60cs Vs. Ifinder Phd/hunt

[Shazblooey]

I'm sure the "which GPS should I buy" question has been beaten to death many times, but I'm hoping that someone familiar with these particular receivers can answer some specific questions.

 

The context: In upgrading from an eTrex Summit, I'm trying to decide between the 60CS and one of the iFinders that has a compass (Hunt/PhD). In terms of maps, I am interested only in the topo variety. I'm familiar with some of the more obvious differences between the 60CS and these iFinders like price and expandable memory.

 

My questions:

 

1. Several posts have mentioned that the Lowrance maps are much better than Garmin's. How, specifically, are the Lowrance maps better? (More detail? More accurate? Easier to see on GPS/computer? Better scale than Garmin's 1:100k?) I've seen Garmin's website screenshots and Lowrance e-mailed one to me. In comparing the same plot of land, I don't see a significant difference, but I don't have much to compare.

 

2. Is it reasonable to assume that topos of the entire states of ME and NH could be loaded onto the 60CS?

 

3. Whenever I've seen screenshots of the 60CS topo map page (including the ones on Garmin's website), the topo maps appear in green on the receiver and hot pink on the monitor. Can the map's color be adjusted on the screen, or are they permanently set on "blinding neon flamingo?" Are they adjustable on the receiver also?

 

4. Several posts have referred to Lowrance being a little harder to use. Is it truly less intuitive (such that an occasional user would find it difficult to remember its features), or is it merely different/foreign and therefore only seemingly harder to use?

 

5. This question may sound very dumb . . . on the Garmin, I know the compass page, when a waypoint is entered, will direct the user to a destination by providing an arrow in the compass ring that will spin as needed to constantly point toward the destination. This arrow provides a very clear, quick visual of which direction to travel to reach the destination. Does the iFinder Hunt/PhD accomplish this as well, in it's navigation page? (The PDF manual appears to indicate this is the case, but instead of an arrow it places an icon on the ring.)

 

6. In the iFinder's navigation page, does the destination field change from measuring distance in miles (to feet/yards, etc.) as one nears the destination, or does it instead use 10ths and 100ths of a mile?

 

7. The 60CS has a night-time mode that allows for easier navigation in the dark. Does the iFinder have a similar function?

 

Any comments regarding these questions would be appreciated - as would any other feedback and opinions relative to this comparison.

 

My apologies for the long post. Thanks a lot for your help; this is a great forum.

[+briansnat]

1. Several posts have mentioned that the Lowrance maps are much better than Garmin's. How, specifically, are the Lowrance maps better? (More detail? More accurate? Easier to see on GPS/computer? Better scale than Garmin's 1:100k?) I've seen Garmin's website screenshots and Lowrance e-mailed one to me. In comparing the same plot of land, I don't see a significant difference, but I don't have much to compare.

 

I'm not sure about the scale, but the Lowrance maps seem to have more contour lines and definitely have better street detail. Lowrance also adds a database of businesses, etc... similar to what Garmin has in City Select and Metroguide. They claim 2 million vs. Garmin's 5 million in CS/MG, but its way more than Garmin has in Topo (which is almost zero).

 

2. Is it reasonable to assume that topos of the entire states of ME and NH could be loaded onto the 60CS?

With just topo I have all of NJ, MASS, VT, NH, CT, RI and about half of Maine and eastern NY from the NJ border to the Adirondacks. So yes, you will fit all of ME and NH and probably VT and Mass with room to spare.

 

3. Whenever I've seen screenshots of the 60CS topo map page (including the ones on Garmin's website), the topo maps appear in green on the receiver and hot pink on the monitor. Can the map's color be adjusted on the screen, or are they permanently set on "blinding neon flamingo?" Are they adjustable on the receiver also?

 

I guess those aren't accurate representations, as the maps are a subdued tanish color on my unit.

 

4. Several posts have referred to Lowrance being a little harder to use. Is it truly less intuitive (such that an occasional user would find it difficult to remember its features), or is it merely different/foreign and therefore only seemingly harder to use?

 

I think its harder and much less intuiative than Garmin. I don't think its just a product of it being foreign to me. I got my hands on a Magellan MeriGold at the same time I got the Lowrance H20 and I was able to figure out the MeriGold much quicker. Neither holds a candle to Garmin's interface though. Also, the manual that comes with the Lowrance stinks.

 

6. In the iFinder's navigation page, does the destination field change from measuring distance in miles (to feet/yards, etc.) as one nears the destination, or does it instead use 10ths and 100ths of a mile?

