It's interesting, it doesn't look like they added too much, unless you were looking for some very specific additions like bike shifting functionality, some possible bluetooth functionality, or mapping. I like that the HR is flush but it's hard to say if that will improve or reduce the reliability of reading of the users HR, it makes for a thinner profile but probably reduces contact with the user's wrist more often.
I can't even imagine how annoying the 5X would be on my wrist while running or biking, I haven't had a big "adventure" watch since my Suunto Advizor and the 5x is almost twice as heavy. It seems like the metal casing is costing them a lot of weight and probably not gaining much durability or water resistance. I'd love to get the mapping functionality just to have it to play with hiking etc., even though I'd imagine it's more hassle and gimmick than useful in most cases, but I'm really more intrigued by the smaller/lighter 5S. While Garmin's specs appear to indicate the Fenix 3HR and 5X are the same physical size, from the early looks it appears that the 3 HR is really the same as the 5, and the 5X is significantly larger and heavier than even the 3 HR.
I'm sure they will sell great, as Garmin has the best feature set and overall functionality, but I think Garmin is still going to be missing a huge market share not getting something out that's fully functional in an even smaller size and lighter weight. The screen resolution and colors are still way behind most other smartwatches (S3 is 360x360 and 16 million colors), but for an adventure watch that's not a huge deal. I do think the $700+ price point for anyone that wants wifi and a scratch resistant display is going to turn a lot of people off, but the Fenix 3 HR sells great and it's $550+ too so consumer will vote with their wallets.
Shocking that the resolution jump wasn't more significant. Perhaps it's merely a battery drain issue and, granted, I have not performed a comparison with like watches to see if the "tighter view" yields a more compromised (battery) performance.
My guess is going to like a brighter higher resolution screen like an Apple Watch etc. would greatly reduce battery life, plus it might not be as readable outside.
I'd like to see a comparison of the 5 series with and without sapphire in various light conditions outside. Sapphire certainly is more scratch resistant but it sounds like glass like Ion-X, gorilla glass etc. has less distortion, transmits more light, and has less glare/reflections than sapphire so sapphire might actually be harder to read it some ambient light conditions.
Shocking that the resolution jump wasn't more significant. Perhaps it's merely a battery drain issue and, granted, I have not performed a comparison with like watches to see if the "tighter view" yields a more compromised (battery) performance.
Why does a watch designed for fitness need a high res screen? I've never understood comments like this as it's not like you are viewing photos, Facebook or Instagram on them..
The screen is more than adequate for it's designed purpose.. I've never had a single complaint about the screen on the fenix 3 or fenix 3 HR. They are stellar for outdoor, data readability. My one and only complaint would be that Garmin needs to allow font size adjustment..
A speculative question here - do you think the CPU inside the Chronos is the same as the CPU in the upcoming F5 (not F5X) as I'm trying to compare apples to apples, thinking the F5 is the latest in the F3/Chronos range ?
Why does a watch designed for fitness need a high res screen? I've never understood comments like this as it's not like you are viewing photos, Facebook or Instagram on them..
The screen is more than adequate for it's designed purpose.. I've never had a single complaint about the screen on the fenix 3 or fenix 3 HR. They are stellar for outdoor, data readability. My one and only complaint would be that Garmin needs to allow font size adjustment..
My .02
hmm - screen is NOT adequate - it needs better contrast. Contrast on current screen F3/F3HR is terrible washed out like old old LCD screens. Better contrast will help the older generation actually READ what is on the screen without reading glasses... :) (I'm one of them) - I can read my Polar V800 without issue - but the F3HR is not easy on the eyes. Better/Larger fonts would help somewhat - but higher contrast will help a great deal.
The screen is IMHO the biggest let down on the current Fenix series. If Apple Watch had a 1 week battery life - I might consider them. But I'm not charging every bloody day (or every 2nd day even)
I do agree that I wish Garmin would allow font resize as larger would be better for some things like reading SMS notifications ect BUT the slight increase in screen resolution is going to do absolutely nothing to help with this..
I do agree that I wish Garmin would allow font resize as larger would be better for some things like reading SMS notifications ect BUT the slight increase in screen resolution is going to do absolutely nothing to help with this..
No they do look good when you take a picture of them .... that is because your camera adjusts to the light coming from the screen of your watch - and direct sunlight actually increase contrast on this screen. In real life - on a cloudy day - or in the shade - colours are very washed out. Try putting the watch under a microscope and you can actually easily see how bad it is. As you might be able to see - text is blurred around the edges - and it is due to the LCD technology and anti-aliasing method used. It is less visible with a lot of light.
I still love my F3 - but the display contrast on the V800 is many times better. I would sacrifice the colour display for a really good mono display like the V800 anytime. Now the new F5x display has increased colour range. I hope that means better contrast - or hopefully no backlight bleed-through.
Pictures attached I hope - taken through my microscope with an iPhone so not perfect - but with 15x magnification. So sorry if they are not 100% in focus :) but breathe on it and it and focus changes :) when focus area is as small as LCD segments. The way the display is built is the reason for the washout - especially in high contrast places. The blue actually looks better than black on white or white on black. I have some other display types if you want to see the difference - but most of them better :) quality.
Pictures attached I hope - taken through my microscope with an iPhone so not perfect -
You have to be joking right? If you need a microscope to identify the issue then.... I guess I don't know what else to say other than I hope your posting is for humor..
If not, well then I'll continue to base the screen on real world usage..
Pictures attached I hope - taken through my microscope with an iPhone so not perfect - but with 15x magnification.
The increase from 16 to 64 colors will help with anti aliasing just as much if not more then the pixel density. It will look much better under a microscope:p
