Is the Oregon 450/550 screen any good on a bicycle?

[+G & C]

The zoom, I still don't understand what you were talking about, but it sounds like you think it sucks. We agree on that! Luckily I don't do much "zooming", but when I try it, it comes in grainy. I'm not a fan.

 

Just for clarification: "digital zoom" means that the camera takes a picture as it always does, and then blows up that picture in software. Like you would do in an image editor on your PC, but probably in worse quality. Oh, and it also discards the off-center parts of the image. It's a lose-lose situation.

 

Thanks for that. I kinda thought that might be what it meant, but I appreciate the clarification!

[+ecanderson]

 

I have hardly any money!!

 

Can you lend me some?

Unless they've taken to depending upon goats to trim the grass in the yards of North Carolina, they might still be willing to pay a person to ... mow lawns? Bought my first 5 speed 'spider bike' with the banana seat that way one summer. Even if you cleared only $10 a lawn after the absurd price of gas (and that would be mowing cheap, even there), 25 lawns would pay the sale price for a 450 at REI or Cabelas one of these days.

[+michaelnel]

I have hardly any money!!

 

Can you lend me some?

 

I can, but I won't.

[+t4e]

Nearly every picture listed here on my coin's page was taken with my Oregon 550t camera. Check them out and judge for yourself. I'm sure it's a personal choice kinda thing. But it definitely works for me.

Just had a look and is about what I expected. The coin shots were obviously well lit and the quality there is quite good. The lower light picture of your pack really lacks contrast and sharpness. The tiny lenses on cell phones and the 550 just don't trap a great deal of light to begin with, and given the secondary nature of their function in these devices, not a lot of processor power/time is being applied to try to clean the images up. At 5Mpix, the Yosemite patch should be a lot clearer, for example.

 

well you are nitpicking now, i agree with Guns & Cockpits, the Oregon camera serves its purpose, yes its not great in low light at dusk but the pictures i took during daylight hours have all been nice and saves me from taking my Olympus out of the bag, which i always have with me

 

here's one i took in a shaded area with the Oregon 550, tbh i was very pleasantly surprised with the result, which may not be up to your higher standards

 

[+jacob501]

 

I have hardly any money!!

 

Can you lend me some?

Unless they've taken to depending upon goats to trim the grass in the yards of North Carolina, they might still be willing to pay a person to ... mow lawns? Bought my first 5 speed 'spider bike' with the banana seat that way one summer. Even if you cleared only $10 a lawn after the absurd price of gas (and that would be mowing cheap, even there), 25 lawns would pay the sale price for a 450 at REI or Cabelas one of these days.

hmmm...

[+jacob501]

Here is part of my money making plan.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=275794

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=273284

 

Anyone interested?

[+jacob501]

Anybody?

[+kwcahart]

You might try getting a job like the rest of us. I used a 450 on a bicycle this weekend and it worked just fine with the cheap ($14.00) mount from eBay.

[gmphoto]

Had a look at an Oregon 550 today at a retailer.

 

To be honest I was shocked at how bad the screen is compered to my 3 year old Vista HCx!

 

SOTA has not moved in that time.

 

Will look at eTrex 3 when it arrives.

 

2c

[+ecanderson]

Will look at eTrex 3 when it arrives.

I say the same thing about my old Summit, but this is apples and oranges. Comparing a straight LCD to LCD + resistive touchscreen over it will always show a difference. "SOTA" certainly has changed.

[+michaelnel]

It's very possible to make bright, easy to read and easy to manipulate high resolution touch screens. Apple does it with the iPhone 4 and iPod Touch, and the Android phones all have great screens too.

 

For some reason, the GPS manufacturers haven't been able to do it. The screen on my Oregon 450 was terrible, and although I hadn't thought it possible the Magellan eXplorist 710 I had was even worse.

[+Madproforg]

Generally the difference capacitive versus resistive.

 

There are pros and cons to both types.

 

capacitive - generally brighter, more readable in sunlight than resistive, but doesn't like working with gloves

resistive - works with gloves (or styles/stick/pen) but dimmer than capacitive

 

Handheld/outdoor units prefer the resistive to allow use with gloves - having to take gloves off to use the screen is possibly not what the customer wants especially when it is cold.

 

I can see the screen well enough on 550 (from before the 450 came out) and have use used the screen while wearing motorbike gloves - try that with an iPhone, it beats the screen on a Palm E3 which can be a real nightmare to read in bright light.

 

Mounting on my bicycles (mountain and road) I spent extra and got a RAM mount for my bicycles, allowed me to position the unit for best visibility, once set I normally don't have to bother adjusting it again until I switch the mount between the bikes.

