This is my first review here on a G'S and chose the GDF-100 for all that it implies that, at least in my eyes.
Let me begin by saying that it is the fourth - except my error - in order of recent appearance, by which the Casio tends to return to the origins in terms of physical dimensions of the G'S: the first was the GA, the second GX, GD and the third is now the GDF.
With GDF-100 Casio also takes its cue from the big G's of the past that have marked its history by taking her to be today with the G's, for quality and strength, a point of reference.
It 's simple to see in the GDF-100 for the similarity of the geometric shapes the DW-6700. Of this the GDF will resume only shapes but also the concept of the altimeter, barometer, thermometer and lighting. Functions and forms reinterpreted to fit the stylistic concepts today. And this, I can safely say that is not an isolated experiment, as also to observe the new Muddy - the 9300 - there are many references to the great G's of the past.
I will not make an enumeration of the functions for which I refer to the website of the House, I will confine myself to my impressions.
Birth by saying that overall, the fit to the wrist is very similar to its predecessors and GA GD - which for me is the worthy heir of the DW-6600 - soft and well wraparound strap at the wrist.
The large display provides an excellent reading of data spread over 4 lines, of which the 3rd from the top is the master of it and the data are quite large.
Data from the barometer, thermometer and altitude are not the most precise - the GW-9200 is much more accurate - but, as always, we must learn to know the drift.
Lighting is provided by two diodes - the system already adopted by GD - enough to ensure optimum illumination of the entire display. They are located one and one at 5 to 8 o'clock.
A special feature that I think will appeal to many is that the timetable of the house is visible in every aspect from the stopwatch to count down alarms.
Finally, I apologize for the photos, but I do not like the pictures and are, therefore, a bad photographer.
This, I believe, is all.