Dakota 20 or oregon 300?

[+Krickefinder]

I have had my etrex vista cx for three years now and I think it's time to replace it with a unit with better accuracy. Paperless also sounds great

 

First, I wanted to have a dakota 20, mostly because it was cheaper, but, today I saw an offer in a store where they sold a oregon 300 for about the same price as for the dakota 20, and I started to wonder if it was maybe better to buy one of those instead. I've read that the dakota is a little easier to read in sunlight, and that it has a 3-axis compass, but the oregon has a bigger screen and has wherigos and so, but how important are these stuff in reality?

 

Which one would you pick if they cost about the same?

[+Searching_ut]

I just recently purchased the Dakota 20 even though I could have picked up the oregon 300 cheaper. I liked the slightly smaller size, 3 axis compass (Although it has calibration issues), longer battery life, and the fact that the Dakota feels a little tougher. I still worry about the ruggedness of the touch screen as I beat my receivers up over time. If I wan't the unit for road use as well, I may have gone for the Oregon for the higher res display. I would imagine if you wait a little while though, the Dakota should start being discounted so you can pick it up for less than an oregon.

 

Edited to add: As for basic accuracy, I haven't seen anything that would indicate the new units are any more accurate than you etrex. All you'll really gain is paperless capability and touchscreen with either unit.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Searching_ut

[+Krickefinder]

As for basic accuracy, I haven't seen anything that would indicate the new units are any more accurate than you etrex.

 

I guess that you mean the new etrexes with a H before the Cx, that have high-sensitivity receivers? Mine is older, without H. So it's not as good as them, atleast not under treecover..

 

Anyway, I have decided that the smaller size, longer battery life and the 3-axis compass is more important than the oregon features, so I will probably go for a dakota after all

 

Thanks for the fast reply!

Edited August 28, 2009 by Krickefinder

[+Tahoe Skier5000]

I have had my etrex vista cx for three years now and I think it's time to replace it with a unit with better accuracy. Paperless also sounds great

 

First, I wanted to have a dakota 20, mostly because it was cheaper, but, today I saw an offer in a store where they sold a oregon 300 for about the same price as for the dakota 20, and I started to wonder if it was maybe better to buy one of those instead. I've read that the dakota is a little easier to read in sunlight, and that it has a 3-axis compass, but the oregon has a bigger screen and has wherigos and so, but how important are these stuff in reality?

 

Which one would you pick if they cost about the same?

 

Between the Dakota and Oregon I would ask yourself what is most important... small unit size, or a larger screen.

 

The Dakota and Oregon are almost identical operationally. The Dakota cannot do terrain shading or 3D rendering of maps like the Oregon can. This would be helpful if you plan on using the GPS with Topo maps as you can see a relative depiction of what the terrain ahead might look like on the GPS. Aside from the 3-axis compass, the Dakota does not have anything that the Oregon doesn't.

 

Personally, I would go with the Oregon but only because I prefer the larger screen. The 3-axis compass is nice, but the 2-axis compass on the Oregon works just fine if you know how to use it properly. (and most of the time I keep it off to save battery, since I can get a GPS direction just by walking about a foot).

[+Searching_ut]

As for basic accuracy, I haven't seen anything that would indicate the new units are any more accurate than you etrex.

 

I guess that you mean the new etrexes with a H before the Cx, that have high-sensitivity receivers? Mine is older, without H. So it's not as good as them, atleast not under treecover..

 

.............

 

Actually, I don't think you'll find accuracy to be any better than even the old grayscale etrex series, at least the ones that had WAAS. The new units are more sensitive, which is nice under treecover, but can be somewhat of a curse in the canyons where you could get some multipath errors. Seems there are always tradeoffs somewhere.

 

I have had my etrex vista cx for three years now and I think it's time to replace it with a unit with better accuracy. Paperless also sounds great

 

First, I wanted to have a dakota 20, mostly because it was cheaper, but, today I saw an offer in a store where they sold a oregon 300 for about the same price as for the dakota 20, and I started to wonder if it was maybe better to buy one of those instead. I've read that the dakota is a little easier to read in sunlight, and that it has a 3-axis compass, but the oregon has a bigger screen and has wherigos and so, but how important are these stuff in reality?

 

Which one would you pick if they cost about the same?

 

.....The Dakota and Oregon are almost identical operationally. The Dakota cannot do terrain shading or 3D rendering of maps like the Oregon can. This would be helpful if you plan on using the GPS with Topo maps as you can see a relative depiction of what the terrain ahead might look like on the GPS. Aside from the 3-axis compass, the Dakota does not have anything that the Oregon doesn't.

 

 

The Dakota does shading with the DEM based topo maps. I don't turn it on though because the shaded parts of the "Green" forest areas on the map appear way to dark with the shading turned on. The Dakotas don't however do 3D views.

[+Krickefinder]

 

... Aside from the 3-axis compass, the Dakota does not have anything that the Oregon doesn't.

...

 

Yeah, that's also an interesting point.. And I have also been thinking about the screensize. The dakotascreen is just a little bigger than my etrexscreen, and having to consider that you do everything on that little screen, I think I want to see it before I buy it. The Media Markt that just opened in my town has oregons out for display in the store, and if I don't think the oregon is too big, I might buy it anyway..

 

 

Actually, I don't think you'll find accuracy to be any better than even the old grayscale etrex series, at least the ones that had WAAS. The new units are more sensitive, which is nice under treecover, but can be somewhat of a curse in the canyons where you could get some multipath errors. Seems there are always tradeoffs somewhere.

 

 

Ok, not at all? But the sensitivity under treecover is atleast better, I hate it when it "freezes" when I go in the woods, and then understands where it is when I've already gone to far..

[+g-o-cashers]

The Dakota cannot do terrain shading or 3D rendering of maps like the Oregon can.

 

The Dakota does support terrain shading, it just doesn't support 3D View (which is not very useful in my experience).

 

If you can find the 300 and Dakota 20 for the same price I would go with the OR unless you are looking for the smaller form factor and better battery life. I get about 10-12 hours on an Oregon and 15-16 hours with the Dakota.

[+Fizzle1979]

I just got the Oregon 300 and I like it. I also looked at the Dakota but went with the 300.

[+The Yinnies]

The Dakota cannot do terrain shading or 3D rendering of maps like the Oregon can.

 

The Dakota does support terrain shading, it just doesn't support 3D View (which is not very useful in my experience).

 

If you can find the 300 and Dakota 20 for the same price I would go with the OR unless you are looking for the smaller form factor and better battery life. I get about 10-12 hours on an Oregon and 15-16 hours with the Dakota.

Why would you go with the Or. They are about the same other than size and a few options. But the DK has the 3 axis compass.