Display Dissapointment

I'm a 53 year old..

61 years old...

Almost 59 with bifocals here...

Guys, guys, keep it up - I'm 44 and this is the only place on the internet I can feel like a youngster! ;)

Guys, guys, keep it up - I'm 44 and this is the only place on the internet I can feel like a youngster! ;)

All I can say to that is "Get off my Lawn!" :)

Yeah, less of your cheek, whippersnapper.
(51, varifocals, only issue is running after dark in contacts when I struggle to focus that close)

I think the argument here is very valid. This 5/5S/5X is an evolution of the Fenix 3 series.

The sapphire glass and WiFi version of the Fenix5 pushes it to around £600, depending on your choice of supplier. £400 to £500 and they would sell ship-loads.

The hardware on Garmins isn't actually particularly impressive - in fact, it reminds me of Nokia in their heyday. Do you remember? Everybody had a Nokia 3310 or 3330. Then they decided to saturate the market with similar phones.

You know the galling thing about it? All 3's had the same known limitations, known as hardware bugs; your use case - such as temperature, climate, etc, meant that *you* personally may not have minded. But as international travellers were amongst the first to complain, it was obvious there had been a major flaw of the Fenix5 in the design in numerous ways.

And now they expect people (who aren't blinded by the brand) to just jump in at a £600 price point? Fair enough, first come first served. But Garmin want people as beta testers - and you'll be a beta tester for about a year.

It reminds me of the 'older' brands who thought that using customers as beta testers, instead of refining the product to an acceptable condition, was a good idea.

One thing you may not realise: the GPS on Garmin watches is *still* not all that good. They do have accuracy and a known error-rate on a target to a similar location per point, but the fact is it's generally off and not *around* the bullseye, meaning software can't really resolve this.

Don't believe me? There are perfect examples on the FELLRNR blog with a fantastic explanation that will save me doing a diagram.

Think for a second: what are you comparing your watch to? What is the point of a device that is both super-expensive AND also not accurate for optical heart rate and, most of all, GPS? The whole point of recording is to gain accuracy and improve training performance, for the majority here I imagine.

This whole point complains about a small evolution in hardware and software and yet a massive price-tag. If it had been £100 to £150 less? No issue with it; great attempt at a new product line.

Why haven't you bought a 735XT? Hardly any posts in the relevant forum; most people went for the Fenix3 and will go for the Fenix5S instead of the 735. So - being Garmin - you essentially have to go with the popular model to ensure you get updates because - believe me - it will be buggy as hell for a year or more.

Sounds great being a beta tester AND paying too much for a product too similar to the previous generation. Where do I sign up?

Just my opinion. Do check out FELLRNR though; there are no adverts and he does it for the love of science. His GPS experiences match mine almost exactly with the Fenix3, Fenix3HR and other brands.

Personally I find your argument highly invalid because it's off topic i.e. a red herring. When I type "ctrl-f" and "display", the word "display" isn't even mentioned...

The technology in the display doesn't give you all the colours an OLED will (for colour critical work, I find OLEDs to be quite colour inaccurate but so long as they're bright indoors, who cares, right?) but it is incredibly easy to read and it draws minimal current. In my opinion, with a market saturated by IPS and OLEDS, the screen is far superior. I really, really hope Garmin don't listen to the naysayers because if they do, you can pretty much wave goodbye to at least 50% of the battery life.

Now to address your argument on the off chance I'm wrong and somehow it has something to do with the display (I don't buy it, but I'll bite)...

The hardware on Garmins isn't actually particularly impressive - in fact, it reminds me of Nokia in their heyday. Do you remember? Everybody had a Nokia 3310 or 3330. Then they decided to saturate the market with similar phones.

The competition doesn't have a product comparable to the Garmin Fenix 3. Garmin's arguably two generations (one at the very least) ahead of that model. You'd have to define impressive.

