Forerunner 265 or Instinct 2/2x?

1527850 said:

it is an expensive watch,

Well, that's relative, but the FR265 is rather the low to middle class priced watch. However, the optical HR sensor has its limitations, and you would probably experience the same problems even with the most expensive watches like the MARQ 2 line, costing over $3000. Probably even worse, since they are heavier, hence making it even more difficult to the optical sensor to sense the pulse correctly.

If you want to be quiet, have reliable HR data and related metrics, and are serious about the training, there is no way around getting a HRM chest strap. You can find inexpensive ones for a few bucks, but I highly recommend getting the HRM-Pro - it brings many, many more features than just the reliable HR.

all these watches are equipped with the very same heart rate sensor, there may be some difference how they read due to software but overall no big difference.

i have instinct 2, my missus forerunner 255 (pretty much the same as 265) and honestly not that sure what reliability issues concern you?

I follow both I2 and FR255 forums and both models have software issues, no doubt. but in everyday use  I can't experience them, ok, some time hr reading is slow to pick or doesn't work well with cycling (vibrations) or this and that. but that's tech limitation in all brands, been through this with polar and some other too. as Trux said, if you need reliable hr reading, buy chest HRM, for most 'regular people' activity, sensor does the job

I am just a hobbyist guys, I certainly don't need all the bells and whistles of a serious runner/hiker, it is just that I would like a good degree of reliable measurements, so as to train a bit better than without an HR/GPS pacing device.  Any advice on that front?

1527850 said:

Any advice on that front?

As already written here - there will be no significant difference in HR accuracy between I2 and FR265, so pick up the one wich matches your needs, and the budget better. And if you see the accuracy is not sufficient for your needs, just add a HRM strap for a few bucks.

1527850 said:

Any advice on that front?

well, if it's to train with sports watch and having some data vs not having any... any sports watch will do. check what you like within your budget and that's matching your desired sport profile, cause yes, even though instinct is marketed as 'outdoor', it's a bit more fancy but sports watch. so it gives tons of data for people training, perhaps even makes you train more and better, that's what it does to me, amateur being.

so design and feature comparison is your key to pick, also i would go at least mid range (FR 255 up or Instinct 2/x, not sure about all those vivo/venu lines as they are less sport, more daily stats) to have more metrics and features, sport profiles etc. Instinct os way better battery life vs other lines, but it's more simplistic in screen department and apps.

at the beginning OHR will suffice, once you get more serious - buy HRM strap. Different tech, different precision.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, as I just like to run and have something to fiddle. I don't care much for fancy screens, just plain old reliability, but I guess a chest strap is not an expensive add on, all things considered.

If you're looking to make a low-cost entry to the space and considering the I2, it seems to me a three-way choice between I2, FR255 non-music, and FR165 non-music all on sale for the same $250 price. You could get a lot of experience with the health and fitness metrics to help figure out what matters to you.

Of the three, I think the FR255 may have the best satellite tracking with multi-band. Both it and the FR165 have similar amounts of storage to hold recorded activities. That is MUCH more than the I2.

The other choices are aesthetics. Get the FR165 if you want to play with touchscreen+OLED. Get one of the others if you want an always-on transflective MIP screen. Get the I2 if you care more about the "rugged" look than anything else. Both the FR255 and I2 have two sizes available, if that matters to you.

Personally, I think the full size FR255 has the best screen among these, as it is larger at 1.3" and I don't like the gesture/powersave screen concept of the OLEDs.

I wanted to like the I2 when I cross-shopped them a year ago, but am turned off by the tiny screen and particularly the circular "window" they carved out of it. The way I see it, they ruined a perfectly good screen with a static cutout for what should have been a software-defined screen layout you could selectively enable. But some others seem infatuated with it, so who knows...

I got my FR255 a year ago and am still happy with it, but I am probably less invested in the fitness metrics than you are. For me, it is tracking of hikes and elevation profiles that stimulates my inner geek.

yeah, and wort mentioning 165 vs 255/65 is quite poor - worth comparing beforehand e.g. dcrainmaker reviews covered it quite well

Guys, thanks for the advice. I've found a good deal for the 255, so it is an easy choice I guess, as I don't see much benefit paying the premium for the 265, as they seem almost identical. The Instinct just seems to offer less for a somewhat reduced price, so the 255 looks more more as the best choice here. 

Makes sense to me, but I may be biased after making the same choice a year ago!

Some here may chafe at you saying the I2 has "less" as I think it actually has a few extra fitness metrics which are otherwise only available on more premium models like FR955, Fenix, etc. But, since you said you are a hobbyist I imagine you won't miss them. Otherwise, their feature sets are highly overlapped.

The I2 also should have better battery run times as the benefit from the more basic screen and less storage. But I still get great battery life out of my FR255. From what I can tell, the biggest variations here between users may be if and how they use the smartphone integration features. This also seems to be where people run into more bugs and crashes.