• State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 213 replies
  • Subscribers 5 subscribers
  • Views 48371 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Owners Club

Teriemer
over 5 years ago
Let us share some enthusiasm about this gorgeous watch coming our way.

Here is my story; being an old Omega Seamaster owner, I was actually looking for something alike in quality. I looked at Omega, TAG Heuer and alike. However allthough all these watches are very nice, each and every time I came to the conclusion that I can't live without 24/7 HR and smart notifications. I am a passionate athlete; so I much like to keep track on my resting HR. And that's actually it - none of the premium brands I looked at deliver that.

And then Marq is being launched - just in the middle of my search :-) What a funny coincidence! Cause BOOM - this is just what I was looking for. Mann that was a sweet surprise :-)


Since I am an athlete, I ordered the Marq Athlete version. That watch has exactly what I want. Really nice materials, 3. gen OHR, and smart notifications. Plus add to this - all Fenix' functionallity, a speedier processor and 12 days battery.

Oh yeah!

Despite being expensive - and please don't get me wrong here - I think this is bang on. I don't mind paying premium for premium. Yes - one could argue the display resolution is not high enough. Personally I would have liked to see HD graphics. But honestly said - that's not the deal breaker for me. The materials are though. And this is where I believe Garmin did the right choice. Premium materials with long battery and an OK display.

So I can't wait to get mine :-)

What about you? What version did you buy?

Share your passion here...
  • 0 over 5 years ago
    bpl1972 Marq looks better indeed. Have you shared the same HRM belt for those two runs? I see the L/R balance is different which is strange if same belt was used.
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 5 years ago
    meste7, it must be late in the evening ;)

    F5+ was from april 20
    Marq was from may 04
  • 0 over 5 years ago
    I stand corrected... ????
  • 0 over 5 years ago
    It is the same HRM RUN.

    Different days, different balance :-)
  • 0 over 5 years ago
    A better comparison would be to wear both watches in the same run on the same hand.
  • 0 over 5 years ago
    same run on the same hand.

    I've done enough running with watches on the same arm, different arms, switched arms, and seen little to no difference between the outputs. I don't think it matters whether they are worn on the same arm or different.

    In thinking about it, I would hope that GPS tracking would not be arm-dependent anyway.
  • 0 over 5 years ago
    So I've used https://www.fitfiletools.com/#/top to cut the start and end of my run yesterday, to give me a privacy zone around where I actually live when using the DCR Analyzer. The MARQ and Fenix 5+ are worn as shown in the attached picture. So you'll have to take my word for it that the Course carefully plotted in the GC Course creator is 8.10 miles, the MARQ gave 8.08 miles and the Fenix 5+ gave 8.06 miles.

    GPS track 'trueness' wise I'd say it's a draw, with both watches being better or worse than each other in different places. It is also worth noting that both watches are on GPS+Galileo and DCR seems to labour the point, in both the MARQ and 945 reviews, that Garmin has thus far only 'tuned' the new Sony chip for GPS+GLONASS; whereas he notes the 935 (with the old Mediatek chip like the Fenix 5+) has been working really well with GPS+Galileo of late. So perhaps the Fenix 5+ has an advantage when both units are set to GPS+Galileo. I'll maybe do a similar test soon with the Fenix 5+ left on GPS+Galileo and the MARQ switched to GPS+GLONASS. The key early 'So What?' for me from all of this, is that the MARQ is as good as the Fenix 5+ and may get even better with GPS software updates.ciq.forums.garmin.com/.../1479111.jpg
  • 0 over 5 years ago
    As promised in the post above, my run earlier today was done with the MARQ set to GPS+GLONASS and Fenix 5+ still on GPS+Galileo; DCR Analyzer comparison below. I gave both units a static GPS soak beforehand, to ensure any GLONASS satellite data needed by the MARQ was got, by recording an activity on a table in my garden for 35 minutes before this run. The conditions of this particular route can throw most GPS watches off a bit in the woodland areas; including my old Forerunner 405CX with the old legendary SirfStar GPS chip and an antennae bulge below the screen. I don't think the GLONASS has made any difference; the Fenix 5+ still has the edge in this test, but it is higher up my arm and probably swinging less. So maybe the next test needs to be the watches on opposite wrists; that may be in a few days time though.

    https://analyze.dcrainmaker.com/#/pu...0-4d4c2ee2fc74

    Distance wise, the carefully plotted course in GCM is 7.13 miles, the Fenix 5+ had 7.09 miles and MARQ had 7.07 miles (Strava link here https://www.strava.com/activities/2346165420 ); so nothing really to complain about there, given the conditions under tree cover for much of the run.
  • 0 over 5 years ago
    How many CIQ apps can Marq take?
  • 0 over 5 years ago
    received my athlete from JURA today. Magnificent looking watch !

    my poor fenix 3 looks awful alongside it :D