You know the galling thing about it? All 3's had the same known limitations, known as hardware bugs; your use case - such as temperature, climate, etc, meant that *you* personally may not have minded. But as international travellers were amongst the first to complain, it was obvious there had been a major flaw of the Fenix5 in the design in numerous ways.

You started off by talking about the Fenix 3, then concluded your argument with the Fenix 5, but you never mentioned what those hardware bugs were, are, might be (?), so I'm going to go ahead and assume this is argumentum verbosium.

And now they expect people (who aren't blinded by the brand) to just jump in at a £600 price point? Fair enough, first come first served. But Garmin want people as beta testers - and you'll be a beta tester for about a year.

Consumer electronics like this often have a high price point to start with, I believe it helps with developer costs. Sony are notorious for this. I believe beta test is when a product is in its final stage of development and has not been released. However, I sort of see where you're going with this, and I think "gamma test" would be a more appropriate term. It seems quite common nowadays, and it's certainly logical to do it this way as if you use your customers, you have way more data to use. Sure it'd be nice if this wasn't the case and electronics could be perfect as soon as they're released, but I think things are far too complex nowadays for that to be a reality. In other words, your argument is a perfect solution fallacy and you've offered no alternative solution.

It reminds me of the 'older' brands who thought that using customers as beta testers, instead of refining the product to an acceptable condition, was a good idea.

Here in the UK, if a product is essentially useless, you get an incredibly long guarantee. I'm not going to go into details because it'd make my post even lengthier, it has nothing to do with displays and I'm not sure about the laws in other countries.

One thing you may not realise: the GPS on Garmin watches is *still* not all that good. They do have accuracy and a known error-rate on a target to a similar location per point, but the fact is it's generally off and not *around* the bullseye, meaning software can't really resolve this.

I find it better than the forum posters have mentioned, and I've looked at maps and done my own testing. I've also read the manual and it says its accuracy isn't perfect. I don't believe they've falsely advertised the product, and I accept it's hard to create a perfect aerial in such a small product.

Think for a second: what are you comparing your watch to? What is the point of a device that is both super-expensive AND also not accurate for optical heart rate and, most of all, GPS? The whole point of recording is to gain accuracy and improve training performance, for the majority here I imagine.

A smartphone for its GPS facilities; the battery life on a smartphone is abysmal in comparison.
A handheld device for its GPS facilities; handheld devices are ginormous in comparison (plus I'd likely be taking a smartphone as well.)

Have you actually tried the optical heart rate sensor? How inaccurate was it?

Sounds great being a beta tester AND paying too much for a product too similar to the previous generation. Where do I sign up?

You've quoted RRP. You can get them much cheaper. Your post seems to mention the price quite a few times.

People are complaining that for such an expensive device they still get a display that is nowhere near as brilliant as their cheapo smartphone or an apple watch..

I've had the Fenix, Fenix 2, Tactix, F3 and have the 5X on order. My complaint with the screen isn't that it's not as good as my iPhone....it's that it doesn't match Garmin's own marketing. This creates false expectations and could be argued, false advertising.

Here's my F3 Sapphire vs marketing:

Your photograph also unnatural. Antimarketing. My reply ;-)

I agree. It all depends on how one takes the photo:



Or what light conditions one views the watch:



Works great for me.

HTH

TheOtherPhil

You're not using the same lighting, and with these types of displays, the brighter the light, the better (that being out in the bright sun thing :))

mont road

I agree. It all depends on how one takes the photo:



Or what light conditions one views the watch:



Works great for me.

HTH

Yep, this demonstrates exactly what I am talking about. Look at the resolution of the marketing images vs the image you have posted. Lots of jaggies on the real thing, yet the marketing is perfect....every line is super crisp.



I get that it is in Garmin's interest to show their products in the best possible conditions. However, there is nothing that I can do as the end user to improve my resolution to that of the marketing pictures....no matter how much light I shine on it.

I wish my watch screen is like that in the promo.

How do you turn on the screen to be brighter in the dark? The backlite is not bright.

I can see it much better out in the sun.