New Delorme PN-40

[johnferran]

Well I got my new gps in the mail today. Now all I have to do is learn how to use it. i figured it was a good deal when you figure the maps that come with it and most of you that have the PN-20 are happy with it. Hope I made the right decision. I'll let you all know and I'll prob have alot of questions for you all.....

John

[Ceiling Fan Man]

I think you did. I just got my PN-20 in the mail today. I've messed with it for a couple of hours before posting a review in my "GPS Buying Advice" thread. It is my first GPS and I love it. I have used a Garmin in the past and everybody I know personally has Garmin, but I was talked into DeLorme nonetheless and I'm glad I went with it. You can read my review I just wrote not 15 minutes ago here if you so desire. You can read through the whole process I went through from the time I first thought, "Hey, I want a GPS."

 

Good luck with your PN, I'm a little jealous you've got a 40 now that I've seen what my 20 can do. Happy caching.

 

-CFM

[+benjamin921]

Great choice. There is a slight learning curve because the software and unit are pretty powerful. Just start off with doing some basic map and waypoint transferring if you are not used to it. Don't hesitate to ask any questions here or at the DeLorme Boards.

[+TotemLake]

Of course I'm used to Delorme's software, but the exchange seems pretty straightforward. I only had a couple of hours to play with it yesterday but I'm already very happy with my purchase. I'm very surprised at how readable the text is on the screen in spite of the itty bitty size of the screen. It puts my usability concerns to rest.

Edited November 25, 2008 by TotemLake

[+steel city babes]

Great choice. There is a slight learning curve because the software and unit are pretty powerful. Just start off with doing some basic map and waypoint transferring if you are not used to it. Don't hesitate to ask any questions here or at the DeLorme Boards.

 

Ordered the PN - 40 last night hopefully I can get it up and running quickly.....need to do some caching....

[+3doxies]

Ours arrived this evening. Got it up and running quickly, then loaded detailed topo/street maps we wanted (TN, VA, KY, NC) to internal memory while we were off to a band concert. Took about 20 minutes to navigate through the various device pages and customize to our liking (well, at least what we think we want at the moment). All without even opening the Topo 7 DVD case yet. May tackle that tomorrow if turkeys will agree to cook themselves...

[yogazoo]

Can any of you Delorme PN-40 users post some track comparisons? Say between some Garmin models and the PN-40? I am anxious to see what the unit lays down as far as tracks/accuracy. With the same chipset (cartesio) as a Garmin Oregon and a patch antenna I'm wondering if Delorme's accuray/behavior is similar to the Oregon, worse, better?

 

Thanks in advance!

[+benjamin921]

Can any of you Delorme PN-40 users post some track comparisons? Say between some Garmin models and the PN-40? I am anxious to see what the unit lays down as far as tracks/accuracy. With the same chipset (cartesio) as a Garmin Oregon and a patch antenna I'm wondering if Delorme's accuray/behavior is similar to the Oregon, worse, better?

 

Thanks in advance!

That is going to be a hard one because of different conditions. I do not have a Oregon so I would not be able to go out and do a side by side comparison. I do know that the 40 tracks very well. What I have in the past (and will continue to do) is after trancking, I will exchange the track to Topo and then select some aerial imagery and if any track needs cleaned up a bit, I do so. It is very easy to do if needed.

[jmedlock]

Can any of you Delorme PN-40 users post some track comparisons? Say between some Garmin models and the PN-40? I am anxious to see what the unit lays down as far as tracks/accuracy. With the same chipset (cartesio) as a Garmin Oregon and a patch antenna I'm wondering if Delorme's accuray/behavior is similar to the Oregon, worse, better?

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Here are some samples between a 60CSx and PN-40:

 

http://gps.wmsar.info/pn40/

 

Regards

[+embra]

Would if I could...my Garmin is a Quest--probably not a good comparison.

 

Edit: jmedlock--nice comparisons. A quick question would be if those samples were pretty much representational of what you saw for the whole track, or if they tended towards the worst-case scenario?

 

Hope you'll be able to offer some other side-by-sides.