 

It will go to feet. One annoying thing though is that the "arrival alarm" goes off at .1 mile (the lowest it can be set to). When I'm looking for a cache I don't consider myself to be "arriving" when I'm still well over 500 feet away. And the alert pops up and blocks the screen which is also very annoying.

 

7. The 60CS has a night-time mode that allows for easier navigation in the dark. Does the iFinder have a similar function?

 

No it doesn't.

 

Bottom line, having used an iFinder H20 extensively over the past month and a 60CS for the past 7 months, I would personally choose the 60CS. The Lowrance mapping software has an edge, but everything else about the 60CS has an edge over the iFinder H20. I assume the PHD is similar. Not that the iFinder is a bad unit. If I had a need for a unit with a memory card I'd choose it over the Magellans I've tried, but in comparison with the 60C(S) it isn't in the same league.

Edited June 11, 2005 by briansnat

[Shazblooey]

Briansnat,

 

By better street detail, do you mean that Lowrance did a better job labeling the streets, or do you notice streets are missing from Garmin's maps when they are present with the Lowrance? I plan to use the GPS primarily while on foot in the woods; not so much for navigating streets. Missing bogs, brooks and other potential hinderances would bother me more than out-of-date streets.

 

It seems like the best choice in my case may be to buy the 60CS and print some paper maps to supplement it before I head out (I have DeLorme's Topo program). That should overcome the map deficiencies. Hopefully I can import waypoints from the GPS into DeLorme's maps.

 

Do the Garmin topo maps appear tan in color on your GPS, or on your computer screen?

 

Thanks for your response - very helpful.

[+briansnat]

By better street detail, do you mean that Lowrance did a better job labeling the streets, or do you notice streets are missing from Garmin's maps when they are present with the Lowrance?

 

Streets are labelled better and they actually stand out better on the screen. I didn't notice any additional streets. That doen't mean they are, or aren't there.

 

It seems like the best choice in my case may be to buy the 60CS and print some paper maps to supplement it before I head out (I have DeLorme's Topo program). That should overcome the map deficiencies.

 

That's what I do. Its foolish to rely solely on a GPS when in the backcountry anyway.

 

Do the Garmin topo maps appear tan in color on your GPS, or on your computer screen?

 

They are tan on my GPS and yellowish on my PC.

[+briansnat]

Here are some pics. Note that the thatch and wave patterns on the 60CS screens aren't visible with the naked eye. In reality the 60CS display is much smoother looking. I guess its similar to when you photograph a color TV and it looks much different than it does with the naked eye. The color rendition is about right though and you can get a good idea as to the detail.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2005 by briansnat

[Shazblooey]

Lowrance seems to have the edge with a somewhat intangible quality: it's map just seems more appealing to the eye.

 

I know what you mean about the thatch & weave . . . I've played with a 60CS in a store, and it's screen is great. The topo software wasn't loaded, though, so your comparative screenshots are very helpful.

 

Thanks for taking the time to help.

[+scott9282]

With an eye for tiny detail, I note that what I assume to be the position triangles, indicating where on the map you actually are, are pointing in opposite directions on both units.

 

Was this just a simulation picture, or were you at the locations on the maps? If so, which unit was correct? Just curious.

[+briansnat]

With an eye for tiny detail, I note that what I assume to be the position triangles, indicating where on the map you actually are, are pointing in opposite directions on both units.

 

Was this just a simulation picture, or were you at the locations on the maps? If so, which unit was correct? Just curious.

I was at the location (My front porch). The Garmin appears to be pointing in the correct direction (the one I was facing) but I doubt that means anything because I wasn't moving at the time.

[+miles58]

By better street detail, do you mean that Lowrance did a better job labeling the streets, or do you notice streets are missing from Garmin's maps when they are present with the Lowrance?

 

Streets are labelled better and they actually stand out better on the screen. I didn't notice any additional streets. That doen't mean they are, or aren't there.

 

It seems like the best choice in my case may be to buy the 60CS and print some paper maps to supplement it before I head out (I have DeLorme's Topo program). That should overcome the map deficiencies.

 

That's what I do. Its foolish to rely solely on a GPS when in the backcountry anyway.

 

Do the Garmin topo maps appear tan in color on your GPS, or on your computer screen?

 

They are tan on my GPS and yellowish on my PC.

Brian,

 

Thanks for the S/S compaqrison shots.

 

Your comments about not noticing any differences in the streets shown is contradicted by the pics. Considering the amount of info presented, and the amount of difference, That's substantial to me.

