Separate names with a comma.
Are you a current member with account or password issues?
Please visit following page for more information
Discussion in 'Watches' started by Ethos, Jul 21, 2017.
Why do I see so many people choosing digital GSHOCK over Analog?
Actually, G-Shocks started out as digital. Casio it cranking out more ana-digi watches these days.
Yeah but I mean why do so many people choose a digital, I see far more of them than Analog.
We live in a digital age...? I dunno, i have one digital and one analog and i like em both equally for different reasons.
It is a cultural thing. It is much easier to teach a person to tell time with a digital time piece than an analog. Almost everywhere you look you see a digital clock: phones, computers, tv's and so forth. I have a ship's clock that my dad got from his time on the USS Ranger. My teenage son had some friends who stared at the clock trying to figure out the time. It's a simple clock and they figured it out. It took longer than I thought it should though. I'm not talking minutes mind you.
Personally, I find the G shock analog display styles to be a rather 'busy' display -- too much going on. I tend to favor a simpler cleaner display. Also, for any that are solar (some of the G shock are), I lean towards the digital. I've not had great experiences with solar powered analog displays.
My collection of watches is not very large -- total of eight. Most are analog types (3 Seiko automatics, 1 Movado quartz). So I'm not totally biased against analog.
Moshe ben David
I can't time to the hundredth of a second with analog.
1/100th of a second on an analog watch really gives meaning to the phrase "Time flies"
OK that is awesome! And I stand corrected. LOL!
I find the digital/analog to be useful and have a cheap Casio knock about, but most of my watches are analog. I can have any type of digital function I might need on my phone and prefer the aesthetics of analog. When I was a kid, I drooled over the complications on high end chronographs, now I just use an app
I've had a GW-M5610 and a DW-5600BB for some time, and have really come to like the qualities of these watches. However I generally just use the time and date features, and prefer analogue watches, so I would be very interested if Casio would sell a pure analogue counterpart of the GW-M5610 with just the basics (non ABC) and a similar size, but still maintaining the solar atomic and E.L. backlight.
If I were to add some features it would be to implement an analogue tide presentation. My fishing interest has really gained traction lately, and I would love to access tide info without getting my phone and operate it with hands covered in fish blood and what not.
I have to agree with Moshe ben David, that most of the current digi-anas are quite busy. Still I'm tempted by a few of them, but it seems like the size is also generally larger on the digi-anas. These two (subjective) negatives has put me off this far, but I must admit I still haven't tried one on to get the true feeling of how it reads and wears.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Take a look at the GAX 100B. It's a very legible Dive analog dial type with tide, moon phase, and temperature.
Yes, there are a lot of digital G's, its the backbone of the watch line. As time has gone by, tho, it's also the market for other makers who are slowly chipping away, Armitron for one. So Casio is moving into analogs, and some aren't cheap, $300 to $900.
The one above is under $100 and definitely on my next to buy list.
I do see a lot of digital G's "on the street" and it is a very popular style, about the most numerous I can count. Many of my customers work - physically labor - and for the most part they see it as the most durable watch they can wear doing it. Farmers, cops, mechanics, soldiers, tradesmen - you name it - it's appreciated as the go to watch that can put up with all the bangs, bumps, and hard knocks most other watches won't tolerate. While offering more than the average.
Casio's slogan at one time was "the unexpected extra" and it's still part of their philosophy.
Interesting question. I didn't specifically "choose" G-Shocks in digital, its just happens to be that way.
Part of the the attraction on G-Shock is multi-function. And I found digital G-Shocks to have easier to use and read multi-function watch. I have tried the all analog watches with multi-function but they usually fall short in the "ease of use" or "easyo ro read" department.
And I have plenty of analog only watches other than G-Shocks. So I don't feel lacking if I want a watch with just analog hands.
My only G-Shock that has analog hands (for now)
The legibility of analog G-Shock is rather poor, that might explain.
While it's pretty subjective, I agree. IMHO they're too busy, and analog/digital G-Shocks in particular are too big, at least for me. Well designed and legible analog/digital watches are pretty rare in general.
I wear a gshock rangeman everyday for work, but I actually prefer analog watches iv just broken to many faces of analog watches to justify my everyday uses. It saved me money in the long run though I was going through a lot of watches before I switched two years ago.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Legibiity IS an issue with G Shocks, in general. The more recent introductions of analogs are moving in the right direction with cleaner hands, less gear tooth or fat tails, and more prominent markers. Entirely why I suggested the GAX. It's much closer to a Dive style watch face.
Mine's inbound and it came down to accepting the negative digital display - or not buying it. Since my choice was based on it being a highly legible analog dial then the negative display accents that rather than takes it away. The additional subdial for tide is shiny and reads clearly enough without being a major distraction.
There are those who complain about negative displays being hard to read in low light, or that Casio doesn't backlight them for nighttime use. I have then inquired "why are you trying to read a small digital display in the dark?" For the amount of serious issue some bring to the subject - they never explain it.
I'm no fan of cell phones but if you need that kind of data presented in a dark situation then maybe the watch isn't your best option. Having worked mil/LEO in the dark shift for months at a time I have no idea what someone would need to time or otherwise observe to 1/100 of a second, why they would need to know the time offset for Jakarta, or find out what the temp or altitude is. Lack of daylight means we typically restrict our activities and don't pursue the more risky ones.
What I really suspect is that someone is looking to add a feature to their list in order to elevate the social status of what they wear. "Oh, I have backlighting, don't you?" Due to my training and education I won't answer directly, but it amounts to "No, I don't like being a downrange target, duh." If things are potentially so dangerous I need a rescue beacon, then I take a rescue beacon. Any decent flashlight will do these days, much better than the backlighting on a mid range digital.
I could go on, the point is that some features are included on watches not because you need them, it's because some people want them. The makers are in business to sell you your hearts desire and that's where we start seeing some interesting divisions in the market - practical watches for everyday users, and full tilt feature bling watches for collectors to grail on.
Much the same as Navy SEAL dive knives or Rolex Subs, most are sold to folks who have no intent to ever use them for their specific design purpose and who sport them for status more than effectiveness. The same camping trip or stay at the beach would be equally accommodated with a simple paring knife and a 200WR G Shock.
Be careful what you ask a watch to do, go too far and you add zero's to the price with an inverse and equal number of zeros on the other side of the decimal point for "return on investment." A $40 watch does a lot, a $400 watch very little more other than grace someone's wrist with a statement of their taste and disposable income. It's not always as positive as we think.
@tirod: I think you've made great points. In my post up near the beginning of this thread I wasn't really addressing night time legibility. I just find many G shock have so many small dials on the face, so many markings, etc., that its just too busy for my tastes. I have the same issue with many of the chronometers in general, especially many of the Citizen 'Nighthawk' (and its variants). Just not my cup of tea.
Moshe ben David
Great perspective. I try to read small digital displays in the dark due to the nature of my work. I work aboard ships on the bridge often at night. It's much easier to look at my illuminated G for the time them to use a flashlight to look at a non illuminated watch.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
IMO most of what you'll use on a G Shock in the dark would likely be the time, what people complain about is the lack of seeing the date, which unless you woke up in the dark you probably checked earlier in the day and know the date.
Mine(s) hands are easily readable which is most of what I'll ever need to know at night, and if I'm running a chrono or timer I'm probably going to need a flashlight to see whatever I'm timing or to be safe anyway.
There are models like the analog aviator series that are awesome but I'm not crazy about the height.
I want a digital...too, but I prefer hands.