Edited November 26, 2008 by embra

[yogazoo]

Based solely on jmedlock's comparison, it looks like Delorme may have some chip firmware teaks to make. Oh believe me Garmin does too and it may be that the cartesio chipset, being a relatively new implementation, may need some real world tests to tweak its firmware regardless of which company uses it. (pure speculation)

[jmedlock]

Would if I could...my Garmin is a Quest--probably not a good comparison.

 

Edit: jmedlock--nice comparisons. A quick question would be if those samples were pretty much representational of what you saw for the whole track, or if they tended towards the worst-case scenario?

 

Hope you'll be able to offer some other side-by-sides.

 

Hi,

 

I was intending to show that, at least in the areas I hike, it is important to carry the PN-40 in a horizontal orientation for best performance. But even so, I showed one segment of a hike where the 60CSx clearly out-performed the PN-40; this wasn't representative of the entire hike as shown in one of the other pictures (i.e. where I thought the PN-40 performed arguably better than the 60CSx).

 

I hope the three samples aren't interpreted to mean that the 60CSx easily out-performs the PN-40. For example, I have tracklogs from two canyon / heavily treed areas this afternoon where the PN-40 was "as good" to "much better" than the 60CSx. I'll post these pictures soon.

 

I hope to do more comparison testing between the 60CSx and PN-40 over the next several days in different areas. Hope others can do the same.

 

Regards

[+Team CowboyPapa]

On the subject of recorded tracks and their accuracy, allow me to present one:

 

Here is with and without the PN-20 track and you can see how well it overlays on the trail on the CDOQQ.

 

With:

http://mapshare.delorme.com/Consumer/V.aspx?p=bs7t1xgr

 

Without:

http://mapshare.delorme.com/Consumer/V.aspx?p=nqmknjck

 

Now that track is only one truck wide. When you see someone coming you look for a wider spot and pull over and let them pass, or vice versa. There is no way that you can see 5 feet deviation in that PN-20 track from the trail in the photo. Would you think that the PN-40 would produce worse?

 

Yes, it is treeless. So now we have eliminated all the variables that effect accuracy except the degree of tree cover.

 

I'll be back out there with a PN-40 Saturday to grab another track. Any helpers?

[+TotemLake]

On the subject of recorded tracks and their accuracy, allow me to present one:

 

Here is with and without the PN-20 track and you can see how well it overlays on the trail on the CDOQQ.

 

With:

http://mapshare.delorme.com/Consumer/V.aspx?p=bs7t1xgr

 

Without:

http://mapshare.delorme.com/Consumer/V.aspx?p=nqmknjck

 

Now that track is only one truck wide. When you see someone coming you look for a wider spot and pull over and let them pass, or vice versa. There is no way that you can see 5 feet deviation in that PN-20 track from the trail in the photo. Would you think that the PN-40 would produce worse?

 

Yes, it is treeless. So now we have eliminated all the variables that effect accuracy except the degree of tree cover.

 

I'll be back out there with a PN-40 Saturday to grab another track. Any helpers?

As soon as I can get out of my cast.

[jmedlock]

... I have tracklogs from two canyon / heavily treed areas this afternoon where the PN-40 was "as good" to "much better" than the 60CSx. I'll post these pictures soon.

 

I posted new tracklog comparison results for 3 hikes that I recently completed using the Garmin 60CSx and DeLorme PN-40.

 

http://gps.wmsar.info/pn40/

 

If you visited the website above previously, then you may need to force a page reload (e.g. "hold down SHIFT + click Reload" on your browser). I'm using simple HTML and finally configured "no-cache" on the pages, so this shouldn't be a problem going forward.

 

I plan to do more hiking over the next few days, and if so, I'll post additional tracklog tests.

 

Regards

[+TotemLake]

... I have tracklogs from two canyon / heavily treed areas this afternoon where the PN-40 was "as good" to "much better" than the 60CSx. I'll post these pictures soon.

 

I posted new tracklog comparison results for 3 hikes that I recently completed using the Garmin 60CSx and DeLorme PN-40.

 

http://gps.wmsar.info/pn40/

 

If you visited the website above previously, then you may need to force a page reload (e.g. "hold down SHIFT + click Reload" on your browser). I'm using simple HTML and finally configured "no-cache" on the pages, so this shouldn't be a problem going forward.

 

I plan to do more hiking over the next few days, and if so, I'll post additional tracklog tests.

