Delorme screen size question

[LinXG]

Hi;

 

Maybe someone can shed some light on this for me. One of the criticism I've seen of the Delorme PN series GPSes is their small screen size.

 

I've just come from the Garmin website and they specify the 60's with a screen size of 160x240 (38400 pixels) where the Delorme screen size is listed as 220x176 (38720 pixels). That makes the Delorme somewhat larger. The Garmin 76's list as 180x240 (43200 pixels).

 

I've seen Garmin 60 series GPSes and didn't find the the displays all that small and certainly not all that small compared to the 76 series.

 

I haven't seen a Delorme GPS but I'm having some trouble understanding why screen size would be a criticism.

 

Perhaps some forum regulars could clear up the confusion for me.

 

Thanks

Lin

[+kentwoodkrew]

Hello there,

The delorme PN screen is about 1/2 the size of the garmin oregon screen, no lie. If you can handle that no problem. I find the oregon screen too small myself. I wpuld love to buy a delorme if they would change the formfactor and give me a bigger screen.

[+jeffbouldin]

I have a Delorme PN-30 and find it very usable. Maybe smaller than the Oregon, but not smaller then the 60 series or the Etrax series.

[fixithud]

I am not well versed in techno jargon but I think the pixels refers to the resolution that the screen is capable of... Eash of those numbers , 160x240, etc, is the number of pixels per inch or some such thing.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong, It is more than possible that I am.

 

Hud

[MtnHermit]

Lin,

 

I had the same question once and I put together this table.

 

Here's a screen comparison:

 

For me, pixels matter more than size because you can instantly move the unit closer/further to your eye as needed. The Vista and DeLorme use the exact same screen, as do the CO & OR.

[LinXG]

Thanks guys

 

To Kentwoodkrew - I'm well aware of the Oregon's overall size which is why I chose the 76's and 60's as a reference. From MtnHermit's data it would appear that pixel size for the Oregon is very very good and the 60's not so great.

 

JeffBoulder mentioned he has a PN-30 and finds the display quite usable. A follow-up question if Jeff is still following this thread - Delorme's reason for going with the smaller screen size is direct sunlight readability. How do you find the readability compared to any other GPS's you may have used?

 

Thanks again

Lin

[+user13371]

The PN-series screen is really good and readable. Some of their font choices are a bit hard for me to read, but the screen itself is bright and readable in just about all lighting conditions. It's big enough for the job. For me, readability in direct sunlight is more a matter of getting an angle that avoids glare and less about screen size.

Edited July 13, 2010 by lee_rimar

[+jeffbouldin]

I came from a Magellan eXplorist 210, 400, 500 and did not have any outside lighting issues with with them. I personally have not had any issues outside with my PN-30. It has been a great unit. But keep in mind what our fearful forum leader, the infamous robertlipe says, "All GPSrs suck. They just suck in different ways." He should know, he has one or two (or 76) GPSrs.