Oregon 200 vs. Dakota 20 - Cannot decide

[swift23]

Hallo,

 

my Legend HCx with the slow scrolling on maps and putting in names for waypoints with the joystick annoys me. So I thought about getting a new GPSr e.g. an Oregon 200 for 200 € or a Dakota 20 for 250 €.

 

Now I have read a lot of pros and cons of the two receivers and I am quite unsure which one I should choose.

I mean is it worth to invest 50 Bucks more for getting a GPSr with a smaller display but with more functions (3D-compass, barometer, more intern memory, wireless connection).

 

Are the new Oregons/Dakotas faster in scrolling on maps?

Are there processing speed differences between the Oregon 200 and the Dakota 20?

Is it easier to scroll on the maps with the larger display of the Oregon than on the Dakota?

Is it also possible with the Dakota to graze with your finger from left to right to change the menu page?

 

My feeling just telling me "Go with the Oregon 200" but it´s just a feeling, so please help me.

 

Which choice would you make?

 

Greetings from Germany

swift23

Edited March 14, 2010 by swift23

[+OldA'sFan]

Hallo,

 

my Legend HCx with the slow scrolling on maps and putting in names for waypoints with the joystick annoys me. So I thought about getting a new GPSr e.g. an Oregon 200 for 200 € or a Dakota 20 for 250 €.

 

Now I have read a lot of pros and cons of the two receivers and I am quite unsure which one I should choose.

I mean is it worth to invest 50 Bucks more for getting a GPSr with a smaller display but with more functions (3D-compass, barometer, more intern memory, wireless connection).

 

Are the new Oregons/Dakotas faster in scrolling on maps?

Are there processing speed differences between the Oregon 200 and the Dakota 20?

Is it easier to scroll on the maps with the larger display of the Oregon than on the Dakota?

Is it also possible with the Dakota to graze with your finger from left to right to change the menu page?

 

My feeling just telling me "Go with the Oregon 200" but it´s just a feeling, so please help me.

 

Which choice would you make?

 

Greetings from Germany

swift23

Check out the Orgon 450. If there is not a lot of differance in price I would go for it. Combines all of the features of the Dakato and the Oregon 200 (3D compass, barometer, more memory, wireless connection and as a bonus you get the larger screen).

 

OldA'sFan

[+The Yinnies]

I had the 450 and sent it back. Everything I tried it was very hard to see the screen while driving. The Dakota 20 is much better for that and it would be worth the extra money over the 10. It is nice to have a bigger screen, but does no good if you cannot see it. 3-axis compass is the way to go.

Thanks

Edited March 14, 2010 by The Yinnie's

[+Unobtainium]

I have an Oregon 550 and I find the screen to be a bit dim, but perfectly usable for me. I think the screen brightness issue is very subjective.

 

The best advice is to go somewhere were you can try one out in the sun and make your own mind up how you find it.

[+The Yinnies]

Everything I have read was that the 550 was better than the 300 and 400. I do not think they changed much to the 450. I am just going on my own opinion. I have had the Oregon 300 and 450 also the Dakota 20. The 20 was the best.

Thanks

[+Chrysalides]

Everything I have read was that the 550 was better than the 300 and 400. I do not think they changed much to the 450. I am just going on my own opinion. I have had the Oregon 300 and 450 also the Dakota 20. The 20 was the best.

If you go by pixel density, the Dakota's pixel density is less than the Oregon / Colorado, and that should result in a display that is easier to read and brighter. It also means you get less dots on the screen, so less detail. Win some, lose some.

[+Unobtainium]

Everything I have read was that the 550 was better than the 300 and 400. I do not think they changed much to the 450. I am just going on my own opinion. I have had the Oregon 300 and 450 also the Dakota 20. The 20 was the best.

Thanks

That wasn't a dig. I was just pointing out that it is subjective and each individual needs to check out the brightness for themselves.

[swift23]

Thank you for your opinions so far.

