I'm fairly new to the G-shock world, and I picked myself up a GMW-B5000 silver metal square (positive) and a 9300 mudman darth vader negative display. The 5000 square is very readable, and the 9300 is very unreadable, unless the lighting is just right. I'm looking to pick myself up a 5600 bluetooth square. Most of the models seem to have a negative display. In all the youtube videos, the negative display actually looks pretty good. There's even one guy on there who reckons the negative display is more readable. Based on my own experience, I'm not in a big hurry to get another negative display. But the good reviews, and the predominance of negative displays in the 5000 and 5600 lineups has me second guessing myself that maybe negative displays have improved over the 9300. Which way should I go on this?
Negative displays on squares
Chris-John
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Joined
·
520 Posts
I'm fairly new to the G-shock world, and I picked myself up a GMW-B5000 silver metal square (positive) and a 9300 mudman darth vader negative display. The 5000 square is very readable, and the 9300 is very unreadable, unless the lighting is just right. I'm looking to pick myself up a 5600 bluetooth square. Most of the models seem to have a negative display. In all the youtube videos, the negative display actually looks pretty good. There's even one guy on there who reckons the negative display is more readable. Based on my own experience, I'm not in a big hurry to get another negative display. But the good reviews, and the predominance of negative displays in the 5000 and 5600 lineups has me second guessing myself that maybe negative displays have improved over the 9300. Which way should I go on this?
Joined
·
5,928 Posts
I hate negative displays with a passion, so you know where I'm going to stand on this.
But, I will say that some models are much more readable than others. For example the GMW-B5000 negative displays are decent because of the STN display, but still a far cry from the positive display silver, which you have (and so do I, love it so!).
Joined
·
12,632 Posts
For me, the 5600 negative is great. Of course, positive is always more legible, but I love the look of negatives. It is by far the most legible of the 3 I've owned as seen in this pic.
![]()
I've never owned one, but I saw a dw-5600bb negative at my AD and it looks amazing. I wanted to buy one, but the lack of solar kind of did it in for me.
I've never owned one, but I saw a dw-5600bb negative at my AD and it looks amazing. I wanted to buy one, but the lack of solar kind of did it in for me.
Joined
·
201 Posts
I have more negative displays than positive. Yes positive is easier to read but negative is easily read too. Negative also looks much cooler, wish my b5000 was negative...
Joined
·
602 Posts
Even the best negative is still inferior to any positive to my eyes. I've owned a few, sold em, own none now, probably never will. To each his own...
Probably doesn't want to admit to his mistake in choosing a negative-display model. Some negative displays (like the GMW-B5000) are better than other negative displays. But I've yet to see a negative display that is easier to read than a positive display - not even when comparing a $500 negative display watch to a $10 positive display watch.
Joined
·
4,565 Posts
I will attest the DW5600BB has a very crisp negative display for a low budget....and I will mention one other model that has an amazing negative display and packs a punch for the functionalities the GD350 has a negative version and to add to that has Vibe alarm.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Joined
·
5,928 Posts
Agreed!
The STN on the b5000 does make the negative better, but the STN also makes the positive better. Point is, when comparing identical models with positive and negative, the positive always wins out.
I would also like to add that the only time I like the look of the negative, is in some of the stock photos (and some well timed member photos) but in person (even if legible), the positive just looks better. The contrast of the positive lcd against the resin is more aesthetically pleasing, imo.
Joined
·
12,092 Posts
Let me try to simplify this: When it comes to legibility, negative displays as of this writing continue to suck major. For looks, though, they almost always trump a positive display. That's pretty much the gist of the matter, so, don't let Casio's proliferation of negatives fool you into believing that a negative display is somehow going to be practical in daily use because of it. It's not, you're going to be annoyed and inconvenienced using a negative display watch, well, as a watch. But, for something that looks ultra-cool on your wrist, then you have to go with it. Your call.
Joined
·
2,380 Posts
I have bad experience with negative display before. For years I stick with positive display only. So I'm a fan of positive display. BUT recently I picked up b5600 and I love it. Not as legible as positive display but i don't have any problem with this one. Not all negative displays are created equal. Here are some pics in various lighting environments.
Hope this helps
Hope this helps
Joined
·
12,632 Posts
. Hmmm, this seems a bit hyperbolic. Yes, positives are more legible, no debate there, but I guess I must have a different definition of what illegible is. Having to look at my watch for an extra second to tell the time doesn't bother me and if I have to maybe even pull it a bit closer I guess my thought is that is why it is on my wrist to begin with (I have no trouble telling the time on any of my negatives, but yes my positive gmw is by far the most legible-no argument). If it did bother me, I guess I'd just use the auto light function.
But it does seem to annoy some people and there are some negatives that are certainly harder to read than others, but i don't think the b5600 falls under this category of a negative that isn't "practical for daily use".
Joined
·
201 Posts
Gwm 5610 BB Negative in sunlight, no issues reading whatsoever. Plus looks cooler than positive.
Attachments
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
Yes a positive display is easier to read, but that does not automatically make negative displays unreadable. They are not the same so why expect them to be? My Riseman is my most difficult to read, but it is still a great piece. As others have said, some models are better that others, but the "hate with a passion" aspect I just can't understand. If trivial things trigger such feelings, what do you do when ACTUAL problems arise?
![]()
Negative or positive, analog or digital, I just want a cool and purposeful watch to wear.
Negative or positive, analog or digital, I just want a cool and purposeful watch to wear.
Joined
·
1,284 Posts
More or less all answers are given.
But I may add one aspect: I noticed that it is a matter of de de-development of the eyesight. Since I passed the 50 I have a little problem with contrast seeing. The contrast of the negative displays are much lower than on the positive (all but the rangebeast), so it has become hard for me to read negative displays.
But I may add one aspect: I noticed that it is a matter of de de-development of the eyesight. Since I passed the 50 I have a little problem with contrast seeing. The contrast of the negative displays are much lower than on the positive (all but the rangebeast), so it has become hard for me to read negative displays.
Joined
·
5,928 Posts
HAHA, this reminds me of The Big Lebowski
But I do hate em.... probably moreso, because they remind me of "smart" watches.
Joined
·
1,447 Posts
Some of the very recent reverse displays (on the metal squares) look pretty darn good in person. Be careful with photos-- it's like Facebook-- people only post the very best angles.
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
