| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Geology - Satellite Navigation Forum » Advice on choice of Garmin GPS
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| David Miller |
 Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I want a GPS unit of a size, weight, and durability suitable for
mountain biking (single track). Because I live near Seattle and almost
always ride in the woods, the unit would have to have a good enough
antenna to work in that environment. With a great deal of help from
folks in forums like this one, I've narrowed my choices to a Garmin
60CSx or a Garmin Vista Cx. The cost difference is about $120, with the
Vista Cx the cheaper unit.
As near as I can tell, the major differences between the two are the
60CSx has the SIRF chipset, the ability to add an external antennae,
and 1000 versus 500 waypoints. The screen on the 60CSx is also slightly
larger.
Any thoughts from those who've been faced with a similar choice or who
have used both of them? Is the extra $118 for the 60CSx worth it? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:11 am |
|
|
|
|
Ted Edwards <Ted_Espamless@telus.net> wrote:
Quote: Before you buy, check out the 76Cx or 76CSx:
I have the 60cs, my son has the 76cs. We each prefer the form factor of
our own unit  That might indicate there is no real difference, just
whichever you like. The 76 floats, but I could tape a piece of styrofoam
to the 60 to make it the size of the 76, and I suspect it would float.
Quote: and if you carry a pocket compass (a good idea anyway in case of dead
batteries or a failure), you could save $50 by getting the 76Cx.
That's been hashed over quite a bit. I like the internal compass a lot.
The magnetic compass never gets used anymore.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| peter |
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Miller wrote:
Quote: I want a GPS unit of a size, weight, and durability suitable for
mountain biking (single track). Because I live near Seattle and almost
always ride in the woods, the unit would have to have a good enough
antenna to work in that environment. ...
Any thoughts from those who've been faced with a similar choice or who
have used both of them? Is the extra $118 for the 60CSx worth it?
Given your location I'd recommend paying the extra money. I ride quite
often with someone who has both a VistaC and a 60CSX. His VistaC tends
to lose lock about as frequently as my own eMap - not bad here in the
East Bay from SF, but there are a few places, esp. redwood forests,
where it's a problem. His 60CSX does signficantly better in those
spots.
I've found the external antenna capability to be more useful for hiking
when I want to be able to stuff the GPS in any convenient pocket and
not worry about the orientation since the antenna is still up high and
getting good signals (the $20 Gilsson models work very well)..
If you get the VistaCx you'll be second-guessing yourself everytime it
beeps that it lost the signal. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jack Erbes |
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Miller wrote:
Quote: I want a GPS unit of a size, weight, and durability suitable for
mountain biking (single track). Because I live near Seattle and almost
always ride in the woods, the unit would have to have a good enough
antenna to work in that environment. With a great deal of help from
folks in forums like this one, I've narrowed my choices to a Garmin
60CSx or a Garmin Vista Cx. The cost difference is about $120, with the
Vista Cx the cheaper unit.
As near as I can tell, the major differences between the two are the
60CSx has the SIRF chipset, the ability to add an external antennae,
and 1000 versus 500 waypoints. The screen on the 60CSx is also slightly
larger.
Any thoughts from those who've been faced with a similar choice or who
have used both of them? Is the extra $118 for the 60CSx worth it?
The 60CSx has the faster SiRF III chip set in it and maybe a better
antenna than the Vista Cx too.
Everyone that had earlier models and then moves up to a GPS with the
SiRF III chip set immediately notices the much better sensitivity, much
faster processing speed, and generally improved fix performance on the
SiRF III equipped models.
I have a 76Cx (same as a 60CSx, slightly different packaging) and I
would consider the extra cost worthwhile for the environments you want
to use it in. I've not had to use an external antenna in the woods yet
to maintain a fix, even under pretty heavy tree cover.
Jack
--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA - jackerbes at adelphia dot net
(also receiving email at jacker at midmaine.com) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ted Edwards |
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Miller wrote:
Quote: I want a GPS unit of a size, weight, and durability suitable for
mountain biking (single track). Because I live near Seattle and almost
always ride in the woods, the unit would have to have a good enough
antenna to work in that environment. With a great deal of help from
folks in forums like this one, I've narrowed my choices to a Garmin
60CSx or a Garmin Vista Cx. The cost difference is about $120, with the
Vista Cx the cheaper unit.
