Jump to content

What Handheld Is Best For Geocaching?


crabtrees

Recommended Posts

The Garmin 60C or CS and alternatly the 76C or 76CS.

 

Don't forget about the Legend C and the Vista C either. They are also great geocaching units as well. They have a bit less memory than the 60/76 and they use a patch as opposed to a quad helix antenna, but they are super small (i.e. easy to carry around) and they have all of the same firmware features and power of the 60/76 units (including the dedicated Geocaching mode).

 

I have both a 60CS and a Vista C, and I far prefer my Vista C over my 60CS due to its much smaller size.

 

Just my $0.02...

 

EDIT: BTW, I have a brand new Legend C up for sale. Check out the GPS Garage Sale topic in this forum if you're interested.

Edited by TheOfficeMaven
Link to comment

My vote so far is my new 60CS. I had an eTrex Venture which had very poor receiption in comparison to the 60CS [as noted due to the patch antenna of the eTrex as opposed to the higher-gain quad-helix antenna of the 60CS]

 

The extra sensors of the "S" series make it really easy to locate a cache - but sometimes this takes the fun out of the caches :laughing:

Link to comment
I had an eTrex Venture which had very poor receiption in comparison to the 60CS [as noted due to the patch antenna of the eTrex as opposed to the higher-gain quad-helix antenna of the 60CS]

 

Yes, but you can't compare the old eTrex units to the new Color eTrex units. That's like trying to comparing apples to oranges. I can run both my 60CS and my eTrex Vista C side-by-side while geocaching and I can't tell any difference between them at all as far as the antenna goes. They are both quick to get a satellite lock and they both perform equally well as far as maintaining the lock goes. However, I live in So. Cal. where there isn't a whole lot of tree cover around. If you live in an area with dense tree cover, then you might see a bit of a difference. Otherwise, you definitely can't judge the two by this difference alone.

 

The ONLY downfall I can see with the Legend C/Vista C is that they have only 24 MB of map memory as compared to the 56 MB in the 60C(S) and the 115 MB in the 76C(S). However, I find the 24 MB to be more than adequate for caching and driving around nearly all of So Cal (which is quite a large area).

Link to comment

QUOTE]Yes, but you can't compare the old eTrex units to the new Color eTrex units. That's like trying to comparing apples to oranges. I can run both my 60CS and my eTrex Vista C side-by-side while geocaching and I can't tell any difference between them at all as far as the antenna goes

 

From what I've seen so far, this very much appears to be the case. The only downside I've seen so far with the boosted reception is that I tend to get bigger errors on my tracks when hiking out and back trails in the crud. Not as bad of splits as I get with my sportrak, but worse than you would expect with an eTrex.

 

As for the best unit for geocaching, the one in my hand of course. I tried using my Forerunner 201 for finding and guiding me to a cache yesterday (A fair bit of bushwhacking and off trail journey), and it got the job done okay, although I wouldn't recommend it. Not having a compass screen, or the capability of giving you the bearing to the waypoint, you navigate with the crude map, and even less detailed pointer arrow. Using that, and the distance to waypoint info however you can quite effectively find a cache.

 

Pick the features you like, and find a unit that fits in good with your other possible GPS uses. For me, geocaching probably only accounts for about 5 percent of my GPS usage, and thus the units I prefer are based more on hiking/climbing needs than anything else.

Link to comment

Say what you want about highly non-sophisticated comparisons between two units but the physics speak volumes. The antenna design of the patch antenna is significantly worse than the quad-helix. There really no point in arguing this topic.

 

At the accuracy (or lack thereof) that GPSr units exhibit, two units will perform equally (poor) under the same conditions. Many however notice that their units w/ quad-helix out-perform their patch-type units (as one would expect) under the same conditions - but remember that we are talking accuracy of +-3m (at best) which is well beyond the margin for result significance at this point.

Link to comment

For simply finding a cache, just about all GPS receivers are equal.

 

But there are other factors to consider..

Do you want a better antenna for better reception under tree cover?

Do you want mapping capability?

Do you want turn-by-turn directions on the street?

Do you want a color screen?

What size and physical form factor do you like?

I could go on and on.

 

Personally I like all the bells and whistles, but don't trust electronic compasses, so I use a Garmin 60C.

Link to comment
Say what you want about highly non-sophisticated comparisons between two units but the physics speak volumes. The antenna design of the patch antenna is significantly worse than the quad-helix. There really no point in arguing this topic.

There hasn't been any argument presented that there is an inherent physics reason for one of these antenna designs being substantially better overall than the other. Excellent antennas can be made with either design and terrible ones can also be made with either design. I also note that when people experience reception difficulties with the internal antenna of either of these designs the solution is generally to use an external antenna such as those offered by Gilsson and PC-Mobile. Both of these (and most other small externals) use a patch design and are found by many users to give superior performance to the helix antennas that came with their receivers.

 

What has been reported has been the experience with various consumer model GPS units which is a result of the overall design rather than strictly an antenna issue. The reception complaints have almost universally been about the original eTrex series. Earlier comparisons between the Garmin 12 series (patch) vs. their II/III (helix) didn't show any substantial difference and I haven't seen complaints about the reception on the Lowrance units either (GM100 and iFinder series - all patch). The reports about the newer eTrexC models have also been that the reception is very good.

 

My observations of assorted eTrex samples show that there are substantial sample-to-sample variations. Antennas are analog devices and subject to degraded performance due to manufacturing tolerances, so seeing such differences isn't too surprising.

Link to comment
Say what you want about highly non-sophisticated comparisons between two units but the physics speak volumes. The antenna design of the patch antenna is significantly worse than the quad-helix. There really no point in arguing this topic.

