60 cx vs. Colorado 400t

[Coach417]

My brother and I were camping with our families and tried geocaching for the first time. The kids liked the hunt, but I got frustrated. My 60 cx (a few years old, but updated firmware), could not get me close enough to find the caches. On the other hand, my brother and his two week old Co. 400t (that I talked him in to buying) was literally two feet from the cache when it was found. We searched for three caches and the score was Colorado 3, 60 cx 0. Is this a fluke or are the Colorado and Oregon more accurate? I have had a Garmin GPS for a long time (had a Map76 when they came out). I liked how user friendly the Colorado was for Geocaching. Ultimately, I am trying to decide if an upgrade is in order. Any constructive comments are appreciated. We camp a lot and really enjoyed combining Jeeping with the geocaching. Thanks.

[+briansnat]

How do you know that the coords for the caches weren't off and your GPS was actually more accurate than the Colorado?

 

The thing you need to understand is that the Colorado is not an upgrade to the 60CSX. It's a completely different unit, better in some respects and worse in others.

 

Most comparisons I've read say the 60CSX has better reception than the Colorado. The Colorado received a lot of bad feedback when it came out because of a plethora of bugs and also because it lacked many of the features of the 60CSX. I understand many of the problems have been addressed through firmware upgrades, but the missing features will apparently never be addressed.

 

After some initial drooling over the Colorado when it came out, I soon decided that there is no way I'd want one because it eliminated a number of key (to me) 60CSX features. They may not be important to you, so the Colorado may well be a good choice for you.

 

Here is a pretty good comparison of the features.

 

Moving to a more appropriate forum as this is not a getting started issue

 

 

[Coach417]

How do you know that the coords for the caches weren't off and your GPS was actually more accurate than the Colorado?

 

I don't. As I said this was my first foray into geocaching. That said, it did happen three times in a row. I really like my 60, and have used it to navigate my boat, drive all over the southeast, and find and traverse Jeep trails. I guess I just got frustrated that the Colorado seemed to be more accurate in this case and by a good margin. I will give it another go of course and hope for better results, but didn't know if anyone had similar issues. Thanks again.

[j.larsen]

I work at a store in Denmark, which sells Garmin handheld GPS units, so I will try to tell you the same as I tell the customers.

 

The Garmin GPSmap 60c(s)x uses a SiRFstarIII chip (high sensitivity), where the Garmin Colorado uses Garmin's own developed high sensitivity chip.

 

Garmin's own chip is newer, and more accurate.

 

I've been in the same situation as you and your brother. My uncles new Garmin Etrex Legend H(something), where more accurate than my Garmin GPSmap 60Csx.

 

So, if you want a higher accuracy than you are getting now, then buy any newer Garmin GPS with Garmin's own high sensitivity reciever

[+Triple Crown]

Another 'gotcha' is to make sure the GPS is set to 'off road' navigation, otherwise it will bring you to the nearest point---on a street--to the cache.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Triple Crown

[+Renegade Knight]

How do you know that the coords for the caches weren't off and your GPS was actually more accurate than the Colorado?

 

I don't. As I said this was my first foray into geocaching. That said, it did happen three times in a row. I really like my 60, and have used it to navigate my boat, drive all over the southeast, and find and traverse Jeep trails. I guess I just got frustrated that the Colorado seemed to be more accurate in this case and by a good margin. I will give it another go of course and hope for better results, but didn't know if anyone had similar issues. Thanks again.

 

It's common for one GPS to be at 2' while the other is 20' away. What would be rare is if both said 0, while you were both standing on the cache. Give it a day and try again. Results should vary. If j.larsen's post is accurate (and I've no reason to think it's not) the Colorado may be closer more often, but not always.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+Prime Suspect]

I work at a store in Denmark, which sells Garmin handheld GPS units, so I will try to tell you the same as I tell the customers.

 

The Garmin GPSmap 60c(s)x uses a SiRFstarIII chip (high sensitivity), where the Garmin Colorado uses Garmin's own developed high sensitivity chip.

 

Garmin's own chip is newer, and more accurate.

So why is Garmin using the SiRFstar III in the new Oregon 500?

 

If I remember right, Garmin only moved away from the SiRFstar III when it looked like they might be discontinued because of a legal issue. Apparently, that was resolved.

[+TeamIDFC]

So why is Garmin using the SiRFstar III in the new Oregon 500?

Do you have and data to back up that assertion?

 

If so, I think my dilemma is solved - I'll stick with my 60csx until the 500 comes out so I don't lose accuracy...

[+geojibby]

I have had similar issues with my 60Cx. I bought this GPS INSTEAD of the Oregon or Colorado because of reports I read on this forum which said the 60Cx series is the ultimate in accuracy. However, in practice, my neighbor's Oregon 300 has been closer to caches than my 60Cx. The only way to really know for sure if the unit is out is to go find a surveyed lat/long benchmark that you know is bang on. Then let the unit average the spot and see how close it comes. I am in the process of trying to find a benchmark to check my unit.

 

Additionally, I have found that the 60Cx is perhaps a much more sensitive unit. I have found that I lose 2-3m of reported accuracy if there is cloud cover! My little Garmin eTrex H was reporting 2m accuracy whist the 60Cx was reporting 5m when I left them side by side for an hour and a half.