 

Regards

Interesting tracklogs and stats. It would have been interesting to know the actual stopped and moving times to see how close they kept to a stopwatch knowing these can be affected by cpu availability.

 

For reference, the area for the Argentina Canyon closely resembles most of the wetside of Washington state and some of the dry side, while the other areas closely resemble most of the dry side of the state.

 

Thanks for posting!

[Grasscatcher]

The track examples that I've seen so far (as above and on the Delorme Forum) would indicate to me that the PN-40 only tracks accurately if very carefully positioned for ideal conditions and it does fine under those conditions. That is not "Real World"....

 

A number of folks say "just carry it in a chest pocket, or clipped on your belt ", but that's not what the actual results say is needed. The track logging results say that the PN-40, with a patch antenna, needs help....... from an external antenna.......the one that Delorme does not offer.

[+Team CowboyPapa]

The track examples that I've seen so far (as above and on the Delorme Forum) would indicate to me that the PN-40 only tracks accurately if very carefully positioned for ideal conditions and it does fine under those conditions. That is not "Real World"....

 

A number of folks say "just carry it in a chest pocket, or clipped on your belt ", but that's not what the actual results say is needed. The track logging results say that the PN-40, with a patch antenna, needs help....... from an external antenna.......the one that Delorme does not offer.

Go back and check my track posted above in #13. That was taken with the PN-20 in my Jeep in a suction cup mount stuck to my windshield with the -20 in an almost vertical position. Please explain to me how I should correct that to make my next track Real World.

 

I greatly appreciate your help in this matter.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Team CowboyPapa

[+myotis]

I looked at some of those track comparisions. They appear to be judging them on how far off the map they are. How do you know the map is accurate? I would think you would need to compare to something that is known to be correct.

[+Team CowboyPapa]

I looked at some of those track comparisions. They appear to be judging them on how far off the map they are. How do you know the map is accurate? I would think you would need to compare to something that is known to be correct.

Hmm....which comparison, which track, which map? Could you please identify by referencing by post number?

 

Thanks

[+TotemLake]

The track examples that I've seen so far (as above and on the Delorme Forum) would indicate to me that the PN-40 only tracks accurately if very carefully positioned for ideal conditions and it does fine under those conditions. That is not "Real World"....

 

A number of folks say "just carry it in a chest pocket, or clipped on your belt ", but that's not what the actual results say is needed. The track logging results say that the PN-40, with a patch antenna, needs help....... from an external antenna.......the one that Delorme does not offer.

Real world is instead of mounting the gps on the chest, you mount it on the shoulder. But if this isn't your cup of tea, don't buy it. Keep waiting for something else to come out.

[+Team CowboyPapa]

The track examples that I've seen so far (as above and on the Delorme Forum) would indicate to me that the PN-40 only tracks accurately if very carefully positioned for ideal conditions and it does fine under those conditions. That is not "Real World"....

 

A number of folks say "just carry it in a chest pocket, or clipped on your belt ", but that's not what the actual results say is needed. The track logging results say that the PN-40, with a patch antenna, needs help....... from an external antenna.......the one that Delorme does not offer.

Real world is instead of mounting the gps on the chest, you mount it on the shoulder. But if this isn't your cup of tea, don't buy it. Keep waiting for something else to come out.

Got it, TL, thanks!

 

For Real World while driving, I won't use the suction cup, windshield mount. Instead, I'll use a velcro on the back of the PN-40 and the mating velcro on my Shoulder Strap. Makes perfect sense - I'll gert the best, most accurate track, but I won't be able to see it unless I remove it. Roger that?

 

Thanks!

Edited November 28, 2008 by Team CowboyPapa

[+TotemLake]

The track examples that I've seen so far (as above and on the Delorme Forum) would indicate to me that the PN-40 only tracks accurately if very carefully positioned for ideal conditions and it does fine under those conditions. That is not "Real World"....

 

A number of folks say "just carry it in a chest pocket, or clipped on your belt ", but that's not what the actual results say is needed. The track logging results say that the PN-40, with a patch antenna, needs help....... from an external antenna.......the one that Delorme does not offer.

Real world is instead of mounting the gps on the chest, you mount it on the shoulder. But if this isn't your cup of tea, don't buy it. Keep waiting for something else to come out.

