Android Forums, Reviews

vendredi 7 août 2026

I wore 4 top smartwatches through a Spartan race, 12 miles of running, and sleep tracking to find the ultimate fitness companion

"Hold on, hold on. What's going on here?" my coach asked as he noticed me wearing four watches before I went out running. I often wear two watches to the gym because I'm constantly comparing them, but I've never worn four before, and that was clearly enough to raise eyebrows.

After explaining the article you're currently reading, in which I wear four smartwatches through a series of tests, he laughed and told me I must have a fun job. Indeed, I do! But the results of the test should be a real help to anyone looking to buy a smartwatch this year (and help save some money in the process).

So stick with me as I run through my past week, in which I wore four smartwatches to sleep, every time I ran during my half-marathon Spartan training, and during a full 5K Spartan race over the weekend.

Starting off with a good night's sleep

Wearing an Amazfit T-Rex 3 Pro, Honor Watch 6, OnePlus Watch 3 43mm, and Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 to bed — (Image credit: Nicholas Sutrich / Android Central)

I would never recommend sleeping with four smartwatches on, but I will say that it wasn't nearly as uncomfortable as I had been dreading. Most smartwatches collect the same sleep data, but every so often you'll find a watch that does something different. The Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, for example, included a skin temperature measurement, measured against a baseline it had determined in the past 2 weeks since I started wearing it.

Sleep stats
Metric	Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2	Honor Watch 6	Amazfit T-Rex 3 Pro	OnePlus Watch 3 43mm
Sleep time	6h 33m	6h 38m	6h 43m	6h 31m
Sleep score	72	77	54	70
Deep sleep	1h 3m	2h 24m	1h 17m	1h 2m
Light sleep	2h 36m	2h 48m	3h 8m	3h 47m
REM sleep	2h 2m	1h 26m	1h 22m	1h 42m
Times awake	18 (52m)	2	9 (38 min)	2 (7m)
Breathing quality	12.9 times/min (high rate)	63 (low score)	14 BRPM	N/A
Heart rate range	45-84 (51 avg)	30-122ms HRV	47-73	46-64 bpm (52 avg)
Blood Oxygen	93%	N/A	94%	N/A
Skin temperature	+1.3F	N/A	N/A	N/A

Of all the watches I wore, the Honor Watch 6 showed the least data. Most of it is holed up in a sleep analysis section that gives you percentages and glanceable "normal," "high," and "low" ranges so you don't have to dive deep. That's good because I couldn't figure out how to dive deep into this data.

The OnePlus Watch 3 43mm offered a better look at the data, but it didn't include as many data points (like SpO2 or breathing quality). The Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 did a great overall job, but it seems like it's a bit more sensitive to my restless sleep than the other watches.

Overall, I felt like the Amazfit T-Rex 3 Pro's data was the most accurate. I know I woke up more than 2 times (which the Honor and OnePlus watches say), but there's no chance I was up 18 times as Samsung suggests. The T-Rex 3 Pro has a temperature sensor onboard, but apparently, it doesn't include this data for sleep. Weird choice, but that terrible 54 sleep score lines up with how I felt when I woke up, not the 72 Samsung gave me.

Time for a run (or four)

Comparing fitness metrics after a 4km run between a Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, Honor Watch 6, Amazfit T-Rex 3 Pro, and Honor Watch 6 — (Image credit: Android Central)

I began training for a Spartan Beast a few weeks ago using Amazfit's incredible running coach feature because I already felt confident in the watch's ability to accurately measure everything. Since I had already been comparing the Amazfit T-Rex 3 Pro to every other watch I've worn over the past few years, it made sense to keep it on for this comparison.

My intuition wasn't wrong. Looking at the map data above, where I ran 2.5 miles over two loops around this Walmart and the surrounding business park, things look pretty even until you zoom in. I broke off sections of the track so you can see the GPS tracking discrepancies between the watches.

