I'm not sure what you mean by "worth it" but I have both positive and negative display G's and obviously the negatives are more difficult to read. It just depends on what catches your eye and if you like the look. Some people may have worse eyesight than others so they would go with a positive display. IMO negatives look cooler but that's just me...I'm into a more stealthy look when it comes to my watches.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "worth it"

I suppose OP is alluding to a (supposed?) trade-off between style and clarity. ...Negative looks cooler but is less clear.

Do we think that coolness is worth going negative, or is the sacrifice too great?

 

It depends on how I like the watch and what will I do with it.

I currently use a watch to handle my daily duties, I think a positive display is more suitable to me.

 

I have only one negative display. They do look cool, but I like to be able to read the time at wide angles from far away, and you simply can't do that with a negative display (I don't care HOW GOOD your eyes are, mine are better than 20/20). The fact is, every single person on this board, takes slightly longer to read a negative display. It's a fact of human physiology. You may not notice the difference, but the difference is there. Some people don't care and just like how it looks.

 

I'm a fan, I love the look. My first G was a negative.

 

On the Gs with simple display like the 5600 a negative display might be OK for most of situations, but on Gs that show a lot of information at the same time (example the 9200/9300) I think a positive display would make them more functional.

 

They look cool, but the screen is not as practical as the positive

 

I only have one, but like it as it is different.

 

Most of the watches in my collection have negative displays. I have no issues reading them in all sorts of lighting conditions. I have found that some of the models in my collection that have the negative display are easier to read than some of the others.

 

I can go both ways... err... that sounds wrong.
Positive displays are easier to read overall... but a Neg. at night with auto EL can hold its own.

 

My collection is primarily negative displays. My only positive displays at this time are my purchase of older models. I still prefer negative.

 

negative display all the way - almost all of my shocks are with negative disp -

b-)

 

Nice comparison shot |>

 

I only have one G-Shock and it has a negative display. I like it have no issue with the readability. If its too dark to see clearly I hit the back-light.....no problem.

 

I have quite a few Casios with negative displays - but when considering buying a more expensive one - let's say between 100-150€ or more - I'd probably prefer positive. But let's face it - sometimes I look at my watch and don't know the time at all :-d (negative display or not) - so I have no problem with looking a little closer in case I can't read it at a glance. Right now I'm wearing this one - and IMO it looks more classy with the negative display:


cheers, Sedi

 

I think its kind of a trade off (for me anyway) on what you want the watch for. The negative display looks cool but as some have said, they are a little more difficult to read than a positive display. So IMO it boils down to a form vs. function thing. I have a job where it is necessary to check time at a quick glance. I've owned a couple of negative display pieces but have sold them because they weren't getting much wrist time. Each to his own though. My suggestion is that if you can get your hands on one, check it out. Some of the newer negative displays are easier to read than the older ones too.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

 

All my Gs are positive display, kinda prefer them over negative displays as functionality over looks.

 

used to love the negative displays... that is until i actually bought one. it basically becomes a cool looking wrist accessory under the sun or even bright indoor light, can't see anything!

 

When I started looking at G-shocks on the internet, I was drawn in by the negative displays, and was not aware that all those photos / videos etc were carefully shot in correct lighting to show the optimal view of the display. When I was looking to buy my son his G7900-1, I originally alos bought the G7900B-1 to check it out. I went to Macy's, and of course the readability was great it the display case with its ample / directed lighting. Then out of the case in the store lighting, it was less readable, but still good enough I did not fret. However, when I got it home to my east / west facing home with its poor natural lighting, it was barely readable in most natural light conditions in the house. Even outside under the patio and other places, I just was not impressed. It was returned the next day.

Since then I have tried the GLX-150, the G7900KG-3 and a couple of others hoping different ones would perform better, but no dice.

I read that some folks have no trouble reading them in all sorts of conditions, some on this thread, but I scratch my head - is the readabililty a personal eyesight / contrast thing where some can read them better than others? I don't get how some say they don't have any issues with the negative display when so many do???

 

I don't have any issues with negative displays. I love my pathfinder and I'm really wanting to add the new GWM5610BC to my collection.

 

I have had both, but by far prefer positive displays for readability.

 

I like the negative displays a lot, and they are a bit less readable than the positive ones.

The thing that bothers me more about the negative ones is that they seem to show any smudge or dust much much more than a positive one.
I have the wipe off or clean a negative display more often than a positive one.

 

Perhaps someone with more knowledge than I can help explain why some negative displays are easier to read than others. But the idea basically is this:

Negative displays inherently have less contrast because less light can fall on the reflector. Because of this, on a negative LCD it will always be darker than a positive LCD under the same lighting conditions. There's also a difference in indivual modules on how much of a space there is between the reflector and the Liquid Crystal. The shorter this distance, the better, because if it's too far away you'll more likely see shadows from the digits on the reflector more under various angles and light conditions.

Since the negative display has most of the reflector in shadow, you'll want thicker digit segments to help keep them falling into shadow more often,and a shorter distance between reflector and LCD to minimize shadow. Negative display+Thin digits+big distance between LC and reflector= Really bad readibility.

I always went for positive displays with all my watch, simply because of the better readibility under most lighting conditiions. The only exception would be the Seiko EPD, because it's E-paper display has no layers it doesn't create any shadows, so a negative display is almost as readable as a positive, but it's the exception to the rule.

