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

735XT vs fenix 3

Ok guys here is a comparison in a park I run in often. About half has medium tree cover this time of year.

http://www.mygpsfiles.com/app/#ktW3i8ts

You can see the 735 tracks are much better, even in this environment, where I would not say it is overly difficult. Interesting distance accrual was dead on at all points of the run at every point I check both watches were within 0.01 miles of each other the entire run.

Another interesting point, I had the fenix 3 using footpod instant pace and the 735 on GPS instant pace and on all times I checked they were within 5s of each other and even better, the 735 was very stable and never (when I checked) gave an untoward results.

Unfortunately I forgot my chest strap, but can say HR was within my normal range for this pace and this run at all times.

Elevation plot for 735 does not look as good as fenix 3 unsurprisingly (elevation correction was on for 735 data), but I am not sure this was transmitted to the gPX file I used in mygpsfiles, because in GC the +- elevation was 42 ft gain and 43 ft loss which is higher than f3 result (10 ft Gain 13 ft loss). I suspect better smoothing of GPS elevation will result in better results for this in the future.

0 chimpware over 8 years ago

You are correct sir!

Will amend my prior post to be uncorrected elevation data for 735XT as this is a GPX export then exported CSV from GTC data.

What do you actually do with elevation data while training that would make you need the barometric altimeter? Almost don't want to ask as ignorance might be bliss for me at this point. With a Power Meter, I don't use any elevation data while riding, and pretty limited use post ride as well and I never use this data while running. Hiking I oculd see using it more, but I don't really hike, at least not any serious hiking. Interested in your thought on this CE.

0 Crispin_Ellisdon over 8 years ago

It's really the precision of relative altitude you get with the barometricly derived altitude and that it is better at reporting correct gradient in activity. Thinking back to the module I did in GPS surveying as part of my Civil Engineering degree, GPS is mathematically 5 times less accurate for altitude than it is for horizontal position; so GPS is always going to struggle with any precision for relative altitude (unless there are big differences in elevation) and calculating instant gradient on the go. So I guess it comes down to whether you even look at current instant gradient or need precise relative altitude when you're on the go (navigating in thick mist and the like).

Edit: Whilst I'm not bothered by the stairs climbed bit of activity tracking, others might be, and that requires barometric altitude too. Another thought for potential future capabilities; some of the Connect IQ data field apps that provide an estimate of running power need barometric altitude to give reliable instant gradient. So if (a big if) Garmin were to invest in getting a reliable running power algorithm in their watches, then it would almost certainly need a barometer. This leads me to looking over to the other thread of 735 vs v800 vs Ambit 3 Peak, where the suggestion has evolved of a foot pod/temp on steroids to get over the omission of these capabilities on the 735...... or just put the damn sensors in the watch as has already been done on the F3 and many others, but have the option for physically separated sensors when appropriate (a foot pod has to be on your foot to track your foot's motion with the accelerometer and a temp is placed where you think you will get the best ambient temperature readings; not necessarily on your wrist or foot). I've absolutely not got a downer on the 735 nor am I a die hard F3 fan boy, I'm actually quite excited about the initial reports on the 735 GPS accuracy and instant pace as well as the compact light form factor; so if you could put all of the functionality of a F3 in a 735 chassis with a sapphire screen and v800 matching GPS performance, I'd be throwing my credit card at the computer.

0 Teriemer over 8 years ago

Today I did another run. Only this time I went with 735XT. Unfortunately - again I had GPS quirks and distance acrual was off by 200m on a 10k. I know that's not much, but if you look at the tracking, somethings clearly wrong?! I gonna try a master reset and let the watch soak a little to see if that changes anything. Though minor quirks, GPS instant pace seems quite ok - definitely good out in the open :-)

Here's my run (with HRM run belt): https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1179169309

0 timgrose over 8 years ago

Umm strange so you are seeing quite a few "GPS quirks" where the signal clearly gets very weak and jumps off your route by a fair bit.
Is this with GPS+GLONASS or just GPS?

I did a run from home this afternoon with quite a few tree covered sections and did not get any of these "quirks" and don't recall seeing any like this on previous runs either.

0 chimpware over 8 years ago

@Teriemer that does look very odd in spots. I have not seen anything like that yet with my 735.

My run today was planned for 8 miles and I plotted an 8 mile course in GC and ran it and when I was complete the 735 only said 8.86 miles. GC courses are normally a little short as I think they use middle of the road distances so I plotted my exact run and based on that the 735 was <1% short on distance. The track also seemed to cut corners a little today but distance accrual when I checked in detail was ok.