Got it, TL, thanks!

 

For Real World while driving, I won't use the suction cup, windshield mount. Instead, I'll use a velcro on the back of the PN-40 and the mating velcro on my Shoulder Strap. Makes perfect sense - I'll gert the best, most accurate track, but I won't be able to see it unless I remove it. Roger that?

 

Thanks!

Yup. I don't hold my GPS in my hand through the hike. I use it to get a general distance and bearing of the cache location. As testimony to my recent injury, I have my hands full just keeping on my feet sometimes. I don't need to add to the distraction by looking at what's in my hand instead of what is at my feet.

 

Being a Magellan with a quadhelix antenna user, I kept my GPS up high on the shoulder strap so the antenna would get the best adantage. The PN-40 will end up riding more horizontal on the shoulder so it's no big deal for me to adjust.

 

And that's what man does.. or rather should do when faced with an obstacle. Adapt, improvise and overcome. This particular gripe about a patch versus quadhelix antenna is so minor it's amazing how loud it is.

[+TotemLake]

I looked at some of those track comparisons. They appear to be judging them on how far off the map they are. How do you know the map is accurate? I would think you would need to compare to something that is known to be correct.

Well you do have to base the comparison against something, otherwise there is no comparison.

 

Most people hiking on trails know two things about them when viewing them on the maps.

1. The maps are general representations of where the trail should be.

2. Things happen to the trails i.e. washouts, landslides, maintenance, rerouting, etc. making the general representation more ambiguous.

 

It appeared to me the user did some comparisons to known and well established trails and used routes that were known to be fairly accurate when the 60csx was used. The 60csx is considered the gold standard of GPS units and this makes what it does on the trail when comparing the PN40 to it relevant.

[jmedlock]

I looked at some of those track comparisions. They appear to be judging them on how far off the map they are. How do you know the map is accurate? I would think you would need to compare to something that is known to be correct.

 

Hi,

 

I don't know if you are referring to my tracklog comparisons (http://gps.wmsar.info/pn40/). If so, then be aware that I'm not comparing the PN-40 or 60CSx against topo maps. Instead, I'm comparing the PN-40 waypoints and tracklogs against the 60CSx to see how they relate to each other.

 

For example, so far my experience is that both units put down remarkably similar waypoints and tracklogs, so it is easy to get an "approximation" of where the trail is really located; I rarely trust trails shown on topo maps.

 

Regards

Edited November 28, 2008 by jmedlock

[jmedlock]

I looked at some of those track comparisons. They appear to be judging them on how far off the map they are. How do you know the map is accurate? I would think you would need to compare to something that is known to be correct.

Well you do have to base the comparison against something, otherwise there is no comparison.

 

Most people hiking on trails know two things about them when viewing them on the maps.

1. The maps are general representations of where the trail should be.

2. Things happen to the trails i.e. washouts, landslides, maintenance, rerouting, etc. making the general representation more ambiguous.

 

It appeared to me the user did some comparisons to known and well established trails and used routes that were known to be fairly accurate when the 60csx was used. The 60csx is considered the gold standard of GPS units and this makes what it does on the trail when comparing the PN40 to it relevant.

 

Yes, exactly! And, of course, I don't expect to get better than an "approximation" of where trails are by mapping them with GPS, but I know that I most likely have better results than a USGS topo map will show. For example, we had significant flooding during our monsoon season, and some trails have been re-routed or completely disappear for 200-300+ feet. I've mapped many of the "new routes" using a 60CSx.

 

Regarding your stopwatch suggestion: that's an interesting idea, but so far it seems that the trip stats between the PN-40 and 60CSx are within reason of each other. I'd have to find some old notes, but I don't remember the Garmin Oregon (or Colorado) (older firmware on both since I no longer own these) doing a better job when compared to the 60CSx stats. So I'm so far pleased with the PN-40 vs 60CSx.

 

Regards

Edited November 28, 2008 by jmedlock

[jmedlock]

The track examples that I've seen so far (as above and on the Delorme Forum) would indicate to me that the PN-40 only tracks accurately if very carefully positioned for ideal conditions and it does fine under those conditions. That is not "Real World"....

