Garmin 64s vs st vs Montana

[+catandherguys]

Just moved to west Texas from Europe. We went caching last weekend in the mountains, but were unable to find any caches as we were using our cellphone, did not have the foresight to preload maps, and lost cell service. So... We have decided to invest in a decent hiking, backpacking, geocaching gps. Looking at the Garmin Montana series and the GPSMap 64 series. Question, I am curious about the difference between the base model-63, the 64s, and the st. I see that the 64s, has bluetooth and the ANT, the 64st is the 64s with topo maps. I plan on using other than the stock maps that would come with the 64st, so, other than bluetooth and ANT, the base and the s model are the same? The ase has a compass? Cananyone here that has the 64 series shed some light on the real world usage of the bluetooth and the ANT features? Are they worth the cost? I don;t see a use for them right now, but would hate to find a usage I hadn't thought of later, and then not have them.

 

What about the Oregon 600, is it a worthwhile upgrade from the 64 series???

Edited December 26, 2014 by catandherguys

[+Mineral2]

Point of clarification: You don't really need maps to geocache. You do need the cache coordinates. Beyond that, a GPS (phone or dedicated receiver) will point you in the compass direction and give you the distance to your destination. All you really needed was to pre-load the cache listings. Maps do make navigation easier, though.

 

The 64 is the base model. The 64s does add wireless data transfer (mostly between two units with ant+ or bluetooth capabilities), but the denotation of "s" means compass. The 64s includes a 3-axis electronic compass and barometric altimeter. The "t" denotation means Topo Map. The 64st includes a more detailed topographic base map than the other two units (Topo US 100k). It is my opinion that the topo is not worth the extra money. You can get free topo maps for your Garmin that are as good or better for all states and most countries.

 

There is one exception: the Garmin topo map includes elevation data (used for 3-d view, a rather useless feature). While the 3-D map is kinda useless, the elevation profile for a route or track is not. Therefore if you navigate using routes, you can get an idea of the elevation changes ahead of you. That feature is not available unless you have a Garmin topo map installed for your area.

 

As I tend to read the topo information directly from the map, I don't feel that it's worth the extra $80 or so for the Garmin 100k topo base map.

 

As for your question about the Oregon -

 

The Oregon 600 is directly comparable to the 64s (the Oregon 600t comparable with the 64st). I wouldn't call it an upgrade, rather a sibling. The Oregon 600 has all of the features of the 64s, except it uses a touch screen interface rather than a button interface. Some find the touch screen to be better, others prefer the buttons. The Oregon does use a different antenna, and you'll find people who suggest that the quad-helix antenna on the 64 series is superior to the patch antenna in the Oregons, but I doubt you'll notice a huge difference in the field.

 

The best thing you can do is go to an outdoor gear shop and play with each model to see which you like better. REI is great for this, but if you don't live near one, your local gear shop will probably have some demo models available for you to try out.

[+Walts Hunting]

Your title says Montana but you ask about the Oregon. Which are you looking at? I have the Oregon and the large screen size is a feature I will never give up.

Edited December 26, 2014 by Walts Hunting

[+GrayHawk613]

No the quad-helix Does make a difference. The Oregon GPSrs rack up numbers on the odometer when still.The 64 series does the same thing but much less.The Montana doesn't have GLONASS.

[+GrayHawk613]

Read this to learn more about the 64s.

[+Walts Hunting]

No the quad-helix Does make a difference.

 

You say this because ... ??

 

There seem to be a lot of people making that claim which I have never seemed to find any evidence of. I cache regularly with a friend who has a Colorado which has that antenna and sometimes he is closer and sometimes I am. Never noticed any consistent difference. I have found thousands since then with my Oregon 450, 550 and Montana with no problem.

[+catandherguys]

Thanks for the info everyone. I realize I put Montana in the title and then asked about the Oregon. I meant to say the Oregon in the title. I realize we can cache without maps, however, we tend to wander when out on the trails, so maps for use when not caching is a must. I absolutely want a compass, so I guess the 64 base model is out, which brings me to the 64s. I do not need topo maps from garmin, I have researched and found some decent, if not better than Garmin maps. So, that brings me to the 64s vs the Oregon 600, the price difference for the 2 is less than $30.00, so that is not really a deciding factor. I have seen some complaints about the 600, such as fast battery drain, software freezing,and read the accuracy is not quite as good as the 64s. I honestly have no use for a camera on my gps, however, the big screen seems like a nice feature. The 64s has good reviews, seems to be more accurate than the 300, and both have the ANT, bluetooth and compass.

[+Mineral2]

If it makes a difference, the Oregon has a "nuvi" mode which emulates the interface of Garmin's automotive units for use when driving (requires a routable map for turn-by-turn directions [ OpenStreetMap is routable and free]). I do use a Nuvi in the car, but when geocaching, I'll often navigate with my Oregon to the cache since the waypoints are already loaded.

 

The 64 will also do turn-by-turn road navigation with a routable map, but I personally find that the Oregon is easier to use in the car. I also bring the Oregon with me on vacation instead of the nuvi.

[+catandherguys]

So, when it all boils down, GPSMaps 64s, or Oregon 600??? Any opinions?

[+Mineral2]

It really comes down to which interface you prefer. As I said before, go play with one of each in person so you can decide if you prefer the touch screen or buttons. That's a personal preference and choice that only you can make.

[+BikeBill]

After buying and being somewhat disappointed with my Oregon 600, I bought a 64S a few weeks ago. Though I've only been caching with it a few times, it's hands-down the unit I want to take caching with me. No freeze-ups and more consistent accuracy. The 600 definitely has a better screen, but I want to find caches, not be impressed with graphics.

 

I found four caches today. The first was a 2-stage and the 64s got me to within 5 feet of both stages. At the next cache the 64s pretty much zeroed itself at GZ. The third cache has had trouble with scatter and the last finder posted new coords. I found the hide 12 feet away. The last find was off by five feet.

 

I'm pleased.

Edited December 28, 2014 by BikeBill

[+coachstahly]

Do you prefer touch screen or buttons? Probably the single biggest difference between the two. There are smaller differences already noted.

[+GrayHawk613]

No the quad-helix Does make a difference.

 

You say this because ... ??

I just said it.

 

Quote:The Oregon GPSrs rack up numbers on the odometer when still.The 64 series does the same thing but much less.

Edited January 1, 2015 by GrayHawk613

[+GrayHawk613]

If it makes a difference, the Oregon has a "nuvi" mode which emulates the interface of Garmin's automotive units for use when driving (requires a routable map for turn-by-turn directions [ OpenStreetMap is routable and free]). I do use a Nuvi in the car, but when geocaching, I'll often navigate with my Oregon to the cache since the waypoints are already loaded.

 

The 64 will also do turn-by-turn road navigation with a routable map, but I personally find that the Oregon is easier to use in the car. I also bring the Oregon with me on vacation instead of the nuvi.

Very helpful to know!

[+GrayHawk613]

After buying and being somewhat disappointed with my Oregon 600, I bought a 64S a few weeks ago. Though I've only been caching with it a few times, it's hands-down the unit I want to take caching with me. No freeze-ups and more consistent accuracy. The 600 definitely has a better screen, but I want to find caches, not be impressed with graphics.

 

I found four caches today. The first was a 2-stage and the 64s got me to within 5 feet of both stages. At the next cache the 64s pretty much zeroed itself at GZ. The third cache has had trouble with scatter and the last finder posted new coords. I found the hide 12 feet away. The last find was off by five feet.

 

I'm pleased.

Wow. That's pretty impressive!