 

In your capacity as a reviewer could you please dig into this a little more from the base point of these photos and then step the units out in range and show the same comparisons to give us an idea of the amount of information difference?

 

I ask because I use my units for navigation across country frequently combining minimal maintenance roads with regular county roads/highways as part of my business. This is not dissimilar to the way I use the units going from cache to cache(OK, *sometimes* I do slip a cache in between client visits.) Today as an example I picked up another cacher at his campsite in a private campground. All of the access roads in the campground were part of the map and made for a very simple pickup. The detail is important out in the boonies because many of the roads are one lane dirt.

[+IVxIV]

Keep in mind if you're deciding on what GPS to get,, the color version of the Phd (called iFinder PhDc) is supposed to be out in a couple months

 

 

The best to my knowledge, it has identical functionality to the b&w unit, just added color. Some online stores are already posting price & availability info on it.

 

The other feature it has compared to the Garmin 60 is the ability to play MP3's, also it's ability to record audio via builtin microphone. So if out in the field either Geocaching or whatever, you can record your notes about the caches etc by talking into the unit, for later playback. Another "first" for Lowrance

[+briansnat]

Your comments about not noticing any differences in the streets shown is contradicted by the pics. Considering the amount of info presented, and the amount of difference, That's substantial to me.

 

In each of the pictures the Garmin and Lowrance are at different zoom levels. I tried to make them look visually the same and it turned out that they often didn't have matching zoom levels. Since some streets only show up on certain zoom levels I wouldn't take these as proof that one unit or another is missing streets.

[+Night Stalker]

In order to make them look the same you would need to configure the 60CS to show the same detail at the further zoom level. This is possible with the 60cs because each screen is user configurable. I suspect most of us turned off a lot of the detail because our screens got to cluttered with all the information. I haven't really messed with the TOPO information displayed that much since I have both City Select and TOPO on my 60CS at the same time and switch to the TOPO when I am off road only. I know that City Select has far to much information on the map so I have most of the detail shut down until I zoom to 800'....

[+miles58]

Your comments about not noticing any differences in the streets shown is contradicted by the pics. Considering the amount of info presented, and the amount of difference, That's substantial to me.

 

In each of the pictures the Garmin and Lowrance are at different zoom levels. I tried to make them look visually the same and it turned out that they often didn't have matching zoom levels. Since some streets only show up on certain zoom levels I wouldn't take these as proof that one unit or another is missing streets.

Brian,

 

This is exactly the point of the question. You have the units as closely matched for zoom level as is humanly possible. The screens are for all intents and purposes identical in size. The scale or whatever the manufacturer wants to call it is matched by the area covered. With the information missing in the comparison it tells us that there is a difference. A quantitative difference maybe. As you zoom further out the comparison of the difference may be much more important to the convenience/useability of the unit. Or, it could disappear entirely.

 

In the case of the two units in the example it won't likely mean squat to finding caches when you get down to the last twenty feet. The purpose of the maps is to get you from cache to cache or for the less serious among us from appointment A to appointment B.

 

If all I want is the last little bit to a cache, a unit costing<$100 can do that every bit as well as either of these.

 

What I am asking is some sort of quantification of the detail level differences in the maps and at what scale(s). In each case the Garmin in the example has obviously less detail than the Lowrance. Without your review and quantification, I have to go buy one of each to find out for myself if the garmin is consistenly lacking, or just looks like it *sometimes*.

[Shazblooey]

I think what Brian means (not to put words in his mouth/pixels on his screen, etc.) is that if both units present approximately 1 mile across a 2" screen, the iFinder may show roads that do not appear on the Garmin - but zooming in further with the Garmin often produces the "missing" road. Perhaps they first appear on the Garmin when half a mile fills the screen. This implies that the Lowrance maps are better or more useful but not necessarily more accurate.

 

Accuracy is in great part a function of how often the companies pay for updates to their maps, and the competing companies probably "leapfrog" over one another every few years or so. Even if Lowrance is more accurate, that may not be the case a year from now if Garmin's next software includes updated cartography. Neither of these two vendors holds a candle to the DeLorme topo maps. If DeLorme licensed its maps for true handheld GPS use, that could result in a killer unit. I suppose a pocket computer with the DeLorme receiver would give you an excellent mapping GPS, but it no doubt would lack many other features common to handheld receivers.

