Build quality differences between 5S and 5 ?

Pretty impressed with the 5 overall but to be honest it's still too bulky to fit comfortably under a shirt so...well the 5S might be of interest. Hopefully I can get to see one soon but in the meantime there was a post on DCR yesterday https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2017/01/hands-on-garmins-new-fenix-5-multisport-gps-serieswith-mapping.html/comment-page-1#comment-2025623 that mentions build quality differences, something I wasn't expecting. Has anyone here been able to compare both and can confirm what was posted ? I'll say that the Slate F 5 has a feels GREAT in terms of perceived quality !

I've got both the fenix 5 and 5S for testing and choosing between them was initially difficult.

The 5 glass version is too big for my small wrist. However in slate grey it looks high quality. The buttons are also fantastic and feel high quality.

The 5S glass version is cheapened by the silver bezel. But the buttons really are poor quality and don't provide the definitive feedback - they feel 'cheap', sadly.

However, given the size of the 5S I will be keeping this one instead of the 5.

The design of the 5 is better overall, which is to be expected, as it's the main seller in the range. The 5s being the same price is scandalous, as it's nowhere near as high quality in buttons, materials, etc.

0 Former Member over 8 years ago

Thanks for the detailed feedback. It's too bad they couldn't apply the same level of quality to the 5S especially given its identical price !

The F5 has style and my wrist can pull off the F5 (the F1/2/3 looked silly) but the thickness problem remains, fitting it comfortably under a shirt is really a struggle unlike the FR235 that I can wear if need be instead of my "normal" watch. I'm not sure the F5S is that much better thickness wise at an official 14.5mm vs 15.5mm. It's too bad the FR735 doesn't have a barometer...maybe the FR935 will!

The rear of the devices looks similar to me, as do the watch-strap connection pegs. It's the front of the units that, in my own opinion, looks cheap on the 5S. I suspect the prices are identical as they have cottoned on that people want a smaller size. The 5 is smaller than the 3/3HR and you will get more "bang for your buck" from a 5.

0 NeilJonesOnline over 8 years ago

It seems to me that most people are talking about build quality perceptions as an indicator of actual build quality. Comparing the two side-by-side I don't see any actual difference in quality, just design.

Yes, the 5S is much lighter, and generally the more solid feel of the 5 gives a perception of better quality, but if we assume that the weight difference is down to the bigger battery and the larger bezel, then I can't see how anyone could expect the 5S to have the same weighty feel of the 5. I see a metal bezel on both, the same plastic body on both, and a metal back to both. The displays are of comparable quality, size for size (arguably is relatively better on the 5S). I don't see anything in the materials or build that suggests any corners have been cut on the 5S. The buttons have a different feel to them; on the 5 it's more of a "clunk" compared to a "click" on the 5S, but I think it's a big step to suggest that's down to inferior engineering. Time will tell!

FWIW, I personally prefer the weight and design of the 5, but I'd like to understand where people think that the 5S is actually inferior in quality rather than just size and designing within the constraints of the smaller size, and aimed at those wanting a more conservative look.

0 Former Member over 8 years ago

It seems to me that most people are talking about build quality perceptions as an indicator of actual build quality. Comparing the two side-by-side I don't see any actual difference in quality, just design.

Yes, the 5S is much lighter, and generally the more solid feel of the 5 gives a perception of better quality, but if we assume that the weight difference is down to the bigger battery and the larger bezel, then I can't see how anyone could expect the 5S to have the same weighty feel of the 5. I see a metal bezel on both, the same plastic body on both, and a metal back to both. The displays are of comparable quality, size for size (arguably is relatively better on the 5S). I don't see anything in the materials or build that suggests any corners have been cut on the 5S. The buttons have a different feel to them; on the 5 it's more of a "clunk" compared to a "click" on the 5S, but I think it's a big step to suggest that's down to inferior engineering. Time will tell!

FWIW, I personally prefer the weight and design of the 5, but I'd like to understand where people think that the 5S is actually inferior in quality rather than just size and designing within the constraints of the smaller size, and aimed at those wanting a more conservative look.

I've inter-mingled my design and quality reference. I don't want it much heavier, but the 5S could surely have had the buttons and bezel design of the F5? I'm not saying that's what I prefer, but it does look more like an expensive watch - if an outdoor one. The 5 really does look like a smart-watch: typical black plastic, shiny reflective buttons with not much feedback from them when using. It doesn't 'feel' as expensive as it was as a result.

The 5S is better for me, but from a design an engineer (waterproofness?) perspective I would suggest the design team went full throttle into the F5. The 5S exterior is something my 9 year old could design on the back of a cigarette packet. As you say, time will tell.

If there are any major hardware differences between the two I would expect faults to be found first on the 5S, as smaller usually means more likely to go wrong, in my experience. The F3 and HR were so heavily supported due to massive sales. I think the 5 will sell around double the quantity of the 5S, meaning it'll get the most support (if any major hardware differences inside.) There's a reason the lesser selling devices don't have features added and longstanding bugs sorted.

Sales rule.