 

But what is with the scrolling? Are the maps now shown faster after moving to another part of the map. On the Etrex it takes some time before I can see the structures on the map. Is that now better with the Oregon and/or Dakota?

Are there map-scrolling differences in speed or handling between the Dakota and the Oregon?

[+Jeep4two]

I think you'll see very similar performance characteristics on all of these units.

 

One of the biggest things to me would be the 3 axis compass. Very handy - I have the Oregon 400t, and while the 2 axis compass is fine (or at least not bad enough for me to trade up right now) the 3 axis makes the electronic compass much more usable and is a nice tool for Geocaching.

 

Here's a comparison for the Oregon 450 to the Dakota 20 https://buy.garmin.com/shop/compare.do?cID=...reProduct=63349

 

As others said, the screen is slightly smaller on the Dakota, with less pixel density. The trade off will be somewhat better viewablitliy of the screen on the Dakota but with a sacrifice of detail on the screen (lower resolution, less detail).

 

Good luck - and here's he good news. Regardless of which one you buy - you'll be thrilled. The are both great units.

[+Gr8Scot]

Be warned that Garmin have ceased production of the x00 series Oregon. Their latest firmware releases have only been for the x50 series. The Oregon is an awesome bit of kit (I've had a 300 for over a year) which I would heartily recommend. But if you are going to buy one, rather buy a 450 or you will be left behind with future updates.

Edited March 16, 2010 by gr8scot

[+Redwoods Mtn Biker]

The Oregon x00 series has not been placed on the official Garmin discontinued list. I wouldn't be surprised by it, but it hasn't happened yet...

 

https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=167

[swift23]

Hmm, maybe it´s true that the x00 models are discontinued. Wonder why the 200 is not to find under the "Oregon" section on the Garmin website.

 

Just thought to buy a 200 because the 450 costs almost the double and I like it that the 200 needs less power than the other Oregons and has a bigger screen than the Dakota.

 

I must admit that I never used the compass on my Legend HCx and never missed the height sensor.

 

But is it true that the Dakota user interface is noticeably faster and the Map redraw is almost instant when zooming and panning than on the Oregon?

 

 

.

Edited March 17, 2010 by swift23

[+coggins]

Hmm, maybe it´s true that the x00 models are discontinued. Wonder why the 200 is not to find under the "Oregon" section on the Garmin website.

Looks like the third item on the list on their website: Mapping Handhelds

 

Maybe their web people forgot about that one in the Oregon list???

[swift23]

Yes, you´re right. The Oregon 200 is listed under MAPPING HANDHELDS.

 

Does anyone have a Dakota and can confirm that it is faster in Map redraw and panning and zooming than the Oregon?

Edited March 17, 2010 by swift23

[MtnHermit]

But is it true that the Dakota user interface is noticeably faster and the Map redraw is almost instant when zooming and panning than on the Oregon?

Highly unlikely since they both share the same CPU, STM Cartesio. But the OR has 3X the pixels, that would impact redraw somewhat. If you're viewing topo maps those extra pixels allow you see 3X the map at any zoom level.

[+ecanderson]

But is it true that the Dakota user interface is noticeably faster and the Map redraw is almost instant when zooming and panning than on the Oregon?

Highly unlikely since they both share the same CPU, STM Cartesio. But the OR has 3X the pixels, that would impact redraw somewhat. If you're viewing topo maps those extra pixels allow you see 3X the map at any zoom level.

I looked at the previous (x00) Oregons and the Dakota 20 before buying the Dakota 20. While it is true that the older (and newer) Oregons have a higher pixel count, those extra pixels aren't much good if you can't see them. What I quickly found (and it was a nightmare getting the store to dismount the demos and let me take them out front in the sun to look) was that sunlight at the right angle actually made the Dakota 20 even easier to read. It's like a well done e-reader device where reflected light is actually a bonus. The Oregon screen (it was a 300) was significantly more difficult to orient for bright sun viewing. Of course, like anything with a screen like this, it's possible to work it to precisely the wrong angle and see nothing at all due to intense sun glare -- but that's true with all of them to one degree or another.