 

I'm not arguing that fact that the quad-helix is a better antenna. I'll definitely give you that one for sure. However, in my real world side-by-side comparisons of the two units, I can't tell any difference at all between the two. Thus, I see no reason at all to rule out the new Color eTrex units just because they have a patch antenna. Sure, the quad-helix antenna will always look better on paper (when comparing the physics as you say), but in real world use, I'd doubt that the average user would be able to tell much difference (unless of course they are using it under heavy tree cover as I already mentioned).

 

No need to get in a huff about it. My only point to all of this is that I don't think that folks should rule out the new Color eTrex units just because they don't have the quad-helix antenna. They are super cool units that have lots to offer at a reasonable price (about $80 to $100 less than the 60C(S) when comparing street prices and that will almost cover the cost of City Select NA so that you can do auto-routing).

Link to comment
I haven't seen complaints about the reception on the Lowrance units either (GM100 and iFinder series - all patch).

 

I still use my Eagel expedition 2 and Lowrance gm100 to hunt caches and they always gets me there.

 

I have also hidden caches with them and there has never been problems with others finding the cache.

 

Sure I would like a new one, but if it not broken I can't see replacing it right now.

 

The gm100 has a Quadrifilar antenna. And the Eagle has a patch antenna and I find them about the same except the gm100 gets a signal in the bush bettter and holds it longer.

 

:rolleyes:

Link to comment

I only have about 200 caches found so far but I have used 3 diffrent GPSr's. I can tell you what works best for me. I have a 60cs. I use the auto routing (City Select v6) until I get close and switch to off road (topo). I love the way this works. I then use the electronic compass, I can stand in one place and the arrow will point to the cache site, I don't have to be moving to get direction (a regular compass will not do this for you). Also there is a geocaching mode that when used with GSAK or other software allows you to manage your geocaching activities. Garmin is the only ones with this feature and only the 60c/s and 76c/s. (there may be other new models I am not aware of). Well worth the investment.

Link to comment
Say what you want about highly non-sophisticated comparisons between two units but the physics speak volumes. The antenna design of the patch antenna is significantly worse than the quad-helix. There really no point in arguing this topic.

 

Hmmm, I seemed to have missed learning this in both physics, and in my electronics training over the years. What exactly are the physics that makes the patch design inferior to the quad-helix for a GPS receiver application? I seem to recall learning why the patch is most often used in survey grade, and many military applications, but I don't recall gain differences being significant enough to be a deciding factor. As I recall, for similar reception widths they were pretty comperable.

 

Homework assignment:

 

1. Find a data sheet, or even a computer simulation using engineering software that shows a significant gain advantage of a properly designed quad helix antenna vs a properly designed patch antenna given a reasonable reception pattern for a GPS application. You may find this assignment somewhat tough since quad helix antennas aren't common for external useage, or for the high end stuff where data sheets are provided for the antennas, so data sheets for quad helix antennas are tough to come by.

 

2. Try using your current GPS receiver in a reception problem area with a couple quality external antennas, see if you can honestly say you don't get better reception with at least one of the external antennas. (Virtually all external antennas are a patch design)

 

3. Actually get ahold of one of the new Vista c units and compare it's reception when held horizontally to use the compass, with your 60cs held horizontal so you can use the compass. I think you'll be quite surprised with the results.

 

4. Compare your garmin or magellan stand alone unit to one of the newer CF units using a siRF II chipset. See if you can honestly say your stand alone unit gets better reception in the crud. (The little CF units use patch antennas)

 

Two out of the 4 assignments will get you credit for the course.... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Garmin is the only ones with this feature and only the 60c/s and 76c/s. (there may be other new models I am not aware of).

 

Not to beat a dead horse, but the new eTrex Legend C and eTrex Vista C models have this feature as well. In fact, their firmware is 99.9% identical to that of the 60C(S) and the 76C(S) and so they have all of the exact same features.

 

Just an FYI...

Link to comment

Just a quick response, since its slightly off topic. Regarding antenna types, its the gain pattern of the Quad Helix which is superior. It has more gain at lower elevations. For satellites overhead, at very high elevations, you do not need as much gain. I am basing my opinion that they are superior on my experience with amateur radio omni-directional satellite antennas. They use Quad Helix, and probably better are the Eggbeater and Eggbeater II.

 

Most external patch antennas are amplified. They have about 28dB of gain. If they are not amplified, the long cord and getting them in the clear above stuff helps with receiving.

Link to comment
Regarding antenna types, its the gain pattern of the Quad Helix which is superior

 

A quad helix can be made designed to receive basically 360 degrees, but it comes at the expense of gain. It can also be tuned for a wider band of frequencies. I don't see how either is a plus in a GPS application however. Remember, you acheive higher gain by compressing the reception pattern. A well designed patch has a pretty flat gain pattern till you get to within 10 degrees or so of horizontal, then they drop off fast. That works out about perfect for GPS applications, as sats low on the horizon tend to induce the most error. While it's not in the specs anywhere, I believe my sportraks mask is set at about 10 degrees as I've never seen it lock on to a satellite below this according to the NMEA data, even when I've been on mountain tops. Again, every data sheet I've ever seen on the two antenna types for well made antennas has shown the gain to be about the same for patch or quad helix antennas optimized for GPS use. (reception pattern designed for 180 degrees or slightly less) As for external antennas being amplified, as you know this is to overcome coax loss. If it was as easy as just adding an amplifier, all the manufactures would do it. Being as how the amps boost both noise and signal however, it's not that simple.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...