Oregon 700 or Montana 800?

[+JohnCNA]

8 hours ago, Atlas Cached said:

 

I am not aware of any current production phones that are capable of using both Multi-GNSS and Multi-Band like the new Garmin handheld GPSr do.

I don't understand the difference between Multi-GNSS vs Multi-Band, but my Samsung S20 phone shows that it receives GPS, GLONASS and GALILEO satellites.

Using the app GPSTest, it shows reception from all three.

Edited December 19, 2020 by JohnCNA

[+Atlas Cached]

45 minutes ago, JohnCNA said:

I don't understand the difference between Multi-GNSS vs Multi-Band, but my Samsung S20 phone shows that it receives GPS, GLONASS and GALILEO satellites.

Using the app GPSTest, it shows reception from all three.

 

That is partial GNSS and no Multi-Band.

 

GPS + GLONASS + Galileo is three of the four available global constellations, so that is very good.

 

The Multi-Band capability of the Garmin units is the cherry on top.

 

[+ecanderson]

@Atlas Cached

"... no Multi-Band. "

 

To the contrary, the S20 supports L5 (and E5a):

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by ecanderson

[+Viajero Perdido]

Did you just give the world missile coordinates to your sofa?    The low reported accuracy (all satellites considered) does suggest indoors...

 

We should get a thread going to compare phones, hopefully with hard specifics like the above.

[+Atlas Cached]

1 hour ago, ecanderson said:

@Atlas Cached

"... no Multi-Band. "

 

To the contrary, the S20 supports L5 (and E5a):

 

 

 

 

You didnt provide that information in the previous post.

 

The estimated combined accuracy is about 3.15 meters, which is what my non Multi-Band GPSr report. My GPSMAP 66sr and 65s both regularly report just over 1.5 meters.

 

 

[+Team CowboyPapa]

Can estimated combined accuracy be also described as precision with the quantitative value being standard deviation?

[+Atlas Cached]

1 hour ago, Team CowboyPapa said:

Can estimated combined accuracy be also described as precision with the quantitative value being standard deviation?

 

Accuracy and precision are not the same thing.

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by Atlas Cached

[+ecanderson]

3 hours ago, Atlas Cached said:

 

You didnt provide that information in the previous post.

 

The estimated combined accuracy is about 3.15 meters, which is what my non Multi-Band GPSr report. My GPSMAP 66sr and 65s both regularly report just over 1.5 meters.

 

 

What previous post?  Until this one, I've been talking about the 700, not cell phones.  Just sayin' that the S20 does have multi-band, it appeared that you did not believe that to be the case.

 

And those numbers were taken from inside my office in my house.  I don't receive nor do I expect brilliant fixes in here.

Do I need to go outside and gather some better ones?

 

Edited December 20, 2020 by ecanderson

[+Team CowboyPapa]

Accuracy and precision are not the same thing.

 

Can you provide the calculation of combined accuracy?  I calculate normal distribution to quantify precision.

Edited December 20, 2020 by Team CowboyPapa

[+Mineral2]

I don't think one can calculate accuracy without a known point of reference.

[+lee737]

1 hour ago, Mineral2 said:

I don't think one can calculate accuracy without a known point of reference.

Exactly. You need a gold standard to compare to.

[+gpsblake]

Guys, the difference between 1.5 meter accuracy and 3 meter accuracy when it comes to geocaching means nothing. Both will get you to ground zero and neither will help you in finding the hard to find micro, plus you have to account for the accuracy of the placer of the geocache. Of  course, for other purposes, like benchmarking or other professional uses, it might be a difference.

 

I think the Montana also gives spoken turn by turn directions and the Oregon doesn't (although a $40 cellphone can, come on Garmin, you really can do better when it comes to that). I know the GPSMAP 66i will do spoken turn by turn, not sure about the others in the 66 series.

[+Mineral2]

13 hours ago, gpsblake said:

I think the Montana also gives spoken turn by turn directions and the Oregon doesn't (although a $40 cellphone can, come on Garmin, you really can do better when it comes to that). I know the GPSMAP 66i will do spoken turn by turn, not sure about the others in the 66 series.

It's not so much about Garmin doing better so much as it is adding a sound card and speaker without increasing the price. The analog beeps don't require as much. The Montana is marketed to a slightly different crowd than the Oregon and gpsMap lines.

