Venu X1 screen size for the next descent model.

Why not realistic?

jmto said:

Which isn't realistic for the shape at least. Then how much the look and feel changes when it's not so slim and light is hard to say.

Those issues are reasonable to discuss! It shows you actually were paying attention to what he was talking about.

(I mentioned this in the second post and a later post.)

7000518 said:

Why not realistic

I think that was already answered by someone else in this thread. At least I remember reading it. 

dpawlyk said:

Those issues are reasonable to discuss! I

That's your opinion what is reasonable to discuss and what is not. I think I can leave you to discuss what you think is reasonable. 

7000518 said:

Why not realistic?

I mentioned three reasons.

• A dive-hardened X1 with the same screen size would likely need to be bigger.
• One might also want a some-what protective bezel, which would make it larger still.
• The X1 looks a bit fragile (it might not appear to many divers).

These things are already kind of too big for daily wear.

jmto said:

That's your opinion what is reasonable to discuss and what is not. I think I can leave you to discuss what you think is reasonable. 

No one thinks your diversion about the X50i was reasonable. 

Thicker maybe but not bigger.

I dont think it needs a bezel, if its made out of titanium or steel plenty strong enough imo, wont look or be so fragile, though steel would be heavier.

I like fenix 8 47mm but still too thick imo, if it was 2/3 thickness would still be better imo

7000518 said:

Thicker maybe but not bigger.

Bigger too (I suspect).

The Apple Ultra does the other stuff but (to my eyes) seems a bit wimpy (for diving).

I think the appeal of the Garmins to some people is that they don't look (too) wimpy.

7000518 said:

I like fenix 8 47mm but still too thick imo, if it was 2/3 thickness would still be better imo

That supports what I'm saying.

Everything is a compromise.

The 43mm (and the 51mm) shows what one would lose with making the 47mm thinner.

7000518 said:

Ratio do idive watch, it is thick at 15mm but it doesn't have the bezel or ugly shape/design of garmin, and its rated for 150m!

?

7000518 said:

So maybe its depth rating,but recreational depths should be thinner

The "dive" X1 would probalby be as about thick as the 47mm F8.

7000518 said:

whoever designs garmin needs to detox from g shock obsession, horrible

It's not as bad as that. In any case, the Mk3 is more derivative of watches like the Rolex Submariner ("classic dive watches"), which there is still (somewhat) of a market for. I said this earlier.

The Fenix 8 is much more toned-down.

7000518 said:

I think apple ultra looks great

I'm trying to avoid to express my particular preferences. I think the Ultra looks good too. I suspect that, for many people buying "dive watches", it might look to "frail".

7000518 said:

Don't follow what you mean removing 47mm thinner

You lose a lot of battery life going from the 51 -> 47 -> 43.

The 43 is kind of "normal size" for big watches (like the Rolex Submariner).

A thinner 47mm F8 might have the battery life of the 43 (which is kinda low for Garmin devices).

Everything is a compromise.