935 vs Fenix 5S as a runner's watch

+1 for real measurements to compare against...


that being said, i went to DCR's review picture and assuming the photo is close to zero parallax, what i see using a ruler to my large computer monitor zoomed in... (i.e., a relative scale)

5S 45mm
735xt 40mm (no 235 i shown but if i recall, the 235/230/630 are 1mm bigger than the 735XT)
935 45mm (maybe a hair less than 5S)
5 48mm
5X/3 49+mm (i'm surprised that this isn't that much bigger than the 5 but maybe it's a photographic effect)

of course, this is using a photograph but i think the 5S and 935 effective sizes are similar (i had that impression from reading/watching DCRs review that's why i went back and measured). i did get to put on a 5 on my wrist this weekend and it was a smidge for my wrist. (although the REI salesperson thought it looked great but he admitted to liking oversized watches and he
himself was wearing a Fenix 3 which looked huge on his wrist to me)

Having had both side by side, I can confirm the lugs are the same length, although the larger watch face of the 935 gives the appearance of a bigger watch.

Having had both side by side, I can confirm the lugs are the same length, although the larger watch face of the 935 gives the appearance of a bigger watch.

Thanks for the added confirmation.

this really makes things tricky. from what it's worth, to add to the lug sized data here is the "face size diameter" for a lot of the watches:

5S: 42mm
735XT: 44.5mm
230/630: 45 mm
5/935: 47 mm
5X/3: 51 mm

glad you found something you like :)

i got the 935 today, previously had the 735XT and 620 before that...i went in store motivated the get the 5S as i also have a very skinny wrist and thought the 5 or 5X would be way too big on my pencil wrist!

Ended up getting the 935 on following basis;

it feels a lot lighter on the wrist - i find with skinny wrists the 5 felt too clunky and looked bigger/ unwieldy ( i think the bezel on the 5 makes it look bigger than the 935).
The 935 looks more subtle on my skinny wrist than the 5 - the 5 just looks too big (and heavy)
the 5S looked a bit too girly, esp. the band clasp - just something about it said female to me....
the 935 has a bigger screen than the 5S which i figure will make it easier/ nicer to read while running
the 935 was cheaper, has Wifi whereas the 5S doesnt

hope that helps...i suprised myself as hadnt really considered the 935 before i saw it in the flesh- certainly the size/weight/screen size sealed the deal for me (and my v.skinny wrists)

Interesting Matt. Hope you like the 935. I do!

Out of interest what is your wrist measurement? Scott got the 5S because he is 6.5". I am not exactly huge at 7" (despite being 6'5"/1.95m tall) but the 935 is fine for me.

Or another measure is that I have got the 935 on the 7th notch for "normal" wear. I could certainly tighten by one if wanted to use OHR for an actual activity.

hi Tim

i'm 5'6" and 128lbs - lets just say i love riding and running in the hills!! My wrist is tiny - about 6 1/4 inches, i have the 935 on the 6th or 7th notch for normal wear, and would tighten it to about the 5th notch if i was using the wrist HRM. My previous experience with the 735XT was the wrist optical HRM was completely useless - all over the place, not reliable at all, didnt matter how tight/ located the strap on my wrist...I use the heart wrap strap for all running and just take an interest in the optical HR for activity tracking....the watch and previously the 735 has enough other excellent features that i am not too concerned that wrist based heart monitoring is so flakey for any proper workout (running) and i use a forerunner 520 for on the bike....

Interesting feedback. I'm 6' tall and about 150lbs with 6.25" wrists and was pretty much set on the 5S until the 935 was announced.

I like the idea of the slightly bigger, higher resolution screen and having the same battery life as the standard F5 but with the same lug-to-lug measurement as the 5S. The weight is a bonus but now that I've adapted to the weight of my F3 I feel like I might miss having a bit of heft to my watch which the 5S would provide without being as heavy as an F3.

I'm going to be moving house in the next couple of months so there's no room in the budget to pull the trigger on a purchase like this right now but it's great reading and seeing the photos of those who are getting them now. Especially those who are getting a couple of different F5 models or and F5 and this to see the real world comparisons.

I saw the FR935 in the flesh yesterday and found it to be a very good looking watch, very light (no perceptible difference with my FR235) and with all the features of the F5.

Having said that I'm having a bit of a hard time convincing myself that it's really worth the upgrade from a FR235 (of FR735 if you're a tri-athlete) if you're going to be using it for running? The added FirstBeat are "nice" but nothing you can't get for free (and in more detail) with Runalyze honestly.

Interesting feedback. I'm 6' tall and about 150lbs with 6.25" wrists and was pretty much set on the 5S until the 935 was announced.

I like the idea of the slightly bigger, higher resolution screen and having the same battery life as the standard F5 but with the same lug-to-lug measurement as the 5S. The weight is a bonus but now that I've adapted to the weight of my F3 I feel like I might miss having a bit of heft to my watch which the 5S would provide without being as heavy as an F3.

I'm going to be moving house in the next couple of months so there's no room in the budget to pull the trigger on a purchase like this right now but it's great reading and seeing the photos of those who are getting them now. Especially those who are getting a couple of different F5 models or and F5 and this to see the real world comparisons.

I have used both the 935 and F5S and text looks the same on both devices. The resolution is slightly larger on the 935 because the screen is physically bigger, so there is no loss of sharpness on the smaller screen of the F5S.

I sent back the 935 because I thought it was overpriced for a plastic watch, and the larger face made it look oversized on my wrist. The build quality of the 935 is not a touch on the Fenix. The Fenix is a high quality product that feels like it's worth £500, and you will want to wear it all day every day as a smart watch and fitness tracker. The only downside is that it feels like a bit of a lump when running, but 69 grams is still considerably lighter than the Fenix 3. I have a marathon on Sunday and I am considering wearing my old 630 because of how light it is, although I'm sure having 69 grams on my wrist isn't going to adversely affect my running - it's still only one thousandth of my body weight, after all!

Here's another pic. The sapphire version was worth it for the dark grey bezel alone. It looks more understated than the silver one.

Having said that I'm having a bit of a hard time convincing myself that it's really worth the upgrade from a FR235 ...

There's rarely a truly compelling reason to upgrade these things especially if your current watch largely does what you want and isn't about to "give up".

There is certainly a degree of "Keeping up with the Joneses" however!