Is the display technology a step up from the F3 other than additional colors? To me the current technology on the F3 is underwhelming, not bright or vivid and rather dull. In low light conditions it really looks terrible. The online pictures always look great though. I know that its a low power type of display to help with battery life but just wondering if the F5 will look more vibrant.
Until they're actually out in the wild anything said here will just be speculation.
My guess is that the F5/5X with more pixels on the same size display will be more crisp and the added colors could make for better contrast especially if the white is whiter. The F5S has the same number of pixels but on a slightly smaller display (1.1" F5S vs 1.2" F3) so maybe a tad more crisp but I can't tell from the specs whether it also has the larger color palette or not.
More colors also means that graphics will look better with equal pixel density due to better antialiasing. With similar colors the 5S should look better then the F3 due to the increased pixel density, but if it doesn't support the increase in colors, I will probably go for the 5.
Until they're actually out in the wild anything said here will just be speculation.
My guess is that the F5/5X with more pixels on the same size display will be more crisp and the added colors could make for better contrast especially if the white is whiter. The F5S has the same number of pixels but on a slightly smaller display (1.1" F5S vs 1.2" F3) so maybe a tad more crisp but I can't tell from the specs whether it also has the larger color palette or not.
Going from the info here, the pixel densities are as follows:
So with the additional colours available, across the board the F5 range should be a step-up compared to the F3. The display technology seems to be the same as the F3, or a best a later generation of it.
Is the technology of the screen changing or is it just the color depth and pixel density? The specs for the 5 series don't really give any details about the display type. That can have an impact on the readability in various lighting conditions as well. For example when the Edge series went to a TFT touchscreen from the 705 to the 800, you gained resolution, colors, and obviously the ability to have touch input, but the actual readability of the screen in most outdoor conditions on the 800 was significantly worse than the 705 unless you had the backlight turned all the way up all the time on the 800 which chewed up battery life.
The screen technology will almost certainly be transflective MIP like the F3, F3HR & Chronos, only with the colour count of the Chronos.
The power consumption of this technology is very low. The reflective nature of the display means that the contrast improves as more ambient light is falling on it, only when the ambient light is low is a back light required (the complete opposite back lit screen technologies like TFT). The Memory In Pixel (MIP) means that once a pixel set it is held.
While this technology doesn't have the vibrancy of TFT/OLED etc, I personally think it is the right choice for this sort of product for the extended battery life.
The screen technology will almost certainly be transflective MIP like the F3, F3HR & Chronos, only with the colour count of the Chronos.
The power consumption of this technology is very low. The reflective nature of the display means that the contrast improves as more ambient light is falling on it, only when the ambient light is low is a back light required (the complete opposite back lit screen technologies like TFT). The Memory In Pixel (MIP) means that once a pixel set it is held.
While this technology doesn't have the vibrancy of TFT/OLED etc, I personally think it is the right choice for this sort of product for the extended battery life.
Well said and agree 100%. Until the a new display tech can delivery the best of both worlds, the tradeoff for great visibility in daylight during runs, etc is worth giving up vibrancy in normal indoor conditions. Those who think the opposite are probably better served with the apple watch, etc that have great displays indoors but are not as readable in sunlight and switch off when inactive to save battery life.
I also agree the type of the f3 is best for outdoor use, despite it not being ideal inside.
My Apple Watch looks terrific inside, but is barely visible in bright conditions, same with my polar v650 bike computer. Totally useless on a sunny day, unlike my Garmin edge computers which are perfectly readable, with the edge 520 being a little better than my edge 510.
I'd add my support to that, I'd gladly sacrifice a bit of resolution and color etc. to get a screen that's readable outside in a wider range of light conditions. I kept my edge 705 for years after it was outdated mostly because the TFT screens that replaced it were so bad outside.
I'm trying to decide if this is a worthwhile upgrade from the VivoActive HR.
I really wanted a more premium device like the Fenix 3 HR, but that range had been around for a while. The device was also way too large for my small wrists. The Fenix 5S looks much more appropriate and stylish. I like the idea of wearing something that actually looks like a watch. It's a bit of a bummer the white 5S doesn't have a sapphire glass option (how much difference does this make?).. and I would have liked the mapping features -- but oh well.
I guess the main things I'd like to get out of the upgrade are some of the advanced metrics, training effect, etc.. ability to set up training plans, and just the general look and premium feel of a newer device.
I also wasn't sure about the battery life difference of the 5s versus the 5.