[+ecanderson]

It's very possible to make bright, easy to read and easy to manipulate high resolution touch screens. Apple does it with the iPhone 4 and iPod Touch, and the Android phones all have great screens too.

You and I seemed destined to butt heads forever on this topic, Michael.

 

You just described several devices that employ capacitive touch screens. These require a human touch, or something electrically equivalent, to operate. You can't use them with a normal pair of gloves on, and you can't poke them with a pen or sometimes even a fingernail.

 

The GPS manufacturers continue to use resistive touch screens, quite probably because they can be manipulated with a touch from anything, and don't ask that your bare finger be the tool. Resistive touch screens use a micro-thin layer of metallic material to perform their magic. It is this layer of material that attenuates the light coming from the LCD screen below.

 

It's not that the GPS manufacturers "haven't been able to do it", it's that the use model for a backcountry GPS might run into some problems with a capacitive touch screen technology, so the GPS manufacturers make a point of NOT "doing it".

[+coggins]

It's very possible to make bright, easy to read and easy to manipulate high resolution touch screens. Apple does it with the iPhone 4 and iPod Touch, and the Android phones all have great screens too.

 

For some reason, the GPS manufacturers haven't been able to do it.

Sounds like you are describing the screen on a Garmin nüvi 3790. I see problems with this in an "On The Trail" unit as others have pointed out. Edited June 15, 2011 by coggins

[gmphoto]

It's very possible to make bright, easy to read and easy to manipulate high resolution touch screens. Apple does it with the iPhone 4 and iPod Touch, and the Android phones all have great screens too.

You and I seemed destined to butt heads forever on this topic, Michael.

 

You just described several devices that employ capacitive touch screens. These require a human touch, or something electrically equivalent, to operate. You can't use them with a normal pair of gloves on, and you can't poke them with a pen or sometimes even a fingernail.

 

The GPS manufacturers continue to use resistive touch screens, quite probably because they can be manipulated with a touch from anything, and don't ask that your bare finger be the tool. Resistive touch screens use a micro-thin layer of metallic material to perform their magic. It is this layer of material that attenuates the light coming from the LCD screen below.

 

It's not that the GPS manufacturers "haven't been able to do it", it's that the use model for a backcountry GPS might run into some problems with a capacitive touch screen technology, so the GPS manufacturers make a point of NOT "doing it".

 

Thanks for the reply to my post and to michaelnel's, Madproforg.

 

I don't really care what technology Garmin or other manufacturers use or the pros and cons of these technologies. When the screen technologies have equivalent viewing characteristics I will buy either.

 

My iPhone 3Gs has a bright legible screen. The Garmin Oregon 550 does not. My opinion.

 

I bought an iPhone 3Gs, I will not buy a Garmin Oregon 550.

 

I want to buy the Oregon but I could not live with the screen.

 

Garmin may get money from me for the upgrade eTrex, possibly the 30.

 

Purchasing decisions are made on the utility and the look and feel and perceived value of the item. The Garmin Oregon ticks a lot of these boxes but is let down, IMHO, by the look component.

 

I will sit out Garmin's touch screen offerings until the SOTA has advanced sufficiently for my needs.

[+michaelnel]

I will sit out Garmin's touch screen offerings until the SOTA has advanced sufficiently for my needs.

 

Me too. The 450 and Magellan 710 screens I owned were abysmal.

 

Where I live (San Francisco) we don't really have what other people call "weather" or "seasons", so ability to use a GPS with gloves on couldn't matter less to me. On the odd occasion I wear gloves, they're fingerless ones.

Edited June 15, 2011 by michaelnel

[+G & C]

It's very possible to make bright, easy to read and easy to manipulate high resolution touch screens. Apple does it with the iPhone 4 and iPod Touch, and the Android phones all have great screens too.

You and I seemed destined to butt heads forever on this topic, Michael.

 

You just described several devices that employ capacitive touch screens. These require a human touch, or something electrically equivalent, to operate. You can't use them with a normal pair of gloves on, and you can't poke them with a pen or sometimes even a fingernail.

 

The GPS manufacturers continue to use resistive touch screens, quite probably because they can be manipulated with a touch from anything, and don't ask that your bare finger be the tool. Resistive touch screens use a micro-thin layer of metallic material to perform their magic. It is this layer of material that attenuates the light coming from the LCD screen below.

 

It's not that the GPS manufacturers "haven't been able to do it", it's that the use model for a backcountry GPS might run into some problems with a capacitive touch screen technology, so the GPS manufacturers make a point of NOT "doing it".