Overall, the OnePlus Watch 3 43mm was the least accurate (genuinely a surprise to me), while the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 and Amazfit T-Rex 3 Pro tied for first. The Honor Watch 6 also did an excellent job, but there were two points on the map with notable tree cover that showed me running in the road instead of on the sidewalk, while the other two kept me on the side of the road.

As I dove deeper into the rest of the data, I found a consistent pattern among all four watches. In each data point, there was a clear outlier. The Honor Watch 6, for example, got the altitude all wrong, while the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 completely fumbled the cadence measurement.

The OnePlus Watch 3 43mm had some very strange spikes and dips in speed, almost assuredly owing to the GPS tracking issues I mentioned earlier, while all four watches tied for heart rate accuracy. Notably, the Amazfit T-Rex 3 Pro didn't show up as an outlier on any of the data points, owing to its excellent overall accuracy.

One Spartan Race to finish it off

Comparing GPS tracking data between the Amazfit T-Rex 3 Pro and Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — (Image credit: Android Central)

As I approached the Spartan Race, it was clear that Amazfit and Samsung were leading the pack here. Since I had to wear an RFID bracelet and a separate time bracelet for the race, I only had room for two smartwatches, so this was going to be between the winners.

I don't see any obvious discrepancies in the GPS data between the two watches. Clearly, each is slightly different from the other, but it's impossible to tell which one is right since this is a trail course. I'll give this section a tie.

Comparing workout stats between the Amazfit T-Rex 3 Pro and Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — (Image credit: Android Central)

You'll need to click the expand button on the image above and zoom in to see all the details, but once you do, you'll understand why Amazfit did a better job of tracking this race. In the heart rate data, you'll see three points where the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 did something weird. Just after 9:20 and around 10:05, it registered a far lower heart rate than I actually had.

Then, around 10:46-10:50, it seems to have failed to get a heart rate at all. Strangely enough, that same lapse in data also appears in the speed and cadence graphs. While both watches were dead-on with speed data and mostly similar with altitude, the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 wildly messed up my running cadence, which happened during other runs I've gone on with this watch, too.

This particular Spartan Race was both very busy and extremely muddy, causing quite a bit of backup at each obstacle. On the cadence graph, you can see where the Amazefit T-Rex 3 Pro properly measured me not moving while waiting in line, yet the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 seems to think these moments didn't happen. Trust me, I was frustrated enough to remember them, and that's enough to give the T-Rex 3 Pro the win.

Truly amaze

Wearing an Amazfit T-Rex 3 Pro and a Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 during a Spartan Race — (Image credit: Nicholas Sutrich / Android Central)

The Amazefit T-Rex 3 Pro has been my go-to smartwatch for the past two years, and it's no wonder, with the results I've seen over the past week. While several watches have caught my attention since then, this one is consistently the most reliable and one of the most feature-rich.

Aside from being a great watch, the Zepp app that powers the experience is second to none. The UI is excellent; it's got a ton of amazing features (like this AI-powered food logging feature), and the subscription is only necessary if you want additional AI-powered insights, which I haven't typically used in the past. All in all, it's easily my favorite workout companion and an experience I think fitness fans will love.

from Latest from Android Central https://ift.tt/1OtbA2T
via IFTTT

I took 1,000 photos with the Galaxy Z Fold 8 and Fold 8 Ultra and compared them to my two favorite foldable phones. The results may surprise you

Samsung makes some of the best camera phones in the ever-shrinking North American market. With the Galaxy Z Fold 8 and Z Fold 8 Ultra hitting the market, I decided to take their cameras for a spin, taking 1,000 photos between both phones to get a good idea of how they perform.

Beyond just testing the cameras of Samsung's newest foldables, I also took the time to compare the camera performance to two of my favorite foldables: the Motorola Razr Ultra 2026 and Razr Fold. Motorola has come a long way, and the Fold has proven that the company knows how to make a good camera.