 

A number of folks say "just carry it in a chest pocket, or clipped on your belt ", but that's not what the actual results say is needed. The track logging results say that the PN-40, with a patch antenna, needs help....... from an external antenna.......the one that Delorme does not offer.

 

To be fair, you may be able to "just carry [a GPS] in a chest pocket, or clipped on your belt". I think it depends on (1) your local terrain, canopy cover, and other environmental conditions, (2) your personal needs and how "accurate" you need your GPS to be, contrasted with how accurate your consumer-level GPS can be.

 

For example, even though I might get away with carrying the 60CSx in my chest pocket and get reasonable results, I would never carry it that way. The conditions, in which I hike, have taught me that it is better to position the 60CSx vertically and up-high on my backpack (and even then, I periodically encounter difficult areas for the 60CSx). The PN-40 is no different, except that I position it 6 inches higher on top of my shoulder strap in a mostly horizontal orientation. There's really not a big difference between the two orientations.

 

Finally, I know a surveyor with $$$$ GPS equipment. I'm simply not going to get the accuracy and reproducability on a $300-$400 consumer-level GPS compared to the results he can get.

 

Regards

Edited November 28, 2008 by jmedlock

[MtnHermit]

Seems to me that rather than be obsessive about track accuracy, far better to concentrate on size, display, user interface, maps, features, battery life. Any of the mentioned GPS units are sufficiently accurate to help you navigate in unfamiliar territory providing the internal maps are good enough.

 

Delorme's units allow use of satellite photos, Garmin does not. Is that important? I've never used a satellite photo in a GPS.

 

Garmin's (and 3rd party) 24K vector Topos are more accurate than DeLorme's 100K vector topos. That means a lot to me. IMO, the USGS raster Topos are worhless with that tiny PN-2/40 screen, but the Gold standard on paper.

[+TotemLake]

Seems to me that rather than be obsessive about track accuracy, far better to concentrate on size, display, user interface, maps, features, battery life. Any of the mentioned GPS units are sufficiently accurate to help you navigate in unfamiliar territory providing the internal maps are good enough.

 

Delorme's units allow use of satellite photos, Garmin does not. Is that important? I've never used a satellite photo in a GPS.

 

Garmin's (and 3rd party) 24K vector Topos are more accurate than DeLorme's 100K vector topos. That means a lot to me. IMO, the USGS raster Topos are worhless with that tiny PN-2/40 screen, but the Gold standard on paper.

No, it isn't important. But is it a giant leap? Yes. In the same manner it was a giant leap to include maps on the GPS instead of a blank screen with dots. The difference is comparable to going from Text, to formatted text (by coding) to formatted documents (by WYSIWYG). Remember that hubbub? I found in a recent car ride when my wife was driving, the location on the aerial was more accurate than the location with the overlaid map. I know I will find myself using the satellite and aerial images more with the overlaid map than I will with just the map when I'm out on the trails. The difference is that big.

[+Team CowboyPapa]

IMO, the USGS raster Topos are worhless with that tiny PN-2/40 screen, but the Gold standard on paper.

I'll make a note of that. I was collecting observations of those early adopters on the PN-40 with regard to their actual, hands-on experience and the screen size.

 

Of those eighteen previous who have actually held it in their hands the complaints were: None.

 

Apparently, we now have 18 to 1.

[jmedlock]

Seems to me that rather than be obsessive about track accuracy, far better to concentrate on size, display, user interface, maps, features, battery life. Any of the mentioned GPS units are sufficiently accurate to help you navigate in unfamiliar territory providing the internal maps are good enough.

 

Delorme's units allow use of satellite photos, Garmin does not. Is that important? I've never used a satellite photo in a GPS.

 

Garmin's (and 3rd party) 24K vector Topos are more accurate than DeLorme's 100K vector topos. That means a lot to me. IMO, the USGS raster Topos are worhless with that tiny PN-2/40 screen, but the Gold standard on paper.

 

Hi,

 

Instead of "obsession", I think my tracklog comparison exercise is one of prudence, or even due diligence, since the consumer handheld GPS market hasn't recently been known for high quality products. So that leaves me curious: how exactly did you determine that the PN-40 was sufficiently accurate? Hopefully not the marketing hype surrounding the product release.