 

While there are indeed 2.5X the number of pixels on the Oregon 200 (not quite 3X), the reality in actual use is a little deceptive -- the vertical/horizontal ratio is different as well.

 

Oregon = 240W x 400H = 1 : 1.7

Dakota = 160W x 240H = 1 : 1.5

 

Doesn't sound like much, but what I'm pointing out is that many of those extra pixels don't contribute to pixel image density, they contribute only to a taller screen view. Truth is, the Oregon packs in 50% more pixels across the screen than the Dakota, and that's the number that actually defines the additional and usable resolution. So don't think 2.5X. Think 1.5X. But before you buy, make sure you'll be able to see what's there to begin with. My eyes are getting older, and jamming more pixels into a smaller space is less important to me than the brightness/contrast of what I'm trying to see.

[+Redwoods Mtn Biker]

I agree. I'd probably trade my Oregon 400t for a Dakota 20.

[MtnHermit]

But is it true that the Dakota user interface is noticeably faster and the Map redraw is almost instant when zooming and panning than on the Oregon?

Highly unlikely since they both share the same CPU, STM Cartesio. But the OR has 3X the pixels, that would impact redraw somewhat. If you're viewing topo maps those extra pixels allow you see 3X the map at any zoom level.

I looked at the previous (x00) Oregons and the Dakota 20 before buying the Dakota 20. While it is true that the older (and newer) Oregons have a higher pixel count, those extra pixels aren't much good if you can't see them. What I quickly found (and it was a nightmare getting the store to dismount the demos and let me take them out front in the sun to look) was that sunlight at the right angle actually made the Dakota 20 even easier to read. It's like a well done e-reader device where reflected light is actually a bonus. The Oregon screen (it was a 300) was significantly more difficult to orient for bright sun viewing. Of course, like anything with a screen like this, it's possible to work it to precisely the wrong angle and see nothing at all due to intense sun glare -- but that's true with all of them to one degree or another.

 

While there are indeed 2.5X the number of pixels on the Oregon 200 (not quite 3X), the reality in actual use is a little deceptive -- the vertical/horizontal ratio is different as well.

 

Oregon = 240W x 400H = 1 : 1.7

Dakota = 160W x 240H = 1 : 1.5

 

Doesn't sound like much, but what I'm pointing out is that many of those extra pixels don't contribute to pixel image density, they contribute only to a taller screen view. Truth is, the Oregon packs in 50% more pixels across the screen than the Dakota, and that's the number that actually defines the additional and usable resolution. So don't think 2.5X. Think 1.5X. But before you buy, make sure you'll be able to see what's there to begin with. My eyes are getting older, and jamming more pixels into a smaller space is less important to me than the brightness/contrast of what I'm trying to see.

I'll suggest it's all immaterial to the OP. His real question was redraw speed, doing panning and zooming. The OP asked more than once. I can't answer that, but you should be able to.

 

For me, I'll just keep my Colorado, I know that the brighter the light the better the view. Plus I'm able to take photos of the screen, something I couldn't do very well on my eTrex Cx, moire patterns.

 

[+caver53]

Can you do Wherigo's with the dakota models?

Edited March 17, 2010 by caver53

[+jopasm]

Can you do Wherigo's with the dakota models?

 

No, the Dakota series doesn't support Wherigo.

[+ecanderson]

I'll suggest it's all immaterial to the OP.

Because he didn't know to ask the question, it becomes immaterial to a decision? Interesting approach, but I don't agree.

His real question was redraw speed, doing panning and zooming. The OP asked more than once. I can't answer that, but you should be able to.

I couldn't tell a difference in the parking lot, but neither seemed to be slow in any way.