How I tested them

The Galaxy Z Fold 8 and Fold 8 Ultra Gallery apps — (Image credit: Derrek Lee / Android Central)

I've been testing the Galaxy Z Fold 8 and Fold 8 Ultra since their launch on July 22. I captured photos in various scenarios and environments, using both devices alongside the Razr Ultra 2026 and Razr Fold.

I didn't fiddle with any settings or tap a subject in the viewfinder to adjust the exposure; all of these were just point-and-shoot.

Hands-on with the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 — (Image credit: Derrek Lee / Android Central)

Juggling four phones isn't easy, and it isn't the most scientific method, but I tried to keep things as fair as possible. I made sure to capture photos with the same or similar composition across devices. Still, there may be some slight differences between photos.

Also, for the sake of my sanity (and your time), I'm not uploading all 1,000 photos I captured with the Galaxy Z Fold 8 series. However, I have selected a number of images that I think best represent the capabilities of the Galaxy Z Fold 8 series in different situations.

Note: Click the expand button in the corner for a better view of the images.

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 and Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra

The Galaxy Z Fold 8 and Fold 8 Ultra camera sensors — (Image credit: Derrek Lee / Android Central)

Between the Galaxy Z Fold 8 and Fold 8 Ultra, the hardware differences are quite massive. The former sticks to two 50MP cameras, while the latter has a massive 200MP primary sensor and a third telephoto camera. The result is noticeably more detail in the Fold 8 Ultra's images, while the Fold 8 tends to lean a bit softer.

That goes for color as well; images from the Fold 8 Ultra tend to be punchier, while the Fold 8 tends to appear a bit muted. I find I prefer the Ultra's images, although it can go a bit overboard with saturation, especially when it comes to the color red.

This is the complete opposite for the ultrawide sensor, which is punchier on the Fold 8, and I tend to prefer these images over the Fold 8 Ultra's ultrawide.

Both phones do relatively okay when it comes to selfies and portrait images, although I still feel like they lack proper tuning for skin tones like mine.

Galaxy Z Fold 8 camera sample — Galaxy Z Fold 8Derrek Lee / Android Central

Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra camera samples — Galaxy Z Fold 8Derrek Lee / Android Central

The Ultra clearly has the upper hand with zoom. The Fold 8 can take 2x shots at optical quality, but anything beyond that and you'll see the quality drop. In most cases, images for the Ultra appear much cleaner, while the Fold 8 can sometimes struggle to produce the necessary detail.

Sometimes the Fold 8 gets it right, and while the AI is clearly putting in some work to make up for the lack of a telephoto camera, things like text can appear sharper on the Fold 8 compared to the more natural processing from the Ultra's optical sensor. Still, the Fold 8 isn't as consistent with zoom shots, and your best bet is to stick with 2x.

Both phones do a decent job with challenging lighting, but I wouldn't say either excels. Photos are often a tad noisy, though this is more of an issue with the base Fold 8 than the Fold 8 Ultra, which often delivers cleaner, more detailed shots.

Overall, both phones have their strengths, and Samsung seems to have improved how its phones capture movement. I really like the ultrawide shots on the Fold 8, but the Fold 8 Ultra unsurprisingly comes out on top, with the 200MP primary camera bringing more vibrancy and detail to images, while the telephoto camera keeps zoom shots relatively clean.

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 and Motorola Razr Ultra 2026

The Galaxy Z Fold 8 and Razr Ultra 2026 — (Image credit: Derrek Lee / Android Central)

Both the Galaxy Fold 8 and Razr Ultra 2026 have dual 50MP cameras for wide and ultrawide shots. However, both phones handle color and lighting a bit differently. Regarding color reproduction, the Razr Ultra 2026 does a better job of staying true to the scene, while elements (like the sky) can be a bit more dramatic due to the added contrast and detail. The Fold 8 again feels a bit more muted in many scenes, but still does a decent job.