 

But, the way I see it is that if your within 15 feet of a cache, you might as well put the GPS away and start hunting.

[+Prime Suspect]

So why is Garmin using the SiRFstar III in the new Oregon 500?

Do you have and data to back up that assertion?

 

If so, I think my dilemma is solved - I'll stick with my 60csx until the 500 comes out so I don't lose accuracy...

linky (one of many)

[+g-o-cashers]

The claim that the 500 is coming out with the Sirf GPS is very suspicious. I read many of the 500 postings last week and found one site that seemed to be the source of the rumor and it didn't seem to be based on any official information. I'd be surprised if Garmin went back to the Sirf given Sirf's current issues.

[+Prime Suspect]

The claim that the 500 is coming out with the Sirf GPS is very suspicious. I read many of the 500 postings last week and found one site that seemed to be the source of the rumor and it didn't seem to be based on any official information. I'd be surprised if Garmin went back to the Sirf given Sirf's current issues.

We'll know soon.

[+Jeep4two]

The claim that the 500 is coming out with the Sirf GPS is very suspicious. I read many of the 500 postings last week and found one site that seemed to be the source of the rumor and it didn't seem to be based on any official information. I'd be surprised if Garmin went back to the Sirf given Sirf's current issues.

We'll know soon.

 

I think you are right, we will know soon enough - however I suspect the 500 will end up being the very same hardware platform as the 400 with the addition of the camera. I think that from a manufacturing and engineering standpoint that it is not very likely that a company would take a platform (like the 200, 300, 400 Oregon) and then suddenly change the 'heart' of the unit (chipset) when effectively only adding one real 'bell' or 'whistle' such as the cam... the cost for this level of change on the engineering, design, and manufacturing process would probably make the 500 cost prohibitive.

 

On another note: While I can see the usefulness of the cam on the unit for geotagging I usually have a cell phone (with 1.3 Mp cam - likely similar to what will (or is) on the 500). While I might not have a geotag I have the low quality tool needed for 'snaps' (and ability to follow every shot up with a quick snap of my GPSr). I typically carry my DSLR with me for true quality photography and would never rely on a fixed focus cam for that level of photography. That said there may be a large part of the "On Trail" Garmin consumer that the camera on the GPSr will appeal to. I know, I know - many would never consider toting $1500 worth of camera gear around on the trail, but that's what accidental damage/loss insurance is for...

[+Prime Suspect]

The claim that the 500 is coming out with the Sirf GPS is very suspicious. I read many of the 500 postings last week and found one site that seemed to be the source of the rumor and it didn't seem to be based on any official information. I'd be surprised if Garmin went back to the Sirf given Sirf's current issues.

We'll know soon.

 

I think you are right, we will know soon enough - however I suspect the 500 will end up being the very same hardware platform as the 400 with the addition of the camera. I think that from a manufacturing and engineering standpoint that it is not very likely that a company would take a platform (like the 200, 300, 400 Oregon) and then suddenly change the 'heart' of the unit (chipset) when effectively only adding one real 'bell' or 'whistle' such as the cam... the cost for this level of change on the engineering, design, and manufacturing process would probably make the 500 cost prohibitive.

 

On another note: While I can see the usefulness of the cam on the unit for geotagging I usually have a cell phone (with 1.3 Mp cam - likely similar to what will (or is) on the 500). While I might not have a geotag I have the low quality tool needed for 'snaps' (and ability to follow every shot up with a quick snap of my GPSr). I typically carry my DSLR with me for true quality photography and would never rely on a fixed focus cam for that level of photography. That said there may be a large part of the "On Trail" Garmin consumer that the camera on the GPSr will appeal to. I know, I know - many would never consider toting $1500 worth of camera gear around on the trail, but that's what accidental damage/loss insurance is for...

 

The GPS chip is not the operating system. I've heard that Garmin has also rethought the screen resolution vs. sunlight readability problem, and decided that, yes, it does suck in the daylight. The higher the pixel density, the less light a transflective screen will bounce back. Apparently they're changing the pixel density to make it more readable.

[+Red90]

That would suck. The high resolution is one of the best features.

[+toil&trouble]

I'd just like to say, we used the 60 for a couple of years, then finally upgraded to paperless with the Oregon 300. We used the OR for a couple of months and got a chance to pick up a Colorado 400T pretty cheap. Well, we sold the Oregon almost immediately after using the Colorado. The unit is fantastic. Navigation is spot on, it takes a couple of steps to go back and forth between street navigation, field navigation and cache discription etc, but the ease of only having one thing to carry, not having to worry about dropping/scratching mutlitple devices, is fantastic. Lastly, we both hated the touch screen. Maybe the iphone has spoiled us, but the OR touch screen is terrible.

[+geodarts]

I have used the 60 cx and the Colorado 300 side by side. In terms of accuracy, both seem to get me where I want to go. While I have noticed minor variations between the two units the accuracy in finding a cache is always dependent upon the accuracy recorded by the person who placed it.

 

I like to place caches with the 60 to take advantage of the averaging feature. But I recently got "better" readings (according to google and mapsource) from a magellan explorist at one location. Go figure.

[+Red90]

I like to place caches with the 60 to take advantage of the averaging feature.

 

You can average with a Colorado, if you want....