For me, I'll just keep my Colorado, I know that the brighter the light the better the view.

Providing you don't get at an odd screen angle in the sun, yup, more backlight helps a lot. You must own one of the newer x50 series with the improved screen. A 60Csx or eTrex Vista blew the doors off the original models for brightness/view in the sun.

[MtnHermit]

For me, I'll just keep my Colorado, I know that the brighter the light the better the view.

Providing you don't get at an odd screen angle in the sun, yup, more backlight helps a lot. You must own one of the newer x50 series with the improved screen. A 60Csx or eTrex Vista blew the doors off the original models for brightness/view in the sun.

Colorado 500, is their such a thing? I didn't say bright backlight, simply bright light. I never use backlight on the Colorado outdoors. The attached photo is w/o backlight, only sunlight and it clearly shows Colorado 300. Only people with Oregon's use backlights outdoors.

[+coggins]

For me, I'll just keep my Colorado, I know that the brighter the light the better the view.

Providing you don't get at an odd screen angle in the sun, yup, more backlight helps a lot. You must own one of the newer x50 series with the improved screen.

Colorado x50? Those must be new. Edited March 18, 2010 by coggins

[+ecanderson]

For me, I'll just keep my Colorado, I know that the brighter the light the better the view.

Providing you don't get at an odd screen angle in the sun, yup, more backlight helps a lot. You must own one of the newer x50 series with the improved screen.

Colorado x50? Those must be new.

It was ... er ... a tongue-in-cheek note that the Colorado has yet to benefit from the improved readability of some of the more recent screens. Not being a touch screen helps! I don't even want to go into my thoughts on what some manufacturers have done with LCD screens in products designed for outdoor use. Just plain dumb in many cases.

 

Anyway, the OP's SUBJECT said he was having trouble making the decision on a $50 differential. Seems like tossing in all of the parameters the OP might not have realized existed that might impact that decision could be helpful. He wants to know if it's worth another $50. Just giving additional reasons why it might be.

Edited March 18, 2010 by ecanderson

[+ecanderson]

Only people with Oregon's use backlights outdoors.

Fair enough ... and would seem relevant to the question raised by the OP's subject line, yes?

[+coggins]

It was ... er ... a tongue-in-cheek note that the Colorado has yet to benefit from the improved readability of some of the more recent screens.

Got it, I'm running 1/2 empty tonight.

[MtnHermit]

Only people with Oregon's use backlights outdoors.

Fair enough ... and would seem relevant to the question raised by the OP's subject line, yes?

Yes the OP's subject line. But if he asked a question twice and bolded it the second time, seems that it is really, really important.

 

The CO has a much older slower CPU than the OR or DK and redraw times have never been an issue to me. But I'm a hiker/backpacker so slow is the operative word. I attempted to answer his root question then added my 3X pixel comment. To which you wrote a book in rebuttal and said nothing about redraw speed. But that's how forums work.

 

I've never seen a OR or DK because where I live no one sells them and driving 100-miles isn't worth it. The OP is from Germany, no idea how difficult it is to compare.

[+ecanderson]

The OP is from Germany, no idea how difficult it is to compare.

Unfortunately, being in Germany makes it much, much more difficult for him. The brick-and-mortar Garmin dealer network is a little different over there (we're spoiled here) -- they're all aviation shops of one kind or another, and don't deal in Garmin's hiking/handheld products. Unless he can find some friends who own Garmin products to help him out with a physical comparison, all the ammunition we can give him at this point will be useful to him since he'll probably be doing all of his business by mail order.

 

The good news is that Germany is the most geocachingcrazy place in all of Europe. He appears to be in the NRW area of Germany (but that covers a ton of highly populated territory like Dusseldorf, Bonn and Cologne) so it's hard to know what local caching group might be close to him. If he can connect with them, it's his best bet for doing a real side-by-side comparison that might push the decision one way or the other.

Edited March 18, 2010 by ecanderson