Jump to content

Picture of the new GPSMap 62 serie :)


Recommended Posts

it just doesn't make sense for Garmin to have to support another platform.

Cos Garmin would never introduce gratuitously different products? You're not new to this rodeo. :-)

Taking that argument a step further it seems to me they are probably leveraging the Dakota/Oregon x50 platform for these new units with some software changes to handle the hard-buttons vs. touchscreen.

 

More than a few of us that bought Colorado and thought that Oregon would be the the same platform with some software changes to handle the hard (rock-n-roller) buttons vs. touchscreen thought that, too. Within weeks we saw "new" features added (many which were present on the 60CSx and other products) to the OR family that were never "ported" to CO.

 

I'm not one to fuss about products changing over time, but be careful about buying into corporate motivation for doing what you are pretty sure is doing another build from the "same" code base when they're in the business of selling hardware and not firmware upgrades.

Link to comment

Im pretty sure the Colorado was suppose to be the successor to the 60...

 

I bet the new 62 will be closer to the Colorado in software and function than the Oregon is my guess. but like everyone here its just a guess at this point. But the form factor and current screen shots lean this way.

Link to comment

I'm not sure how everyone else feels but if the software is styled after the Colorado it would actually be worse than if it was styled after the Oregon IMHO. I'm not sure how many remember but I was an early adopter of the Colorado and it was a terrible roller coaster (mostly down) until Garmin agreed to exchange it for an Oregon. I hope Garmin fired the rookie who wrote the code for the Colorado and re-hired the guy who wrote it for the 60.

Link to comment

Garmin 62s

$399.99

 

• Incredibly sensitive and easy to use. Preloaded Worldwide DEM basemap

• Brilliant 65K color TFT display

• Crisp 160x240-pixel resolution

• 1.8 GB internal memory

• Includes a variety of essential outdoor apps, including compass, altimeter, and wireless

• High-speed USB serial interface

• External GPS output

• MicroSD card slot (card not included)

• Runs 18 hours on two AA batteries (not included)

• Incredibly sensitive and easy to use, the Garmin® 62s Handheld GPS

 

garmin-62s.png

Garmin 62st

$499.99

 

• Incredibly sensitive and easy to use

• Preloaded Worldwide DEM basemap plus Topo 100K

• Brilliant 65K color TFT display

• Crisp 160x240-pixel resolution

• 1 GB internal usable memory

• Includes a variety of essential outdoor apps, including compass, altimeter, and wireless

• High-speed USB serial interface

• External GPS output

• MicroSD card slot (card not included)

• Runs 18 hours on two AA batteries (not included)

 

garmin-62st.png

Edited by coggins
Link to comment

My questions are:

1. How many geocaches will it hold? With a Gig of internal memory I hope it will rival the Oregon 450 and 550 with a limit of 5,000 (or 10,000 like the Explorist GC). I'm mostly a spontaneous cacher and like to have as many caches loaded on my GPSr as it can handle.

 

2. Will it have the ability to play Wherigo cartridges?

Link to comment
My questions are:

1. How many geocaches will it hold? With a Gig of internal memory I hope it will rival the Oregon 450 and 550 with a limit of 5,000 (or 10,000 like the Explorist GC). I'm mostly a spontaneous cacher and like to have as many caches loaded on my GPSr as it can handle.

 

2. Will it have the ability to play Wherigo cartridges?

I'd like to know too. Though, in typical Garmin fashion, I suspect you get something but lose something. There never seems to be "One GPS Receiver To Rule Them All"...

Link to comment

I don't think internal memory availability has much to do with how many geocaches the unit can hold. The geocache database is implemented in memory we can't see as users and I have a feeling that it is mostly tweaked by marketing types to fit a price point. In other words I don't believe there isn't any reason that all Oregon x50's and Dakota's couldn't support 5k geocaches but the Dakota may be artificially limited to fit into the product line, I'm guessing Garmin may do the same here if they see the GPSMAP units fitting into a price point slightly below the Oregon x50's. Maybe 2k-3k caches? Purely speculation on my part, so take this for what it is worth!

 

GO$Rs

Link to comment
My questions are:

1. How many geocaches will it hold? With a Gig of internal memory I hope it will rival the Oregon 450 and 550 with a limit of 5,000 (or 10,000 like the Explorist GC). I'm mostly a spontaneous cacher and like to have as many caches loaded on my GPSr as it can handle.