0 Teriemer over 8 years ago

Umm strange so you are seeing quite a few "GPS quirks" where the signal clearly gets very weak and jumps off your route by a fair bit.
Is this with GPS+GLONASS or just GPS?

I did a run from home this afternoon with quite a few tree covered sections and did not get any of these "quirks" and don't recall seeing any like this on previous runs either.

@Teriemer that does look very odd in spots. I have not seen anything like that yet with my 735.

My run today was planned for 8 miles and I plotted an 8 mile course in GC and ran it and when I was complete the 735 only said 8.86 miles. GC courses are normally a little short as I think they use middle of the road distances so I plotted my exact run and based on that the 735 was <1% short on distance. The track also seemed to cut corners a little today but distance accrual when I checked in detail was ok.

Yeah it's the quirks that looks odd to me - never seen anything like it. It could be that I got a faluty unit? Yesterday I did a full reset of the watch. So I'll go for another test tomorrow. I'll report in here. If the issue still persist, I'll report to the devs via their beta-email.

Besides from this minor GPS quirk, I'll really like the 735. It's small and so lightweight you barely feel it. It has navigation and auto-cal. pace from FP :cool:. Im always using a HRM run belt for running/biking and the OHR comes in when looking how my body responds to training during night. I find it very cool to look at the last 4 hours HR when waking up in the morning.

To me the 735XT is the watch I've been waiting for in a long time.

FWIW: I did start the 735 while driving to work this morning. I was sitting still in the car, which gave no quirks. Let's what the next run will bring. Here's the file, if you want to see it: https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1180465802

EDIT: I just reported the issue to Garmin via the beta email process. I hope this channels the email to the devs.

0 Former Member over 8 years ago

Yeah it's the quirks that looks odd to me - never seen anything like it. It could be that I got a faluty unit? Yesterday I did a full reset of the watch. So I'll go for another test tomorrow. I'll report in here. If the issue still persist, I'll report to the devs via their beta-email.

How did your test after the reset go Teriemer? I'm also wondering whether you used GPS or GPS+Glonass. There are rumours on the Garmin forum that Glonass can make things worse (in some part of the world)

My initial impression as somebody else coming from the Fenix 3: The FR 735XT looks and feels cheaper somehow. But then I do like how light it is...guess you can't have a classy metal look and low weight. Compared to the F3 the 735 has far fewer menus. Feels like something is missing but everything I actually use and need is there. The vibrations could be a bit stronger (maybe an option to choose vibration intensities even?) and I found it odd that I could only choose even numbers for weight during the set-up procedure (I happen to be 77kg at the moment). Has this always been the case for Garmins?

0 Teriemer over 8 years ago

How did your test after the reset go Teriemer? I'm also wondering whether you used GPS or GPS+Glonass. There are rumours on the Garmin forum that Glonass can make things worse (in some part of the world)

GPS on and GLONASS off

Where I live, GLONASS doesn't add much or anything to the tracking, so I don't use to save battery. I did a master reset the other day. That did help slightly, but the issue is still present. Note these quirks was with FW 3.1 - so it might already be fixed by now. I'm gonna go for a run later today - I'll report.

I agree with you in comparison with F3. I really don't miss anything either. That said, I'm also just a runner/biker so I don't use the watch for hiking, mountaineering etc. In fact I only use it for running, since I have an Edge 1000 for biking.

Yes the 735 is somewhat plasticky compared to F3. But I think the quality is great. Everything is fit and firm - no rattling. For a 40g training watch, I think this is how it should be done to keep the weight low.

I really like my 735XT :-)

0 timgrose over 8 years ago

GLONASS is interesting isn't it. I've yet to see any compelling studies that it actually makes much difference. I guess the only way to tell is to wear 2 identical devices (although 2 of 230/235/630/735 would probably do) on lots of runs (especially under trees and stuff) either on same wrist (or keep swapping them over) and see how things stack up.

Sometimes I look through my menus and note I had or had not switched to GLONASS (noting that GPS only is the default) and TBH I can't recall a time in recent memory when the 2 devices I take out on most of my runs were significantly different in GPS tracking and distance accrual and, of late, that is mostly a 735 and a 630.

0 timgrose over 8 years ago

On a less serious note does amuse me when people say the 735 looks "cheaper" than the Fenix 3. Well it is cheaper (to buy).

I always compare with say training shoes - some people prefer a heavier, more cushioned shoe for general training. Others like to wear something as light as possible - generally you go faster as a result. I'm in the latter camp.