As near as I can tell, the major differences between the two are the
60CSx has the SIRF chipset, the ability to add an external antennae,
and 1000 versus 500 waypoints. The screen on the 60CSx is also slightly
larger.
Any thoughts from those who've been faced with a similar choice or who
have used both of them? Is the extra $118 for the 60CSx worth it?
Before you buy, check out the 76Cx or 76CSx:
"GPSMAP 76CSx & GPSMAP 60CSx DIFFERENCES
Q: "What are the main differences between the GPSMAP 76CSx and the
GPSMAP 60CSx?"
A: "Included data card (the 76CSx includes a 128MB microSD data card,
the 60CSx includes a 64MB card); physical size, weight and shape;
floatability (the 76CSx will float; the 60CSx will not)."
"
Price is the same, at least at
http://gpscentral.ca/products/garmin/76csx.htm
and if you carry a pocket compass (a good idea anyway in case of dead
batteries or a failure), you could save $50 by getting the 76Cx.
Ted |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| LClyde |
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The other thing is you can buy a sd card preloaded with topo maps
already on the card.
I just did that for my wife for Christmas upgrading, big time, from a
standard etrex to a
60csx.
LC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Tracker |
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: Everyone that had earlier models and then moves up to a GPS with the
SiRF III chip set immediately notices the much better sensitivity, much
faster processing speed, and generally improved fix performance on the
SiRF III equipped models.
Not quite - I tried the Forerunner 305 and returned it after finding it would not achieve any reliable position lock. And several other running friends have found that the 305 (with SiRF III chipset) have been disappointed and returned them. The 301 which is the Garmin chipset works great every time. And all my friends that have the 301 are very happy with them. Is there something wrong with the 305 which the 60CSx and 76CSx and other SiRF III receivers do not have??? Is anyone "very happy" with the 305??? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ed |
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tracker wrote:
Quote:
Everyone that had earlier models and then moves up to a GPS with the
SiRF III chip set immediately notices the much better sensitivity,
much faster processing speed, and generally improved fix performance
on the SiRF III equipped models.
Not quite - I tried the Forerunner 305 and returned it after finding it
would not achieve any reliable position lock. And several other running
friends have found that the 305 (with SiRF III chipset) have been
disappointed and returned them. The 301 which is the Garmin chipset
works great every time. And all my friends that have the 301 are very
happy with them. Is there something wrong with the 305 which the 60CSx
and 76CSx and other SiRF III receivers do not have??? Is anyone "very
happy" with the 305???
My wife has a Forerunner 205 (with SiRF III chipset). Only had it since
Christmas, but it appears to work fine. I've inspected several track
logs and it compares favorably with my 76CS (w/o with SiRF III chipset)
with Gilsson antenna on the same route. However, the Forerunner hasn't
been used under much tree cover yet.
Arthur Hass
Reston, VA |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jack Erbes |
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tracker wrote:
Quote:
Everyone that had earlier models and then moves up to a GPS with the
SiRF III chip set immediately notices the much better sensitivity,
much faster processing speed, and generally improved fix performance
on the SiRF III equipped models.
Not quite - I tried the Forerunner 305 and returned it after finding it
would not achieve any reliable position lock. And several other running
friends have found that the 305 (with SiRF III chipset) have been
disappointed and returned them. The 301 which is the Garmin chipset
works great every time. And all my friends that have the 301 are very
happy with them. Is there something wrong with the 305 which the 60CSx
and 76CSx and other SiRF III receivers do not have??? Is anyone "very
happy" with the 305???
Okay, I stand corrected.
Jack
--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA - jackerbes at adelphia dot net
(also receiving email at jacker at midmaine.com) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ed |
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
One other note concerning the Forerunner 205/305 - there's a recent unit
software update (Version 2.50, 12/4/2006) that list several improvements
& fixes.
Arthur Hass
Reston, VA
Tracker wrote:
Quote:
Everyone that had earlier models and then moves up to a GPS with the
SiRF III chip set immediately notices the much better sensitivity,
much faster processing speed, and generally improved fix performance
on the SiRF III equipped models.