 

2. Will it have the ability to play Wherigo cartridges?

I'd like to know too. Though, in typical Garmin fashion, I suspect you get something but lose something. There never seems to be "One GPS Receiver To Rule Them All"...

 

From the garmin spec page, 2000 caches/favorites/locations.

 

The web page does not say anything about Wherigo, bu then again the 550 web page doesn't either.

Link to comment
From the garmin spec page, 2000 caches/favorites/locations.

 

The web page does not say anything about Wherigo, bu then again the 550 web page doesn't either.

Do you mean the spec page for the GPSMap 78?

 

If so, it says "Waypoints/favorites/locations" not geocaches.

 

FWIW, it says the same thing on the Oregon 550 page. No mention of 5000 geocaches in GPX.

Link to comment

160x240 Pixel is Dakota-Style (i thought it would be 240x400 = Oregon-style) :)

If the display is dimmer than current 60csx, people are going to yell bloody murder. Higher pixel density = dimmer display.

 

Edit : and like I mentioned above, typical of Garmin. No one GPS receiver that's obviously better than everything else in all specs.

Edited by Chrysalides
Link to comment

I'm not sure how everyone else feels but if the software is styled after the Colorado it would actually be worse than if it was styled after the Oregon IMHO. I'm not sure how many remember but I was an early adopter of the Colorado and it was a terrible roller coaster (mostly down) until Garmin agreed to exchange it for an Oregon. I hope Garmin fired the rookie who wrote the code for the Colorado and re-hired the guy who wrote it for the 60.

 

Sure the early Colorado was rough, but the current Colorado is better at just about everything over the Oregon except for entering in info manually on the unit(like entering in street names with the rocker wheel). I can understand being soured if you jumped on early and dumped it never seeing the finished product, heck I might have done that as well. But getting mine last year and all the updates its received its a great GPS, so I think anyone that actually has a Colorado and uses it now will disagree with you there.

 

But who knows its more than likely going to be its own beast and only share minor things with other systems for all we know.

Link to comment

Eh, good point RangerR47, I dumped the Colorado as early as I could.

 

They (Garmin) clearly had such a winner in the 60CSX, heck it's been on the market for nearly 5 years now. I can't think of any GPS with that much staying power. I simply wish the 62 was an upgrade of the 60 and not a refashioned Colorado. There were still some things last seen only on the 60 that made it great. We'll see but I'm going to let the rest of you chaps be the early adopters on this one!

Link to comment

160x240 Pixel is Dakota-Style (i thought it would be 240x400 = Oregon-style) :rolleyes:

 

Edit : and like I mentioned above, typical of Garmin. No one GPS receiver that's obviously better than everything else in all specs.

 

I'm sure that is all part of their business strategy... to keep us wanting more all the time. :ph34r:

Maybe it is the strategy of Garmin.

But this would be a bad strategy.

 

Other companies have also great units.

 

Delorme

Lowrance

Compegps

http://www.twonav.com/?op=2_0〈=0en∏=275

http://sportiva.twonav.com/?lang=en

 

There is no reason to wait any longer if it is really 160x240 Pixel

 

Just watch this video and compare the speed of map drawing !!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K_fYm_SH7o

Edited by freeday
Link to comment

160x240 Pixel is Dakota-Style (i thought it would be 240x400 = Oregon-style) :rolleyes:

 

Edit : and like I mentioned above, typical of Garmin. No one GPS receiver that's obviously better than everything else in all specs.

 

I'm sure that is all part of their business strategy... to keep us wanting more all the time. :ph34r:

Maybe it is the strategy of Garmin.

But this would be a bad strategy.

 

Other companies have also great units.

 

Delorme

Lowrance

Compegps

http://www.twonav.com/?op=2_0〈=0en∏=275

http://sportiva.twonav.com/?lang=en

 

There is no reason to wait any longer if it is really 160x240 Pixel

 

Just watch this video and compare the speed of map drawing !!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K_fYm_SH7o

In this video comparison speed between raster and vector, but not raster and raster

Link to comment

The 62 and 78 series appear to be a response to complaints about brightness on the high-resolution models (CO, DK & OR). Screen resolution is the same on the 62 and 78 series as on the 60 and 76 units. They should be as bright as their predecessors, but with the ability to show 65,000 colors rather than the 256 limit on the 60/76 series. If you increase resolution, the display will get dimmer.