 

Thanks for the reply to my post and to michaelnel's, Madproforg.

 

I don't really care what technology Garmin or other manufacturers use or the pros and cons of these technologies. When the screen technologies have equivalent viewing characteristics I will buy either.

 

My iPhone 3Gs has a bright legible screen. The Garmin Oregon 550 does not. My opinion.

 

I bought an iPhone 3Gs, I will not buy a Garmin Oregon 550.

 

I want to buy the Oregon but I could not live with the screen.

 

Garmin may get money from me for the upgrade eTrex, possibly the 30.

 

Purchasing decisions are made on the utility and the look and feel and perceived value of the item. The Garmin Oregon ticks a lot of these boxes but is let down, IMHO, by the look component.

 

I will sit out Garmin's touch screen offerings until the SOTA has advanced sufficiently for my needs.

 

I'll admit, I'm kinda curious what your needs are where the screen on an eTrex beats the function of an Oregon. You keep saying SOTA, and you're using an eTrex. Nothing against the eTrex, I really enjoyed my Vista Hcx, but it is FAR from SOTA. I've been able to use just about every handheld GPS that Garmin has released over the past decade at one time or another, and the Oregon screen just isn't as bad as it seems that you'd like us to believe by your criticisms.

[gmphoto]

It's very possible to make bright, easy to read and easy to manipulate high resolution touch screens. Apple does it with the iPhone 4 and iPod Touch, and the Android phones all have great screens too.

You and I seemed destined to butt heads forever on this topic, Michael.

 

You just described several devices that employ capacitive touch screens. These require a human touch, or something electrically equivalent, to operate. You can't use them with a normal pair of gloves on, and you can't poke them with a pen or sometimes even a fingernail.

 

The GPS manufacturers continue to use resistive touch screens, quite probably because they can be manipulated with a touch from anything, and don't ask that your bare finger be the tool. Resistive touch screens use a micro-thin layer of metallic material to perform their magic. It is this layer of material that attenuates the light coming from the LCD screen below.

 

It's not that the GPS manufacturers "haven't been able to do it", it's that the use model for a backcountry GPS might run into some problems with a capacitive touch screen technology, so the GPS manufacturers make a point of NOT "doing it".

 

Thanks for the reply to my post and to michaelnel's, Madproforg.

 

I don't really care what technology Garmin or other manufacturers use or the pros and cons of these technologies. When the screen technologies have equivalent viewing characteristics I will buy either.

 

My iPhone 3Gs has a bright legible screen. The Garmin Oregon 550 does not. My opinion.

 

I bought an iPhone 3Gs, I will not buy a Garmin Oregon 550.

 

I want to buy the Oregon but I could not live with the screen.

 

Garmin may get money from me for the upgrade eTrex, possibly the 30.

 

Purchasing decisions are made on the utility and the look and feel and perceived value of the item. The Garmin Oregon ticks a lot of these boxes but is let down, IMHO, by the look component.

 

I will sit out Garmin's touch screen offerings until the SOTA has advanced sufficiently for my needs.

 

I'll admit, I'm kinda curious what your needs are where the screen on an eTrex beats the function of an Oregon. You keep saying SOTA, and you're using an eTrex. Nothing against the eTrex, I really enjoyed my Vista Hcx, but it is FAR from SOTA. I've been able to use just about every handheld GPS that Garmin has released over the past decade at one time or another, and the Oregon screen just isn't as bad as it seems that you'd like us to believe by your criticisms.

 

I never stated that the eTrex screen was SOTA. I also never wanted anyone to believe that the Oregon screen is "bad".

 

The eTrex screen is easy for me to view at multiple angles in various lighting conditions.

 

The screen on the new Oregon 550 I assessed yesterday was not easy for me to view at multiple angles in various lighting conditions.

 

Therefore I will wait until the SOTA for Garmin touch screen GPSrs has advanced to a point where it is the equivalent to my current GPSr before I will consider one.

 

I have an Edge 705 which is extravagant for me to own as I am not an avid or athletic cyclist but I do appreciate an easily viewable screen in all lighting conditions more than touch screen usability.

 

I was wanting to replace my eTrex and my Edge with one unit. The Oregon seemed to be ideal as it can display HRM and cadence data (apparently). However the screen visibility is not suitable for my needs.

 

I will therefore not buy an Oregon but will assess the new eTrex 30 when it becomes available.

Edited June 15, 2011 by gmphoto

[+G & C]

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, just stating what I was getting from your posts.