Not quite - I tried the Forerunner 305 and returned it after finding it
would not achieve any reliable position lock. And several other running
friends have found that the 305 (with SiRF III chipset) have been
disappointed and returned them. The 301 which is the Garmin chipset
works great every time. And all my friends that have the 301 are very
happy with them. Is there something wrong with the 305 which the 60CSx
and 76CSx and other SiRF III receivers do not have??? Is anyone "very
happy" with the 305??? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| peter |
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dold@55.usenet.us.com wrote:
Quote: Ted Edwards <Ted_Espamless@telus.net> wrote:
Before you buy, check out the 76Cx or 76CSx:
I have the 60cs, my son has the 76cs. We each prefer the form factor of
our own unit That might indicate there is no real difference, just
whichever you like. The 76 floats, but I could tape a piece of styrofoam
to the 60 to make it the size of the 76, and I suspect it would float.
Does your 60cs actually sink? The ones I've seen float, just not as
high out of the water as the 76 versions. Maybe with some unusually
heavy batteries they'd sink, but even then it wouldn't take much at all
to make them bouyant - like a little bobber attached to the lanyard. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:40 pm |
|
|
|
|
On 6 Jan 2007 07:59:12 -0800, in sci.geo.satellite-nav "peter"
<prathman@comcast.net> wrote:
Quote: dold@55.usenet.us.com wrote:
Ted Edwards <Ted_Espamless@telus.net> wrote:
Before you buy, check out the 76Cx or 76CSx:
I have the 60cs, my son has the 76cs. We each prefer the form factor of
our own unit That might indicate there is no real difference, just
whichever you like. The 76 floats, but I could tape a piece of styrofoam
to the 60 to make it the size of the 76, and I suspect it would float.
Does your 60cs actually sink? The ones I've seen float, just not as
high out of the water as the 76 versions. Maybe with some unusually
heavy batteries they'd sink, but even then it wouldn't take much at all
to make them bouyant - like a little bobber attached to the lanyard.
I don't want mine to float. If I did drop it in water it would probably be in a
creek or a river. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dominic Sexton |
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <cFInh.9785$Pe7.4250@trnddc04>, Tracker <null@email.net>
writes
Quote: Not quite - I tried the Forerunner 305 and returned it after finding it would not achieve any reliable position lock. And several other running friends
have found that the 305 (with SiRF III chipset) have been disappointed and returned them. The 301 which is the Garmin chipset works great every
time. And all my friends that have the 301 are very happy with them. Is there something wrong with the 305 which the 60CSx and 76CSx and other
SiRF III receivers do not have??? Is anyone "very happy" with the 305???
I have been very pleased with my 305 that I purchased in September. I've
not had any problems with getting or keeping lock and one of my regular
runs passes through about half a mile of fairly dense woodland.
I have just updated the unit & receiver software to the latest versions
which are supposed to have some improvements but have yet to try it on
the run since updating.
--
Dominic Sexton |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| peter |
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Quote: On 6 Jan 2007 07:59:12 -0800, in sci.geo.satellite-nav "peter"
prathman@comcast.net> wrote:
dold@55.usenet.us.com wrote:
Ted Edwards <Ted_Espamless@telus.net> wrote:
Before you buy, check out the 76Cx or 76CSx:
I have the 60cs, my son has the 76cs. We each prefer the form factor of
our own unit That might indicate there is no real difference, just
whichever you like. The 76 floats, but I could tape a piece of styrofoam
to the 60 to make it the size of the 76, and I suspect it would float.
Does your 60cs actually sink? The ones I've seen float, just not as
high out of the water as the 76 versions. Maybe with some unusually
heavy batteries they'd sink, but even then it wouldn't take much at all
to make them bouyant - like a little bobber attached to the lanyard.
I don't want mine to float. If I did drop it in water it would probably be in a
creek or a river.
If you want it to sink to the bottom and stay there then neither the 76
nor the 60 series will do that for you unless you weight them down with
something. The 76 series floats well out of the water and the 60
series ones I've seen float with at least the tip of the antenna above
water but it's close enough that I could see one slowly sinking with
some batteries that are a little heavier. But it wouldn't sit still on
the bottom of a creek or river.
Best is to secure the lanyard so the issue doesn't arise. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 3:04 pm
|
|