Garmin gpsmap 62s vs etrex 30

[Secret-Geocacher]

Which gps shall i buy? Which is more accurate? Quad helix antenna vs Glonass? Which is better for hiking?

Thanks

[tr_s]

I'd go with the 62s any day if neither of the below is a big drawback for you:

 

-you could live with a bit less battery life (the eTrex is hard to beat here, due to an underpowered processor that renders maps rather slowly and a tiny screen)

-you have little use for GLONASS support (IMO it's not that much of a biggie, others may not agree)

-that it has frontal buttons rather than the side button/joystick configuration of the eTrex

-you don't mind the thing being quite much larger (can be a good thing too depending on use, easier handling and readability)

 

My main points against the eTrex 30 is rather slow map rendering and that there is still some much needed work to do regarding the unit firmware. 62 series is more of a mature product line really.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I'd go with the 62s any day if neither of the below is a big drawback for you:

 

-you could live with a bit less battery life (the eTrex is hard to beat here, due to an underpowered processor that renders maps rather slowly and a tiny screen)

-you have little use for GLONASS support (IMO it's not that much of a biggie, others may not agree)

-that it has frontal buttons rather than the side button/joystick configuration of the eTrex

-you don't mind the thing being quite much larger (can be a good thing too depending on use, easier handling and readability)

 

My main points against the eTrex 30 is rather slow map rendering and that there is still some much needed work to do regarding the unit firmware. 62 series is more of a mature product line really.

 

+1 as above.

I own dozens of GPS units and much prefer the 62S....even bought a second one which is my second multiple purchase of the same unit........I've got about 15 Magellan Meridians.

[Secret-Geocacher]

ok thanks for the help

[+Mineral2]

I'm not sure that GLONASS is any more accurate than GPS, it just allows your device to lock onto more satellites quickly so that your location estimation variance drops sooner. So, accuracy improves in the first 10-30 minutes, but after that, it's probably no better than just using the 12 GPS satellites.

 

On another note: do the GLONASS devices really use two different antennas to access each system?

[Forkeye]

I have the Etrex 30 and use it for hiking and really like its small size,it has very good reception, power consumption and one handed use and I also notice a slight decrease in accuracy when I turn Glonass off, but we are talking maybe 3-4 meters if that and sometimes none. I also have the 62SC and a lot of times their accuracy is the same. I think the real benefit to Glonass when hiking is just being able to receive more satellites if you are in a spot where reception could be a problem like behind mountains ,thick forest, etc. Map drawing on the 30 is a little slow when panning a high detail map, but fine when actually navigating and looking at the map, but this has never made me wish I didn't buy it. I wouldn't worry about any accuracy differences between them for hiking or anything else for that matter, lets face it, when you are out their hiking its not going to be a perfect world and your maps and any co-ordinates that you get wont be perfect either, you need to look around and use your brain.

The 62 series is a great unit to, but bigger, heavier and uses more power, has a larger screen and mine takes geo tagged pictures too, which looks cool on Base Camp, but for hiking I usually take my 30,mainly because its smaller and lighter, as the weight adds up fast when you start putting all your other gear together. Good luck in your choice.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Forkeye

[tr_s]

and I also notice a slight decrease in accuracy when I turn Glonass off, but we are talking maybe 3-4 meters if that and sometimes none. I also have the 62SC and a lot of times their accuracy is the same. I think the real benefit to Glonass when hiking is just being able to receive more satellites if you are in a spot where reception could be a problem like behind mountains ,thick forest, etc.

 

My observation as well. Accuracy seemed better with Glonass on in hard reception conditions, and slightly worse in good reception conditions. However it's only an anecdotal feeling. I have not in any way recorded data to back this up. It can also be mentioned that with Glonass on, the unit consumes ~10% more power.

 

It should in theory give higher general accuracy if we make the hugely simplistic assumption that the calculated position from both systems is normally distributed around the true position, and a simple averaging is what is being done. But then, god knows how well implemented Garmin's glonass reception actually is.

Edited September 7, 2013 by tr_s

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I think with Glonass it matters where in the world you are....northern Europe or southern U.S. could make a difference.

Re antenna, all units I've used with the quad preformed, on average , better than those without.

[Forkeye]

I have never had a reception problem with my Etrex 30 in the bush, the quad is probably slightly better, but for hiking the size for me is the issue. I used to take my 76csx hiking too, and it worked fine, but was too big. But that's my own personal opinion. I just think that the reception difference is not worth being concerned about here, you should focus on unit size , screen size for bad eyes, button layout both are going to work fine.