 

I will say that if your primary use is for biking, I did really like my Vista HCx on my mountain bike when I had it. The LED screen was indeed easy to read, and if you don't need to do a lot of panning with the map or moving in and out of screens, the problems with reaching the controls are negligible. So I don't blame you for looking at the new eTrex 300 when it comes out.

[gmphoto]

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, just stating what I was getting from your posts.

 

I will say that if your primary use is for biking, I did really like my Vista HCx on my mountain bike when I had it. The LED screen was indeed easy to read, and if you don't need to do a lot of panning with the map or moving in and out of screens, the problems with reaching the controls are negligible. So I don't blame you for looking at the new eTrex 300 when it comes out.

 

Guns & Cockpits, no offense taken!

 

I am not bagging the Oregon, only stating that the unit is not suitable for my needs IMHO.

 

I hope a thread entitled "Is the eTrex 20/30 screen any good on a bicycle" appears as soon as they become available!

Edited June 16, 2011 by gmphoto

[+ecanderson]

I don't really care what technology Garmin or other manufacturers use or the pros and cons of these technologies.

What you're saying, if I understand that sentence correctly, is "I don't care what you call resistive touch screen technology, I don't like it". Fact is, you do care about which technology is being used, you just prefer one over the other. Whether you knew that before today ???

When the screen technologies have equivalent viewing characteristics I will buy either.

Resistive and capacitive technologies will always have different characteristics, and as the poster above noted, there are trade-offs whichever way you go. There isn't a technology that will suit your demands just yet, so when you are making buying decisions down the road, you can simplify your decision making. Save yourself the time and hassle of trying to find a unit to look at and just avoid anything with a resistive touch screen.

 

My iPhone 3Gs has a bright legible screen. The Garmin Oregon 550 does not. My opinion.

While words such as "bright" and "legible" are indeed subjective, the difference can certainly be quantified. With an equivalent backlight, your 3Gs will unquestionably transmit more light to your eye than a Garmin 550 - even the newer ones. That's fact, not opinion. We understand that. If the touchscreen trade-offs are too painful, I'd recommend avoiding touch screens altogether and enjoying a 62s, the upcoming 30, or one of a similar design that has buttons to poke and nothing getting in the way of getting those photons from the LCD to your eye. It will take you a bit longer to add detailed field notes, modify coordinates and the like, but there are trade-offs for button vs. touchscreen, too.

[+dfx]

I don't really care what technology Garmin or other manufacturers use or the pros and cons of these technologies. When the screen technologies have equivalent viewing characteristics I will buy either.

 

My iPhone 3Gs has a bright legible screen. The Garmin Oregon 550 does not. My opinion.

 

I bought an iPhone 3Gs, I will not buy a Garmin Oregon 550.

 

I want to buy the Oregon but I could not live with the screen.

 

I have an Android phone, which employs a capacitive touchscreen, probably the same as your iPhone. It's bright and legible indoors. My Oregon has a resistive and transflexive touchscreen. It's not bright and legible indoors, at least not without backlight. With backlight, it's perfectly bright and legible indoors as well.

 

However, the Oregon's screen is perfectly bright and legible outdoors, in bright sunlight. While at the same time, my phone's screen becomes totally useless in the same conditions, in bright sunlight.

 

I don't know what conditions you tested your Oregon in, but for outdoors, I'll take my Oregon any time over my phone.

[gmphoto]

I don't really care what technology Garmin or other manufacturers use or the pros and cons of these technologies.

What you're saying, if I understand that sentence correctly, is "I don't care what you call resistive touch screen technology, I don't like it". Fact is, you do care about which technology is being used, you just prefer one over the other. Whether you knew that before today ???

 

That is NOT what I am saying! I neither like nor dislike any screen technology. I am simply stating that the screen on the Garmin Oregon 550 is not suitable for my purposes! Whatever technology it is is to me irrelevant.

 

As another poster stated, please don't put words in my mouth, or my post, as the case may be.

[gmphoto]

I don't really care what technology Garmin or other manufacturers use or the pros and cons of these technologies. When the screen technologies have equivalent viewing characteristics I will buy either.

 

My iPhone 3Gs has a bright legible screen. The Garmin Oregon 550 does not. My opinion.

 

I bought an iPhone 3Gs, I will not buy a Garmin Oregon 550.

 

I want to buy the Oregon but I could not live with the screen.

 

I have an Android phone, which employs a capacitive touchscreen, probably the same as your iPhone. It's bright and legible indoors. My Oregon has a resistive and transflexive touchscreen. It's not bright and legible indoors, at least not without backlight. With backlight, it's perfectly bright and legible indoors as well.