 

Take, for example, Garmin: I wish they would have been "obsessive" about ensuring that their Colorado series was released without numerous software bugs, especially the obscene drift problem that made it suspect for navigation. I hit the drift problem more times than I care to remember, and I hope they really fixed it in the 2.8 release.

 

The Garmin Oregon series was much more stable at initial release, but I had my share of crashes and other problems (I posted a YouTube video showing a completely non-responsive UI).

 

Sure, screen size is important, but readability is just as important. The only people that have totally readable Colorado or Oregon screens are those folks in the Garmin Marketing department; Garmin should release those wonderfully brilliant screens to the marketplace. For the record, the 60CSx screen may be larger, but I don't find it any easier to read than the PN-40 (also the PN-40 screen supports 65k colors compared to 256 colors on the 60CSx).

 

I think additional imagery options (such as supported on the PN-40) are another tool in the tool chest. Maybe I wouldn't use them all the time on the PN-40, but it's nice to have them there. Compare this with the "3-D tool" on the Colorado or Oregon: I played with this tool a few times and found myself wishing that Garmin would have focused more on the essentials, instead of the bells and whistles.

 

3rd party software is an unfortunate "requirement" for Garmin since their MapSource product isn't very feature rich. I am finding the DeLorme Topo USA software extremely powerful and useful: it is very simple to build a network of trails without having to use "track memory". The other night I was going to sit down to make transparent maps for my 60CSx (for my trail system), but according to one tutorial, I was going to need 2 or 3 different programs and a large number of steps to accomplish what should be a trivial task.

 

Believe it or not, I'm not bashing Garmin. I'm simply re-hashing facts... painful facts for Garmin. My basic point is that consumers shouldn't trust that the latest and greatest GPS product actually works out of the box (unless, from my brief experience, you buy from DeLorme).

 

Even though I may sound like I'm drunk on DeLorme kool-aid (surprisingly not included as part of the PN-40 bundle), I'm still not ready to make a decision between the 60CSx and PN-40. I am, however, impressed with the quality of the initial PN-40 release.

 

By the way, I posted another tracklog from earlier today... I'll probably get a few more samples of other areas. I'm nearly convinced that the PN-40 is a very good performer.

 

http://gps.wmsar.info/pn40/

 

Regards

[gps_dr]

Seems to me that rather than be obsessive about track accuracy, far better to concentrate on size, display, user interface, maps, features, battery life. Any of the mentioned GPS units are sufficiently accurate to help you navigate in unfamiliar territory providing the internal maps are good enough.

 

Delorme's units allow use of satellite photos, Garmin does not. Is that important? I've never used a satellite photo in a GPS.

 

Garmin's (and 3rd party) 24K vector Topos are more accurate than DeLorme's 100K vector topos. That means a lot to me. IMO, the USGS raster Topos are worhless with that tiny PN-2/40 screen, but the Gold standard on paper.

I've used the imagery on the PN-40 in the mountains to a big advantage.

Being able to see the "birds-eye" view of the forest allowed me to pick out continuous logging cuts to make my travel so much easier than fighting dead-falls.

Being able to see around or over the forest you are in can be great.

 

No maps are perfect including the 24K vector topos.

They still show campgrounds that were closed many years ago and don't show roads that have been there for over a decade. Imagery can be very useful to see these.

Maps are only an approximation of reality.

YMMV

[+GPS777]

I received my PN-40 this week. My biggest fear had been the screen size, but it is perfectly fine. Very readable, bright and clear. I had a Colorado for a month and the bigger screen was nice but I don't think it had near the brightness or clarity.

 

As for tracking, the Colorado was miserable and was the major reason I returned it. My two brief hikes with the PN-40 have been much better. The quick switchbacks that the Colorado would show as loops plot very realistic on the PN-40. The sharp curves that the Colorado would cut short by a hundred feet come out fine on the PN-40. I had previously recorded tracks loaded in the PN-40 (made with a couple of other units), and paid close attention as I hiked. It appeared to me that the PN-40 was much quicker to track curves and bends. Also while stopped, I didn't see any messy "spider web" tracking blobs.

 

I played with a feature that is nice. You can take GPX track files and convert them to "trails" with the Topo software. I think somebody else mentioned it somewhere on this forum. Essentially, it lets you convert all of your old tracks and have them all loaded at once (no limit!). From what I understand, they are routeable when converted, too.