 

I found the Lowrance folks very nice to deal with by phone. They offered to send a screenshot of my choosing by e-mail for my review. You may want to locate a couple "suspect" roads/areas on a map of your own (recent development, no town maintenance, etc.) and ask Lowrance customer support for a sample. In response to their offer, I specified a particular area and asked that they scale it such that a certain pond filled about 1/10 of the screen. That's exactly what they sent to me - within a few business hours of our phone call. You can compare your sample with the ones available on Garmin's website - hardly comprehensive, but it will help.

 

Miles58, hopefully you and Brian are old friends used to each other's ribbing (I'm new to this forum and wouldn't know). Otherwise, your last sentence seems to imply he owes us all something. Let's appreciate the fact that he already went out of his way to line up these units on his porch rail and take some pictures to accomodate a complete stranger's questions.

 

Good luck with your decision.

[+miles58]

Miles58, hopefully you and Brian are old friends used to each other's ribbing (I'm new to this forum and wouldn't know). Otherwise, your last sentence seems to imply he owes us all something. Let's appreciate the fact that he already went out of his way to line up these units on his porch rail and take some pictures to accomodate a complete stranger's questions.

 

I certainly hope Brian didn't take that as ribbing. It wasn't. It wasn't meant that way. It's a dead serious question. Brian is doing a review of a number of units and this is the kind of information I would find most useful in mapping units.

 

I have a couple Lowrance mapping units and I am annoyed at the inaccuracies in those maps. Having seen and used other mapping units I am mollified somewhat in that at least the mapping in my Lowrances isn't primitive.

 

As I said, a cheap basic non-mapping unit that you can buy for well under $100 now has the same accuracy and can be used for caching every bit as effectively. The thing you pay for with the mapping units needs assessment, an some objective comparison. Brian is doing a review. I am asking for the criteria I'd like to see the units compared on so maybe the manufacturers will have some motivation to compete.

 

Here's an example of what I'm looking for:

 

I normally drive with the unit scaled at 3-4 miles when I am in areas I know well and know where I am going. In areas I am less familiar with I need to expand the map out to beyond 6-8 miles depending on how far I am going and what kind of routing I want to use.

 

At 5 miles I have all the detail available on the map. The very smallest features, those little elements close together are hard to see but present. When I bump it out to 6 miles I lose the small features entirely and am left with main county roads and larger.

 

I live in an area where the roads aren't all that straight and having to shift off of a smaller road that is more direct can easily add many miles to the distance you have to go. I live along the Minnesota/Wisconsin border. There are six bridges to get you across the St Croix river between Hastings and the point where it turns East into Wisconsin. Going back and forth makes for navigating roads in between the main roads with the bridges, that look like someone threw spaghetti at a map. Brian knows what I am talking about, Northern NJ has those kind of roads to get around the ponds and rock piles. It's the same problem, just a different scale here than there. With some of those bridges 30 miles apart it helps *a lot* to be able to pick the right roads to get you there. It can easily add 30 miles or more to the trip if you don't know the shortcuts.

[+briansnat]

I think what Brian means (not to put words in his mouth/pixels on his screen, etc.) is that if both units present approximately 1 mile across a 2" screen, the iFinder may show roads that do not appear on the Garmin - but zooming in further with the Garmin often produces the "missing" road. Perhaps they first appear on the Garmin when half a mile fills the screen.

 

That's exactly what I mean. Also, I'm sure there may be differences in coverage in certain areas. Its not only possible, but its probable that the Mapsource maps might show more roads in some areas and the Mapcreate may have more comprehensive coverage in other areas.

 

It's a dead serious question. Brian is doing a review of a number of units and this is the kind of information I would find most useful in mapping units.

 

Be aware that the point of my review is to focus on the unit. Though I'll probably make some mention of the mapping sofware, as you can't evaluate a mapping unit without it, it will not be a detailed critique of the mapping software.

[+miles58]

I'll probably make some mention of the mapping sofware, as you can't evaluate a mapping unit without it, it will not be a detailed critique of the mapping software.

 

Will there be a second phase to give us the rundown on the mapping software?

 

I personally don't see enough difference between most models by most makers to worry about if you don't include the goodies that you spend the money to buy. With the mapping down played to second consideration even screen real estate is much less important because you can adjust the position to accomodate.

[+miles58]

Brian,

 

Today I got a perfect example of what I am talking about. I used one of my Lowrances down on the S/W corner of the metro area and the maps were completely hosed up. Worse than no map sometimes. They would actually gain detail on zoom out in certain areas and scales while losing detail zooming in. The roads were not in the right places sometimes.

 

That area has undergone a lot of growth but I was in areas that hadn't changed much in the last five years and the roads I was on had been there in their current position for quite some time.