Garmin 60CSx or Garmin Oregon 550t?

[joeliiively]

I've read a lot of reviews about different hand held GPS units, and it seems a lot of people lean towards the Garmin 60CSx. But does anyone know how well the Oregon 550t performs? It seems the specs on the Oregon 550t are just as good.. Any input would be helpful, i'm on the fence between these two..

[+larryc43230]

I've read a lot of reviews about different hand held GPS units, and it seems a lot of people lean towards the Garmin 60CSx. But does anyone know how well the Oregon 550t performs? It seems the specs on the Oregon 550t are just as good.. Any input would be helpful, i'm on the fence between these two..

I have both. I used my 60CSx for more than three years before getting a 550t a couple of months ago. You can't go wrong with either one, but I'm hooked on the 550t now. So far, it's been a fine replacement for the 60CSx, and I'm becoming really spoiled with the paperless geocaching and field notes features.

 

--Larry

[+briansnat]

If it's mostly for geocaching, its hard to beat the paperless feature of the 550T.

[joeliiively]

Thanks for the info fellas, helped a lot, ill most likely be going with the Oregon 550t. Paperless does sound like a great feature, plus the camera and geotagging feature sounds nice too! Yall take care!

[+Scubasonic]

I have the 60csx and the Oregon 400T I believe that the 60csx is more accurate, and I use it for all my FTFs that I go rushing out on, but for those 10+ days of caching U can't beat the Oregon for Paperless caching.....my opinion GET BOTH

 

ScubaSonic

[+DragonflyTotem]

I now have both the Garmin 60CSx and Garmin Oregon 550T. I've had the Oregon for almost two months now and find that I have lots of problems with it and in many cases my iPhone is more accurate. Specifically I get a lot of "bounce" with it and it will be pointing as much as 50-75 feet away from the cache. I suspect that this has a lot to do with the ceramic antenna that the 550T has while the 60CSx has a quad-helix antenna, but the 60CSx also has the older chip which many swear by.

 

I decided to consider getting the 60CSx because at one cache site where I was having problems with the 550T someone else had their 60CSx and had no problems at all. Right after that I happened to have an opportunity to cache two sites with someone else -- same situation in that their 60CSx was dead-on and my 550T was so far off that I wasn't getting within 50 feet of the cache. Then I went to one cache site and couldn't get a good GPS reading and got a DNF only to have someone that I know uses a 60CSx come along and say they had no problems and that the GZ coordinates were dead-on.

 

After researching the 60CSx and learning about both the antenna and chip difference, that was enough to convince me to get it. I plan on using my 60CSx for caching and regret having purchased the 550T.

[+briansnat]

but the 60CSx also has the older chip which many swear by.

 

Everything I've heard gave the 60CSX with the SirF III chip an edge in accuracy over the Garmin Colorados and Oregons.

 

Garmin is no longer shipping the 60CSX with the SiRF III and is instead using a MTK II chip in the 60CSX. I haven't heard much yet about the newer units and how they compare with the older ones with the SiRF III/

[jkettu]

My firm opinion is that 60's advantage is the antenna design. I can't see significant difference between Sirf and Mediatek versions of it. Both are several magnitudes better than that pos Oregon 300 I had for a while.

[+DragonflyTotem]

but the 60CSx also has the older chip which many swear by.

 

Everything I've heard gave the 60CSX with the SirF III chip an edge in accuracy over the Garmin Colorados and Oregons.

 

Garmin is no longer shipping the 60CSX with the SiRF III and is instead using a MTK II chip in the 60CSX. I haven't heard much yet about the newer units and how they compare with the older ones with the SiRF III/

 

I stand corrected on the chip then as I must have been looking at old review specs and didn't know that I got the new chip.

 

But to me the chip was the less important as to me the antenna is what probably makes all the difference. My experience is that a nice big outside of the case quad helix antenna is probably going to perform a whole lot better than a case internal ceramic antenna. According to Garmin the Oregon's ceramic antenna is neither a quad helix nor a traditional patch antenna, which doesn't tell you much about what it is. And Oregon doesn't support any external antenna either.

[+kunarion]

I now have both the Garmin 60CSx and Garmin Oregon 550T. I've had the Oregon for almost two months now and find that I have lots of problems with it and in many cases my iPhone is more accurate. Specifically I get a lot of "bounce" with it and it will be pointing as much as 50-75 feet away from the cache.

I've noticed similar issues. Caching with a friend who has the 60CSx, I've seen my Oregon sometimes point to the wrong spot while he zeroes right in on it. It may be less than "50-75 feet" off, which isn't unreasonable for caching. I've also found that if I hold the GPSr still or set it flat on a surface for a few seconds, it settles out nicely. And the Oregon captures my own cache within 4 feet, consistently. I'm guessing it's an issue of obstructions, and differences in antenna sensitivity. And whether or not you use the "WAAS" (GPS signal correction) option.

 

But I've impressed my teammate several times by having the cache info at hand, including the clue. When we both know it's "under that bridge", the Oregon saves the day with its paperless feature.

Edited November 10, 2009 by kunarion

[+Hiker_N]

I now have both the Garmin 60CSx and Garmin Oregon 550T. I've had the Oregon for almost two months now and find that I have lots of problems with it and in many cases my iPhone is more accurate. Specifically I get a lot of "bounce" with it and it will be pointing as much as 50-75 feet away from the cache.

I've noticed similar issues. Caching with a friend who has the 60CSx, I've seen my Oregon sometimes point to the wrong spot while he zeroes right in on it. It may be less than "50-75 feet" off, which isn't unreasonable for caching. I've also found that if I hold the GPSr still or set it flat on a surface for a few seconds, it settles out nicely. And the Oregon captures my own cache within 4 feet, consistently. I'm guessing it's an issue of obstructions, and differences in antenna sensitivity. And whether or not you use the "WAAS" (GPS signal correction) option.

 

But I've impressed my teammate several times by having the cache info at hand, including the clue. When we both know it's "under that bridge", the Oregon saves the day with its paperless feature.

 

If the quad-helix is so much more accurate, (which it is) then get a used Colorado online. It has a quad-helix antenna and WAAS and features paperless caching. The only thing it is missing is the touch screen. I'd rather take the accuracy and paperless caching over the touchscreen any day.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Hiker_N