 

As for positioning the unit, I mostly had it in my hand swinging by my side so I could access it quickly to see how it was going to track various curves. At other times it was in my side coat pocket. At this point, I really wouldn't be worried about having to position it in any special way. As for the compass, you don't have to hold the unit flat, either. It works at any angle.

 

Anyway, my impressions are based on only about three miles of walking under extremely cloudy conditions. Once in open space (one mile) and the other under trees in the hills (two miles). If the weather cooperates, I'll do some better testing this weekend. But at this early stage, I really like it. The unit is a nice handy size. The screen is fine. The tracking seems great.

[+Team CowboyPapa]

I received my PN-40 this week. My biggest fear had been the screen size, but it is perfectly fine. Very readable, bright and clear. I had a Colorado for a month and the bigger screen was nice but I don't think it had near the brightness or clarity.

Yes, many prospective purchasers were likewise concerned about the screen size. I think that these concerns are attributable to comments posted herein. However, the large majority of the negative comments were from those who had never held a PN-20, or -40 in their hands.

 

I performed a survey a week ago of the comments posted by those who had by then received their PN-40s. The survey at that time was based on fourteen many of which were former users of the 60CSx or other Garmin models. With one exception, all favored the PN-40, regardless of its screen size.

[+pammieellen]

I received my PN-40 this week. My biggest fear had been the screen size, but it is perfectly fine. Very readable, bright and clear. I had a Colorado for a month and the bigger screen was nice but I don't think it had near the brightness or clarity.

Yes, many prospective purchasers were likewise concerned about the screen size. I think that these concerns are attributable to comments posted herein. However, the large majority of the negative comments were from those who had never held a PN-20, or -40 in their hands.

 

I performed a survey a week ago of the comments posted by those who had by then received their PN-40s. The survey at that time was based on fourteen many of which were former users of the 60CSx or other Garmin models. With one exception, all favored the PN-40, regardless of its screen size.

 

I just received my PN40 yesterday and love it so far. Set up bootcamp, windows xp (bummer), and had not problem loading the Topo USA 7.0 software, satellite aerial information and NOAA chart. The software is not intuitive but I love the cutting edge topo/aerial. Used it today for about 2 - 3 hours - very pleased so far.

 

I haven't checked the WAAS yet but this GPS is dead accurate. I like it so far but I'm a chart junkie. I wanted something more cutting edge (with much cheaper maps and charts) than the Garmin PGS 60csx and this is living up to what it promised so far. Having fun!

 

P.S. I struggle between buying the pn40 se with 8 gb internal memory (499.00) or the pn-40 with 1 mb internal memory (289). Went with the cheap amazon price and bought a 34.00 16 gb SD card. So far so good.

[+Team CowboyPapa]

 

I just received my PN40 yesterday and love it so far. Set up bootcamp, windows xp (bummer), and had not problem loading the Topo USA 7.0 software, satellite aerial information and NOAA chart. The software is not intuitive but I love the cutting edge topo/aerial. Used it today for about 2 - 3 hours - very pleased so far.

 

I haven't checked the WAAS yet but this GPS is dead accurate. I like it so far but I'm a chart junkie. I wanted something more cutting edge (with much cheaper maps and charts) than the Garmin PGS 60csx and this is living up to what it promised so far. Having fun!

 

P.S. I struggle between buying the pn40 se with 8 gb internal memory (499.00) or the pn-40 with 1 mb internal memory (289). Went with the cheap amazon price and bought a 34.00 16 gb SD card. So far so good.

Congratulations, you'll be very happy.

 

Note that there is a trade-off between extensive capability and ease-of-use. Imagine mapping software that was as easy to use as buying the PN-40 from Amazon.com, how much do you think that you could really do?

[+pammieellen]

Note that there is a trade-off between extensive capability and ease-of-use. Imagine mapping software that was as easy to use as buying the PN-40 from Amazon.com, how much do you think that you could really do?

 

So true, I have a previous long time ago mapping/hydrography background but the software is challenging for me to use and I understand what charts I need. Still, I'm sure I'm not dowloading these map builds in the most effecient or effective manner.....but I'm still having fun with it. amazing capability. thanks for the post.

Edited December 15, 2008 by pammieellen