 

Perhaps someone with more knowledge than I can help explain why some negative displays are easier to read than others. But the idea basically is this:

Negative displays inherently have less contrast because less light can fall on the reflector. Because of this, on a negative LCD it will always be darker than a positive LCD under the same lighting conditions. There's also a difference in indivual modules on how much of a space there is between the reflector and the Liquid Crystal. The shorter this distance, the better, because if it's too far away you'll more likely see shadows from the digits on the reflector more under various angles and light conditions.

Since the negative display has most of the reflector in shadow, you'll want thicker digit segments to help keep them falling into shadow more often,and a shorter distance between reflector and LCD to minimize shadow. Negative display+Thin digits+big distance between LC and reflector= Really bad readibility.

I always went for positive displays with all my watch, simply because of the better readibility under most lighting conditiions. The only exception would be the Seiko EPD, because it's E-paper display has no layers it doesn't create any shadows, so a negative display is almost as readable as a positive, but it's the exception to the rule.

Seems correct to me. Bigger digits - more light on the LCD - more contrast. One of the reasons the G-7800B is so good as it has big digits. And on the older models like DW-5600 and DW-6900 Casio made the digits slightly thicker for the negative versions. They stopped doing that unfortunately for the newer models - therefore the contrast on this one really sucked:


cheers, Sedi

 

I simply couldn't live with the negative displays I have bought/seen, but then again, it's not like I haven't broken my own rules before.

 

i dont have a problem reading negative displays on a wristwatch. the only time it has been an issue is when i've been sleeping with the watch on the nightstand, no wall clock, and tried to read the watch display from a distance at weird angles. positive displays are equally unreadable in this situation.

have you ever noticed how hard it is to read positive displays at an angle in bright sunlight, when all you see is 88:88? does this deter you from buying positive displays?
when you go to a store and they have stairs and a wheelchair ramp at their entrance, do you always take the ramp because it is easier?

on the wrist, you perhaps might have to turn the watch an extra 5 degrees with a negative display, or turn your head to face the watch more directly than if you were wearing a positive display. is this what everyone means when they say negatives are more difficult to read?

it sounds a lot like the princess and the pea to me.

honestly, the difference in time required to read a positive vs. negative display is so miniscule that, if this is a deciding factor for you, then forget digital watches all together. analog is the way to go. the analog face with it's spacial representation of time is much faster to recognize than digital, positive or negative, and in a much wider range of light.

 

it sounds a lot like the princess and the pea to me.

honestly, the difference in time required to read a positive vs. negative display is so miniscule that, if this is a deciding factor for you, then forget digital watches all together. analog is the way to go. the analog face with it's spacial representation of time is much faster to recognize than digital, positive or negative, and in a much wider range of light.

Huh? You are speaking about this as if it is a fact, and it is the same case for everyone....

I COMPLETELY disagree and have had an entirely different experience with negative vs positive displays. The difference is hardly miniscule to me, and I am pretty sure I am not alone.

And why I asked the question earlier - is there potentially a difference for some folks eyes being able to deliniate contrast better than others? I know my older eyes don't read things like font size like I used to, but I did not know the eye degraded that much for contrast?

Am I alone here? Does anyone else look at the difference between negative and positive displays as miniscule, or do you see it as a substantial difference as I do?

Coolio - IMHO I am not sure it is 100% possible to represent photographically on the net what the eye will see on a negative display in different conditions versus having one in your hand, in person. I looked at literally hundreds of youtube videos, photos on the net before holding one, and nothing compared to having it on my wrist.... YMMV

 

My GX56-4 is my only negative display watch. And it will most likely be my last. Don't get me wrong, I really love this watch but I would have preferred it to be a positive display like the GX56-1 (which is on my "to buy" list). I have tried other negative displays and some are better than others but all are inferior to a positive display in terms of quickly and easily reading the info on the screen especially at off-angle viewing in less than ideal lighting conditions. Negative displays are cool looking though but I've always been a "form follows function" type of person.

This is a shot of how this negative displays looks most of the time:

Sometimes when the angle and lighting is just right, it looks like this:

And sometimes it looks like this (and no, it is not in PS mode):

 

Time_B.. fair enough.. disagree if you like. no need to take offense and shout. it is a fact, but it is not the same case for everyone.

i was speaking hypothetically, as if we were talking about the same ideal model of watch, viewed through the theoretically non-existant 'average eyes.' of course we have had different experiences with different models over the years. i am sure that one of the reasons i like negative displays is because i've never owned one of the early models that gave them such a bad reputation to begin with. did you have an experience where you had bought one of the early generation and feel that you were burned? how many opinions here do you think were shaped by an experience like that? many, i think.

i agree with your comment that there is some blame to be found not in the watch, but in the wearer's vision. my eyes have trouble with the colour tinted displays, especially the blue and red/pink ones. but this is where the argument slips into a comparison of specific models, size and colour of readout, light conditions, etc.., rather than the hypothetical.

 

Time_B.. fair enough.. disagree if you like. no need to take offense and shout. it is a fact, but it is not the same case for everyone.

LOL, shouting would be CAPS not bold!! And I take no offense, where did you get that, merely trying to be objective, offer my opinion and get your educated stance as to why you think negative displays are just as easy to read as positive - I simply do not think they are.

And the negative display being harder to read in differing lighting conditions seems to be a love / hate topic with no middle ground... any insights as to why? I definitely had trouble reading them in many conditions as do many others - care to conjecture why that is?

 

Interesting how disagreement on the point that negative displays are harder to read than positive ones gets turned into a "personal attack" on one's choice!

Why is it that negative display supporters are so sensitive about folks making a case that they are much harder to read in many lighting conditions? They are... and many know it... but not everyone wants to admit it.