The Razr Ultra 2026 also handles trickier lighting situations a bit better, brightening subjects without adding a ton of noise in the process. However, the caveat is that while it does better with things like neon signs, my unit doesn't seem to like bright street lamps very much, as they can flare up and ruin a scene.

I also tend to prefer selfies on the Galaxy Z Fold 8's external front-facing camera, as the Razr Ultra tends to do some weird overprocessing. However, I find the Razr is better at portrait mode photos.

Galaxy Z Fold 8 camera samples — Galaxy Z Fold 8Derrek Lee / Android Central

Razr Ultra 2026 camera samples — Galaxy Z Fold 8Derrek Lee / Android Central

When it comes to zoom, neither phone excels here, and they tend to trade blows in detail, lighting, and color. Sometimes, I prefer the Galaxy Z Fold 8, and other times the Razr comes out on top. Either way, I don't think there's a winner here, as neither is particularly good beyond 2x zoom.

Overall, I think the Razr Ultra 2026 has the upper hand when it comes to just the point-and-shoot camera experience. That's not to say the Galaxy Z Fold 8 is bad, but there's a general lack of pop in its images. I think the camera could use some additional tuning, perhaps with future updates (which Samsung is good about).

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra and Motorola Razr Fold

The Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra and Motorola Razr Fold — (Image credit: Derrek Lee / Android Central)

The Fold 8 Ultra's 200MP camera should theoretically come out on top compared to the Razr Fold's 50MP sensor, right? Well, surprisingly, Motorola holds its own. Both phones bring plenty of detail to their images, and while photos from the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra can appear more vibrant, such as when taking photos of the sky or of water, the Razr Fold handles low-light situations better.

As you can see from the photo of the door or the floating planets, the Razr Fold's camera brings more light into a scene while keeping noise levels low. The alleyway also shows how the Razr Fold handles tricky lighting better, as you can see much more clearly into the distance than in the Fold 8 Ultra's photo. And I don't even know what happened with the Carnegie Library; the Fold 8's color is way off.

That said, the Fold 8 handles moving objects better than Motorola's, as the Razr Fold's post-processing can often result in a missed moment or a blurry subject. The Fold 8 Ultra also handles selfies better with its external front camera.

Razr Fold camera samples — Galaxy Z Fold 8 UltraDerrek Lee / Android Central

But what I was really curious about was how both phones handle zoom. This was a big highlight of my Motorola Razr Fold camera review, so I wanted to see if the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra was up to the challenge. Shockingly, that doesn't seem to be the case.

At 3x zoom, both phones are neck-and-neck, and unless you need to go any further than this, you should be fine with images from either phone. If you go beyond this point, however, Motorola's AI kicks in and handles a lot of the work, and it does a bang-up job doing it in most cases. Lines are cleaner, text is more legible, and you can see clearer figures of people from off at a distance of even 30x zoom.

That 30x zoom happens to be the limit of the Fold 8 Ultra's zoom capabilities, but perhaps Samsung should have limited it even further, because images at this level are not very usable. You can probably get away with decent 10x zoom photos, but more often than not, the Razr Fold will produce the better photo, regardless of the lighting (although there are some exceptions).

Verdict

Samsung doesn't make bad cameras, but it doesn't make the best cameras either. The Galaxy Z Fold 8 and Z Fold 8 Ultra hold their own, and I don't think anyone would be particularly disappointed with either phone's camera.

The Galaxy Z Fold 8 is clearly not as good as its Ultra sibling, and it even falls behind Motorola's Razr Ultra 2026 in some areas. However, unless you're trying to zoom in really close or take photos in the dark, I think it's more than adequate.

The Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra is the better of Samsung's latest foldables, and produces great images with vibrant colors and plenty of detail. However, its zoom capabilities leave a lot to be desired, especially compared to the Razr Fold, and I'm hoping Samsung can address this in future updates.

from Latest from Android Central https://ift.tt/Kk8ct3U
via IFTTT