Edited December 22, 2020 by Mineral2

[+Atlas Cached]

34 minutes ago, gpsblake said:

Guys, the difference between 1.5 meter accuracy and 3 meter accuracy when it comes to geocaching means nothing. Both will get you to ground zero and neither will help you in finding the hard to find micro, plus you have to account for the accuracy of the placer of the geocache. Of  course, for other purposes, like benchmarking or other professional uses, it might be a difference.

 

All true, but the improved accuracy of Multi-GNSS/Multi-Band GPSr will come into play for any target that is not out in the open, is near any obstructions including canyon walls, mountains, hills, buildings, trees, etc... The Multi-Band will also improve accuracy by correcting signal errors in real time, similar to WAAS/EGNOS, which was not in real time.

 

37 minutes ago, gpsblake said:

I think the Montana also gives spoken turn by turn directions and the Oregon doesn't

 

Only when the Montana is mounted in a powered external mount with a speaker. In your hand, like the Oregon, you only get beeps.

 

38 minutes ago, gpsblake said:

(although a $40 cellphone can, come on Garmin, you really can do better when it comes to that).

 

Not even apples and oranges here. More like cherries and watermelons. Not a valid argument, so no further response on this comment.

 

39 minutes ago, gpsblake said:

I know the GPSMAP 66i will do spoken turn by turn

 

Pure disinformation. No GPSMAP series does spoken anything. None of them have speakers or sound cards to make that possible. 

[+orgnoi1]

On 9/15/2020 at 10:30 AM, marshajean said:

 Actually looked more closely at the Montana 700 (not 800, my mistake), and realized it's huge! 

 

 

I use a couple different handhelds for various reasons... and just picked up the Montana 750... its huge but also in the world of GPS... breathtaking...LOL

 

That being said... my 64ST still seems like the easiest option when it comes to doing Geocaching... although once I get through some more of the learning curve on the 750 that may change... so far the size and weight for me is vastly overshadowed by its "awesomeness"....LOL

[+Mineral2]

At this point, I would choose a 65 over a 64, assuming budget allows for that.

[+Atlas Cached]

2 hours ago, Mineral2 said:

At this point, I would choose a 65 over a 64, assuming budget allows for that.

 

I agree completely. The GPSMAP 65 is everything the GPSMAP 64 is, and more.

 

I suspect, in the future, there will be no additional GPSMAP 64 hardware updates as they are each replaced or superseded by the GPSMAP 65 series.

[+Mineral2]

I'm still scratching my head as to why Garmin updated the 64 with the x models and a year later released the 65. They had to know the 65 was in development at the time that they were developing the 64, right?

Meanwhile, how many of us are sitting here waiting for an Oregon 800 to drop?

Edited December 22, 2020 by Mineral2

[robertlipe]

Wild guess: Silicon availability? It's possible that Garmin isn't fabbing their own SoC; they're probably riding the coattails of high-volume products as used by tablets or phones. Sometimes an EOL (end of life) announcement catches you off guard and you have to pivot to a low-risk chip change that uses an "old" feature set or code base just to buy time in the market until your new product that's in active development can launch because it's held up by a part that's not available quit yet. So you do very little engineering on a "distraction" and product marketing and sales gets to herald a "new" product while you quietly discontinue the original.

Maybe the QZSS and IRNSS receiver chip wasn't ready for mass production yet but the LCD panel or the processor or memory or *something* in 64 that they didn't absolutely control was headed for a rapid descent to unavailability, so they got the "b team" (sorry) to squirt out a 64 that they could actually manufacture at scale while they finished the 65. Maybe that had a contract they could win with the 64 which ticked all the boxes except Galileo so they just changed the receiver chip and base firmware to support that. This was pretty much the difference between 60cs and 60csx, if you recall. The "x" was just a better version of an already popular device.

Over my time in engineering, I've been involved in several of these, both as the A team and the B team.

I'm barely in the GPS biz at this point, but the 62-66 product line is so thickly saturated that I can't remember how they're different offhand. Using smaller integers for newer and more featured products is not helpful.

No inside information on why Garmin does/did what they did. Just offering one possible explanation other than "drug use".