It may have got a good review but if you don't use the music function you're paying say an extra £100 for nothing
I'm not sure you are; isn't it cheaper than the 935? Aren't you basically paying less to get the music (assuming you aren't a triathlete and therefore won't use the cycling and swimming stuff that it misses)
I was just comparing it to my 735xt.
Yes a bit cheaper than the 935 and has features such as the music and garmin pay so maybe value for money there, but way too expensive if all you're after is a running watch.
My requirements include barometric altimeter and “good” HR recording - so that’s two things the 735 can’t offer. 645, 935 and Fenix5 all have the improved optical HRM, and one is less expensive than the others and has the better write up...
Will still wait and see how they perform in real life first, and expect the price to drop in next 6 months as enter full circulation - particularly so for the non-music version