Colorado 300 Plus 24K Topo WA/OR?

[+BodyResults]

I'm looking to purchase a GPS for both wilderness travel and for Geocaching and potentially some city navigation. I would really like the 24K topo maps and the WA/OR would probably cover just about everything I would need. I would also like to do paperless Geocaching.

 

Would getting the Colorado 300 and loading the WA/OR 24K Topo be a good option? Are there any features I would missing from the 400 that might be important? I've seen some of the Colorado discussions and it seems like the big issues are pretty well handled. My other thought was to buy a 60Csx and use a PDA. I'd rather not have to use 2 devices if possible.

 

All comments and opinions are welcome.

 

Thanks

[+storm180]

The 300 and the 400 the only real differnt is the amount of internal memory. 400 has more because it is preloaded with topo 2008. Just get the 300 with the 24k WA/OR and you should be all set. You will have all the features that the 400 has.

[+myotis]

If you get the 400t you can see shadded relief. You cannot with the 300. But I rarely use it since it makes it harder to read the screen

[+george_k]

If you get the 400t you can see shadded relief. You cannot with the 300. But I rarely use it since it makes it harder to read the screen

 

Actually, I believe that the only reason you can see shaded relief on the 400t is that it comes preloaded with the Topo U.S. map that includes the DEM data. Other than the internal memory difference that Storm180 mentioned, the hardware and software for the 400t and 300 should be the same. The WA/OR 24k Topo map that the OP mentioned also provides DEM data, so even with the 300, you should be seeing shaded relief for those two states (not the rest of the U.S. though, because I think that the base map that comes with the 300 does *not* provide DEM data).

 

George

[+g-o-cashers]

That's right. The 300 will show shaded relief and 3-D View if it is loaded with maps that have a DEM.

 

This page discusses the differences between units:

 

http://garmincolorado.wikispaces.com/General+Information

 

GO$Rs

[+BodyResults]

Thanks for the responses. Sounds like for my needs the 300 is a more economical purchase.

 

From my review of the Colorado versus the 60Csx I get the impression from a many that the Colorado is a more robust product and is worth the greater premium. However, I have seen some complaints about accuracy and readability of the screen. I be interested in some more feedback if most people think those are just minor issues or they are more significant.

[+rkelso]

Thanks for the responses. Sounds like for my needs the 300 is a more economical purchase.

 

From my review of the Colorado versus the 60Csx I get the impression from a many that the Colorado is a more robust product and is worth the greater premium. However, I have seen some complaints about accuracy and readability of the screen. I be interested in some more feedback if most people think those are just minor issues or they are more significant.

 

I am willing to trade off a little bit of readability and battery life for a larger, higher-resolution screen. That's just what I like. Of course it would really nice to have the screen size and res of the CO with more brightness and better battery life, but sometimes you can't have it all. Honestly I think the CO screen readability issue gets blown way out of proportion, it's never been a problem for me at least. The most difficulty comes when I am in bright sunlight but my CO's screen is in a shadow, even the backlight doesn't really help, but it's still perfectly readable and you can always rock the unit around until you hit a sweet spot. The backlight is physically capable of going brighter, you'll see if you plug it into USB or 12v power, hopefully someday they will give us the option to turn it up that bright on battery at the expense of battery life. It should be our choice, really.