layers as well, and the Elipsa has a heavy paper-like texture on the screen that feels nice but probably lowers contrast a bit more as well.
Don’t get me wrong, I actually think the screen on the Kobo Elipsa looks great, but I can’t help but point out E Ink’s glorified marketing claims once again. In no way does the Carta 1200 screen on the new Elipsa look like it has better contrast than the older screen on the Remarkable 2 (quite the opposite, in fact), and currently response times are a bit slower, which proves that is more determined by software than hardware.
I’ll upload a 4k video during the review process to show the differences with the screens. It doesn’t show up very well in pictures. It’s not a big difference by any means, but it is readily apparent in person.
How does it compare with other Kobo ereaders? Maybe it is an improvement over those rather than the market of note taking devices.
I agree, it would be more useful to know if the screen is better than the Kobo Libra for example, which also is glass backed.
You can’t compare a 227ppi screen with a screen that has 300ppi and expect it to have better contrast because it doesn’t. The bottom line is it’s a Carta screen with frontlight and capacitive layers, and it looks exactly like a Carta screen with added layers. My point is there is no perceivable improvement compared to the exact same screen size/resolution on an earlier model. Carta 1200 is just another marketing gimmick from E Ink that doesn’t really mean anything. In no way does the Elipsa’s screen look better than the Clara HD’s screen (the Clara has a lighter background), and the Clara HD was released over 3 years ago. The Clara HD also turns pages slightly quicker so the new screen isn’t faster like they say either. I just get tired of the gimmicks and half-truths that plague the E Ink industry.
Thank you for your honesty! Deeply appreciated.
I wish there were more people like you, and not just in for the money and clicks.
I would love for you to make a list of the best e-readers your have tested, and which are your favorites, and why. And what pulls down on each.
Also, I would love a look at the software of each brand, or at least the major ones.
Of course it will be your perspective, but that I am asking for.
I have followed your blog for 3 years now, and I click in here like daily just to check if there is anything new.
Hugs from Greece
I think that the best is a little subjective as one device won’t serve everyone’s needs or likes. When choosing a device you would have to see if it’s features work best for your particular situation. A kobo wouldn’t work for me because it lacks the features that I enjoy in the Kindle. I am really interested in the Elipsa and the Boox but still haven’t decided which one would work best for my situation. Will have to wait to see the experience of people to see if they share the same needs as I do to decide.
Eagerly awaiting your impressions/review of the Elipsa
I got my Elipsa 4 days ago. I ditched Kindles years ago and am on my 4th Kobo. I’m still getting used to the Elipsa, but I have to say, I like it.
It is snappier than my beloved Forma, page turns are definitely faster. PDF performance is dramatically better on the Elipsa. It is certainly more immersive!
I really can’t see any significant difference in screen quality between the Elipsa and the Forma.
What I really miss is the page turn buttons and the color changing LEDs. Also, the included cover is really heavy.
I’m going to live with it for a few weeks before I decide to give away my Forma.
“Disclosure: This website is monetized through Skimlinks and Amazon’s affiliate program.”
A website monetized through Amazon’s affiliate program dissing a Kobo product? Quelle surprise!
I’m also intrigued by your decision to focus this article exclusively on a comparison of PDFs. Given that it’s very likely the majority of ereader users read more in formats OTHER than PDF, choosing to focus this article on that one format sounds rather like a gimmicky half-truth itself, to me.
Is the 1200 marketing overhyped? Quite possibly, perhaps even probably But does the Kobo competitor who helps monetize your website overhype marketing claims about its products? Of course. To me at least, this article was odd both in the ferocity of its rage and the very specific targetting of that rage. But of course, if that garnered more money from Amazon for you then truth and justice were well served.
First off, Kobo is also monetized through Skimlinks so there goes that theory, and second, it’s more of a rant against another bogus marketing claim by E Ink than anything against Kobo. Kindles and Amazon don’t even have anything to do with this article, and Amazon doesn’t offer anything to compete with the Elipsa anyway. You clearly don’t follow this blog regularly because I’m often very critical of Amazon and how they handle Kindles as well. Frankly the ereader industry is fraught with half-truths, deceptive marketing tactics, and shady resellers and I for one am sick of it so expect more rants to come.