 

However, the Oregon's screen is perfectly bright and legible outdoors, in bright sunlight. While at the same time, my phone's screen becomes totally useless in the same conditions, in bright sunlight.

 

I don't know what conditions you tested your Oregon in, but for outdoors, I'll take my Oregon any time over my phone.

 

I have never suggested that I would use my phone as a replacement for any GPSr unit.

 

Sheesh!

 

And it was not my Oregon, it was a retailer who was kind enough to allow me to take it outside the shop to view in full sunlight, in shade and indoors.

 

If your Oregon's screen is suitable for your purposes, Great!

Edited June 16, 2011 by gmphoto

[+ecanderson]

That is NOT what I am saying! I neither like nor dislike any screen technology. I am simply stating that the screen on the Garmin Oregon 550 is not suitable for my purposes! Whatever technology it is is to me irrelevant.

But you do understand that it's the technology being used that makes you dislike the 550 screen, right? And would dislike any other screen based upon that technology - which pretty well defines the handheld touchscreen GPS market.

[gmphoto]

That is NOT what I am saying! I neither like nor dislike any screen technology. I am simply stating that the screen on the Garmin Oregon 550 is not suitable for my purposes! Whatever technology it is is to me irrelevant.

But you do understand that it's the technology being used that makes you dislike the 550 screen, right? And would dislike any other screen based upon that technology - which pretty well defines the handheld touchscreen GPS market.

 

No. I neither like not dislike the "screen technology".

 

ecanderson, you appear to wish that I make a qualitative statement about "screen technology". I don't care about "screen technology".

 

If the same "screen technology" is used in a different device and it suits my purpose I would not hesitate in adopting it. I don't design, manufacture or market this product. I decide if I want to spend my money on the product.

 

I have stated in prior posts, and will state again, that the Oregon 550 is not suitable for the purposes for which I would use it as the screen is not clearly viewable in the conditions in which I would use it.

 

Not being pedantic or judgmental, just stating my observations.

Edited June 17, 2011 by gmphoto

[+ecanderson]

I have stated in prior posts, and will state again, that the Oregon 550 is not suitable for the purposes for which I would use it as the screen is not clearly viewable in the conditions in which I would use it.

 

Not being pedantic or judgmental, just stating my observations.

Neither am I when I say that again, based upon your comments, no resistive touchscreen GPS handheld can possibly suit your purposes, and you should eliminate them from your considerations. AFAIK, that eliminates all purpose built handheld touchscreen GPS units. There are many purpose built GPS non-touchscreen handhelds that will be a better fit for your specific use. Edited June 17, 2011 by ecanderson

[+michaelnel]

There are many purpose built GPS non-touchscreen handhelds that will be a better fit for your specific use.

 

This is precisely why I am so delighted with my Garmin GPSMap 62S.

[gmphoto]

There are many purpose built GPS non-touchscreen handhelds that will be a better fit for your specific use.

 

This is precisely why I am so delighted with my Garmin GPSMap 62S.

 

And that is why I will go to my local store and ask the kind staff to take a Garmin eTrex 30, when they arrive, outside into the full sunlight and the shade and make a judgment about the viewablility of the screen and whether it is fit for my purposes.

 

I would recommend that anyone does the same thing before spending their money.

 

Fora such as this are very useful for non subjective decisions but "caveat emptor" to those who relies on opinions here or anywhere else.

[+michaelnel]

And that is why I will go to my local store and ask the kind staff to take a Garmin eTrex 30, when they arrive, outside into the full sunlight and the shade and make a judgment about the viewablility of the screen and whether it is fit for my purposes.

 

I did that at my local REI store with the Oregon 450. But a few minutes in a parking lot is a far cry from living with it under varied conditions. I remember thinking "well, this isn't too bad" (when I was holding it in my hand and could angle it properly to the sun so the display looked good), and I bought it.

 

I'm just glad I was able to return it, because after using it for close to a month I got more and more frustrated with it trying to live with that display in the real world.

[gmphoto]

And that is why I will go to my local store and ask the kind staff to take a Garmin eTrex 30, when they arrive, outside into the full sunlight and the shade and make a judgment about the viewablility of the screen and whether it is fit for my purposes.

 

I did that at my local REI store with the Oregon 450. But a few minutes in a parking lot is a far cry from living with it under varied conditions. I remember thinking "well, this isn't too bad" (when I was holding it in my hand and could angle it properly to the sun so the display looked good), and I bought it.

 

I'm just glad I was able to return it, because after using it for close to a month I got more and more frustrated with it trying to live with that display in the real world.

 

I agree and should have said that the minimum assurance you should seek is a quick look at a unit in conditions similar to those under which you will use the item.