Link to comment

Then again, who knows....since Garmin says that the lousy / non-existent WAAS performance in the Dakota-Oregon series is due to "Antenna design

Where and when did they say THAT? Load of crap. The signals for 48 (RIP) and 51 come booming in here in Colorado with full height bars. The primary problem is that the unit is unable to pull down the data successfully from the WAAS satellite, times out trying, and starts looking for other WAAS/EGNOS satellites, many of which couldn't possibly be seen from the position where the unit is sitting (really stupid firmware). Given that other brands with the same Cartesio chip are similarly affected, it's clear that the Cartesio is either unable to properly frame the data stream, or interpret what it is receiving. Bah on ST Micro for not dealing with the issue before releasing the chip, and Bah on Garmin for accepting it. Oh, and Bah on Garmin for that firmware that cycles through all of the impossible constellation of SBAS satellites. Why on earth would a GPS that is sitting here at N40/W105 look for EGNOS opportunities, wasting endless time on a wasted mission?
Link to comment
Then again, who knows....since Garmin says that the lousy / non-existent WAAS performance in the Dakota-Oregon series is due to "Antenna design
Where and when did they say THAT?

From what I recall reading here, someone called Garmin tech support and that's what they're told.

 

Having worked with tech support folks (both supporting them from engineering, as well as from the receiving end when dealing with my ISP), all I can say is take what tech support tells you with a grain of salt. They don't always have the full story. And it is possible that this particular tech support guy got his story from a firmware engineer :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Correct me if I'm wrong (PN-40 users) but I seem to remember WAAS being fixed on the PN-40 series after update 2.5. The reason I mention this is because the Delorme units also use the STM Cartesio chips. If Delorme can fix it then the only reason Garmin couldn't would be hardware.

Link to comment

Correct me if I'm wrong (PN-40 users) but I seem to remember WAAS being fixed on the PN-40 series after update 2.5. The reason I mention this is because the Delorme units also use the STM Cartesio chips. If Delorme can fix it then the only reason Garmin couldn't would be hardware.

 

or firmware

Link to comment
Then again, who knows....since Garmin says that the lousy / non-existent WAAS performance in the Dakota-Oregon series is due to "Antenna design
Where and when did they say THAT?

From what I recall reading here, someone called Garmin tech support and that's what they're told.

 

Having worked with tech support folks (both supporting them from engineering, as well as from the receiving end when dealing with my ISP), all I can say is take what tech support tells you with a grain of salt. They don't always have the full story. And it is possible that this particular tech support guy got his story from a firmware engineer :rolleyes:

 

I'm the "someone"...... In a 20+ series of e-mails with Garmin ...me complaining and B-ing about lack of WAAS.... and doing a direct comparison with my 76CSx side by side. In one of their responses they (CS) said, that the Engineers said, it was due to "Antenna Design". I have previously posted that e-mail.

 

They also tried to say that if the accuracy was <45 ft then the user was receiving WAAS and all was working...BS. (By Garmins own data on accuracy for WAAS capable units)

 

They also said that with today's high sensitivity chips, the you really didn't need WAAS. Whatever accuracy you were getting was good enough. (how do they know that????) That's when I told them that they sounded exactly like Delorme. That's the way Delorme fixed WAAS.....if we (Delorme) don't have it, then you don't need it.

 

I go BM hunting with my Oregon (WAAS ON but essentially NO "working" WAAS), side by side with my 76CSx (excellent WAAS reception), and while approaching a high accuracy BM, my Oregon is reading 38ft EPE and my 76CSx is reading <10ft EPE.

What does that tell you?

Edited by Grasscatcher
Link to comment

Correct me if I'm wrong (PN-40 users) but I seem to remember WAAS being fixed on the PN-40 series after update 2.5. The reason I mention this is because the Delorme units also use the STM Cartesio chips. If Delorme can fix it then the only reason Garmin couldn't would be hardware.

 

or firmware

 

Right, it could be firmware but my assumptions would be that the GPS manufacturer gets the chip fimware from the chip manufacturer. That is at least how I understand it. Then, all things being equal, I would deduce a hardware problem. But your right, the firmware could be different.

Link to comment
I'm the "someone"......

Thank you, it's always good to go back to the source, rather than have one of the "Someone said on the forum that he read somewhere..." references that usually gets written off as urban legend.

 

Maybe Garmin took out Galaxy 15 so that we can blame the lack of WAAS on something else :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Correct me if I'm wrong (PN-40 users) but I seem to remember WAAS being fixed on the PN-40 series after update 2.5. The reason I mention this is because the Delorme units also use the STM Cartesio chips. If Delorme can fix it then the only reason Garmin couldn't would be hardware.

or firmware

Right, it could be firmware but my assumptions would be that the GPS manufacturer gets the chip fimware from the chip manufacturer. That is at least how I understand it. Then, all things being equal, I would deduce a hardware problem. But your right, the firmware could be different.

