|
Post by AKFossil on Sept 16, 2009 15:37:47 GMT -9
I been looking at upgrading my GPS and am torn between the Oregon and the Colorado. From the looks of it they now offer a lot of the geocaching features in both models.
The Colorado looks to sport the Helix antenna and the Oregon is sporting a ceramic antenna?
Anyone done any research or have opinion on used either of this units?
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Sept 16, 2009 17:21:50 GMT -9
I really like the touch screen interface of my Oregon. Accuracywise, the internal ceramic antenna of the Oregon has treated me pretty well during the month I've been using it. I've had it under tree cover and high on mountains without issues. The track logs I've recorded usually lay right down on the Northwest Trail I downloaded to the Oregon. There are several threads comparing the Oregon and Colorado (and others) in the geocaching.com GPS and Technology forum. Also, read this wiki and this review. I did look at the wiki again and many of the "no" answers in the Oregon column are now "yes" due to software and firmware updates, so you'll want to visit Garmin's website for the current specs. My only complaint about the Oregon is how difficult the screen is to read on bright days, but the Colorado has similar issues, though apparently not as serious.
|
|
|
Post by arcticbutterfly "Akbfly" on Sept 25, 2009 1:11:52 GMT -9
I love my oregon. I recently got to play with a colorado, and some of the features were nice but I still love my touch screen. It works well even in Winter. I think one of the stores possibly REI no longer carries the Colorado, so well worth the time and research!
|
|
|
Post by AKFossil on Sept 28, 2009 7:48:22 GMT -9
I think I am going to settle on the Oregon, as I fiddle hum and haw about dropping the greens to make this happen... but first new shoes for the Jeep.
|
|
|
Post by AKFossil on Oct 8, 2009 11:26:23 GMT -9
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Oct 8, 2009 12:22:34 GMT -9
Yes, the 2008 comparison/review is out of date due to the many firmware and software updates that have come out since then. If one already has Garmin topo maps, one does not need to buy the 400t version. In fact, the cost of the 300 ($300) plus Topo 2009 ($75) is actually less than the cost of the 400t ($400) if one shops around the 'net. Colorado 300s are going for ~$275 online. If you especially like to plan routes, trips, etc., on your desktop, then I recommend going with the separate GPS/software package. After about two months' of use and 125 caches, my only real complaint so far is difficulty reading fine detail on the screen on sunny or bright overcast days, but Colorado users cite a similar problem. Oh, and about antenna accuracy...I've located three adjusted benchmarks during the past week or so and the Oregon was reading 0-3 feet in all three instances. Full disclosure...my Oregon finished only 5th at Indian Summer GPS accuracy contest (relative to the two Garmin 60csx used to get the master coordinates) which was disappointing given that my Maggie finished 2nd two years ago.
|
|
|
Post by AKFossil on Oct 8, 2009 15:20:24 GMT -9
I read that the accuracy is pretty much simular for the Oregon and Colorado... lets hear it for technology! But the same article still raved about how much more accurate the 60CSx was.
As for the cost saving idea, I was noticing that as I was shopping around for a good deal, hmmm guess its time to get my scrooge on.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Oct 8, 2009 16:21:41 GMT -9
I read that the accuracy is pretty much simular for the Oregon and Colorado... lets hear it for technology! But the same article still raved about how much more accurate the 60CSx was. Yes, but relative to what? Can't argue with adjusted benchmark locations. And, no two 60CSx's will agree with each other any better than any two other models. Anecdotally, I've heard the 60CSx does better under heavy tree cover and other tough situations, but I've never seen empirical head-to-head evidence. I'm not dissing the 60CSx at all...it's been the hands down most popular unit (for those willing to pay for it) on the market for several years, but other products may be catching up in the accuracy department and have surpassed it in others.
|
|
|
Post by Malcore on Oct 8, 2009 20:39:16 GMT -9
I have the 60csx and the vista hcx and have done some comparisons and have came to a few conclusions. First off you must understand there is a big difference between 'sensitivity' and 'accuracy'. The 60csx has a very good type of antenna so it's the best model for in areas with cover where sensitivity is most important. But the newer technology of the 'H' series gps's have more accurate receivers, which means in an open area the 60csx may get an accuracy of maybe 15' where as the Hcx will get a 9' or better accuracy. What is interesting is if you are in an area like in a valley where part of the sky is blocked the Hcx will do better at getting a close reading. but does take longer to lock on to the limited amount of satellites you can get. I see that the Colorado has what looks like the same antenna as the 60csx except a little smaller. What I have seen in practice though is its no more sensitive then the Hcx when in cover. Not sure why. The Oregon seems to be about the same as all the 'H' series gps's, which makes since because it was made about the same time as the 'H' models, presumably using the same tech. Just a few things to consider.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Nov 7, 2009 20:18:00 GMT -9
I used my Oregon in sub-freezing weather for the first time this evening and it worked great. The screen refresh didn't slow down like my Magellan's LCD screen and I could operate it with ski gloves on my hands. The only difficulty I had was entering waypoint names when the characters I wanted where near the corners of the screen and the thickness of the glove led to some fat-fingered typing.
|
|
|
Post by arcticbutterfly "Akbfly" on Nov 9, 2009 3:06:23 GMT -9
LBK I just did an update on my Oregon 2 days ago, and one of the involves the cords screen, it is so much easier to deal with and faster also. Check it out!
|
|