I wasn't paying attention to the 60csx when it came out, but someone mentioned here (there it is again) that when it was first released, the firmware was pretty bad. Anyone owned one in those days? First hand experience much preferable to "my mom's hairdresser said that her gardener told her son..."

Link to comment

I wasn't paying attention to the 60csx when it came out, but someone mentioned here (there it is again) that when it was first released, the firmware was pretty bad. Anyone owned one in those days? First hand experience much preferable to "my mom's hairdresser said that her gardener told her son..."

 

Yes, definitely. It was a good year, at least, before it started working well. Considering it has substantially simpler software, it is quite comparable to these newer units.

Link to comment

Re: the early 60x units.

I haven't noticed any changes in my Map60Cx, from day one in Mar of 06, as far as accuracy and repeatability, my main interest. For history of the changes, check the following. I hit about 5 "Page Downs" on the keyboard to land on the Map60CSx.

 

http://www.gpsinformation.org/allory/garfeat3.htm

 

The biggest issue at the beginning was with WAAS 35 being moved at that time, and the x's wouldn't go on to search for W 47. Garmin sent some of us emails saying that they had found that WAAS improvement was only about 5 to 7 in over the SiRF chip, so they would probably drop WAAS in a later version. I don't notice any location changes in my unit, after WAAS is enabled for 5 min, or later, in any format, including set up to display feet in the User Grid. I sure like having ole 51 helping out with the fix, when I'm in a high mtn valley. Also, I've had the Cx drop WAAS when there were 14 Sats overhead, like the manual said it might do. The older 60C, sitting next to the Cx, dropped WAAS 48, but held on to 51. Oh, the fun stuff that happens to one, when units are connected to the antennas on the roof!

PS, the +- EPE usually goes from 7 ft, to 8 ft, after WAAS is ON IN the Cx. Sometimes just stays on 7 ft.

Link to comment

The Garmin EPE calculation is kept under wraps by Garmin BUT I don't think WAAS is a factor in any EPE calculation. EPE is a relative calculation, i.e. is merely a calculation of your estimated position based on the number and position of satellites. All WAAS is supposed to do is remove any signal abberration due to ionosphere distortion. Therefore you may not see any decrease in positional error based upon the criteria used in the calculation.

 

In other words it is possible, and through your results probable, that Garmin doesn't use WAAS correction in it's EPE calculation. EPE is useful but don't read too much into it as the variables are unknown.

Link to comment

Here's an experiment that anyone can do for themselves. On an Oregon , after power on, watch the EPE drop lower and lower while sat signals are required, and it will level off and settle at some value before WAAS lock is attained. As soon as WAAS lock is acquired , the EPE number will immediately /or at least very quickly drop by 1-2 ft or 1 meter more.

 

Also, IMHO the unit logs a "smoother" /more repeatable track while receiving WAAS corrections. (with WAAS lock) That is pure opinion, no scientific tests done.

 

The above can only be done with a Oregon/Dakota etc because a 60 / 76 series (side by side with the O/D )acquires and maintains a WAAS lock so quickly and solidly that it's a moot point.

 

Note: in the new 78Series manual, it refers to WAAS accuracy as being 3-5 meters(95% of time). Elsewhere in Garmin info you'll find it describes expected accuracy for "WAAS compatible" units to be <3 m.

 

Just watch....."they" are laying the groundwork to eliminate the reference to improved accuracy with WAAS.

Edited by Grasscatcher
Link to comment

What I can't figure out is the nature of the original post. How did these photos/ads appear in a Canadian "flyer" (I guess) and nowhere else? Nothing is official on the Garmin web site. How does anybody know this is for real at all? I'm not suspicious of the original poster (I could never suspect someone named "BeerMan"), but I am suspicious of the photos/ad in the Radio World flyer. Why would Garmin first announce a new product there?

Link to comment

I'm not happy with the way that I usually write up and present things, so I'll try to do better.

 

For years I have read about how WAAS is suppose to improve the position fix by, so and so, many ft, mtrs, etc. So, I expected to see some change in the location, EPE, and altitude, after a receiver had set out in the open for 15 min, or longer, to settle, while in the Normal Mode. Then enable WAAS, and sometime in the next 5 min, any corrections were suppose to take place. Then I prop up a 60C, my old 60Cx, and a new 60Cx with the MTK chip, on the roof of my wooden storage unit, and let them settle. Then enable WAAS. Normal EPE for the 60C is 13 ft, 7 ft for the Cx, and 9 ft for the MTK Cx. After about 3.5 min the 60C EPE drops to 6, or sometimes to 5 ft+-, the 60Cx to 8 ft, or stays the same and the 60Cx MTK drops to 7 ft.

None of the units change any numbers no matter what is selected, UTM, or even a smaller size hddd.ddddd. When set up to Grid ft, like breaking up the UTM into feet, the only change is in the MTK unit, and that is 2 ft. When this happens, there is a foot, or two change N or E.

Magellan related:

When I got a Meridian Color last year, it came with version 4.02, which still searched for the old WAAS Sats.

I set it along side a SporTrak, that has WAAS (thankful that I got it back in 07) and after 30 min of averaging in Grid ft, they read a foot apart. After downloading the 5.40 version, with WAAS, I set them up together for another test. No change, still a ft apart.

Part of what I expected to happen, and what the test said. Maybe I'm just blessed with good units and living in an open area in Utah, and like someone once said "don't need no stinking WAAS corrections".

Fun stuff, this testing and comparing units. Open ended. Results often leave me still wondering.

Link to comment

What I can't figure out is the nature of the original post. How did these photos/ads appear in a Canadian "flyer" (I guess) and nowhere else? Nothing is official on the Garmin web site.

 

Okay, I know this is not an official word such as a press release, but if you want confirmation from Garmin's website take a look at this page. Check out the fourth row from the bottom just above the "premium connected services" folders.

 

Here's a screenshot just in case Garmin realizes it was posted in error and changes the page.

Link to comment

More speculation on the new 78/62 series but Garmins FR110 watch uses the SirfIV. Could it be, maybe, possibly that the new 78/62 will use the SirfIV as well.

 

Here is a snippet taken from the Garmin website about the FR110

"SiRFstarIV GPS receiver with Garmin’s HotFix® technology"

 

Link to Garmin Web/FR110:Garmin Forerunner 110

 

HotFix apparently doesn't always mean Cartesio. :blink:

 

Hmmm, anyone know for sure?

Edited by yogazoo
Link to comment

So you've found the Garmin web page that describes the 62s? Wow, could you provide a link?

 

I know the 78 series pages at garmin.com make no mention of the chip BUT the 62 may be a different design. We know or at least have a pretty good idea the components are a bit different as the 62 has a quad helix. The curious thing about the web pages that give a description of the 62 use the phrase "incredibly sensitive". This verbage is not found describing the 78 series or any other series of Garmin handheld.

 

I'm not saying for sure, I'm not even saying its probable BUT

I think the verdict is still reasonably out on what chipset we may find in the 62.

Edited by yogazoo
Link to comment

I'm actually currently a fan of the (now discontinued) Colorado. Nice screen, reasonable interface, decent (if not great) chipset. Quad helix antenna.

 

Now, the biggest question, and one that deserves its own topic (I'll probably open one). WHY OH WHY can't the GPS manufacturers take a clue from the phone industry and just throw everything in there? Why can't we have a GPS with a ~500x500+ screen, 32 GB of memory to deal with nearly unlimited maps, WiFi/Bluetooth/3G to access caches on-line, and not only geocaching but traffic information available?

 

I may be one of the few but I'd pay $1000 for that unit.

 

Meanwhile they keep coming out with this incremental crap while my iPhone is getting better and better at geocaching without additional cost.

 

What up with that?

Link to comment

I'm actually currently a fan of the (now discontinued) Colorado. Nice screen, reasonable interface, decent (if not great) chipset. Quad helix antenna.

 

Now, the biggest question, and one that deserves its own topic (I'll probably open one). WHY OH WHY can't the GPS manufacturers take a clue from the phone industry and just throw everything in there? Why can't we have a GPS with a ~500x500+ screen, 32 GB of memory to deal with nearly unlimited maps, WiFi/Bluetooth/3G to access caches on-line, and not only geocaching but traffic information available?

 

I may be one of the few but I'd pay $1000 for that unit.

 

Meanwhile they keep coming out with this incremental crap while my iPhone is getting better and better at geocaching without additional cost.

 

What up with that?

 

And then you need to charge/replace your battery every one hour :laughing:

Edited by droople
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...