Garmin 60csx on sale for $200 at REI

[Boyd]

For all you 60csx fans, this is just about the best price I've seen. The REI sale runs through Memorial Day: http://www.rei.com/product/735607

No doubt they are clearing out inventory in anticipation of the new 62S series: http://forums.gpsfiledepot.com/index.php/topic,1222.msg7820.html#msg7820

 

[Teegate]

Will your aerial maps go in the new one? Or do you have to wait and try it in one?

Guy

 

[Boyd]

The new models (GPSMap 78 and 62 series) are compatible with both BirdsEye imagery and Custom Maps. So yes, they should work with all the maps I have made as well as Garmin's subscription service. The caveat is that the 62 series has still not been officially announced by Garmin (AFAIK) the specs and photos evidently came from the Bass Pro website, who mistakenly ran an ad too soon. But it seems pretty clear the new model is really coming, and that it is basically the same as the 78 series they have already started selling, but in a different case.

However, current speculation is that the "guts" are essentially the same as the Oregon, with a different screen and software adapted for buttons instead of a touch screen. So I'm not sure these new models would offer performance that differs a lot from the Oregon, unless the different antenna is a major factor.

The old 60csx (like yours) is a thing of the past. Garmin stopped using the SirfStar III chipset in the 60csx more than a year ago. Some people feel that the SirfStar chip was what made the 60csx great. Personally, I have never been convinced.

 

[Teegate]

I don't see a difference between the 62s and the 62st other than the prelaoded maps and the storage space. Agree?

And for me the antenna is everything. I rarely loose a signal with mine.

Guy

 

[Boyd]

Yes, I think that's the only difference. However, I thought your concern about the Oregon was that it might "wander"... give readings which vary even though you are standing still. I don't really see that as a problem on my Oregon, but if that were true then I think it would be related to the chipset and not the antenna. I almost never lose signal with the Oregon.

This is a subject of a lot of controversy, especially with geocachers on the groundspeak GPS forums. Some people think that the SiRFStar chipset is the "holy grail" in that regard. But more and more people are posting good things about the Oregon, especially with firmware updates that have cured some of the old problems.

GPSTrackLog has a hand-on article about the GPSMap 78 here. Everyone thinks it should be pretty much the same as the 62 series: http://gpstracklog.com/2010/05/hands-on-with-the-garmin-gpsmap-78s.html#more-6185

[edit]I now see that GPSPassion feels these new units have the SiRFStar IV chipset: http://www.gpspassion.com/forumsen/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=135456

 

[Boyd]

Garmin has finally announced the new 62 series: http://garmin.blogs.com/my_weblog/2...series-updating-iconic-outdoor-handheld-.html

And here's the answer to your question Guy. It will support all the maps I have posted on GPSFileDepot;

To help each user maximize the mapping potential of Garmin handhelds, each model in the GPSMAP 62 series is compatible with Garmin’s subscription-based BirdsEye Satellite Imagery, the free online community at Garmin Connect as well as Garmin’s free Custom Maps utility for transferring paper or digital maps onto a compatible handheld.

 

[Teegate]

Garmin has finally announced the new 62 series: http://garmin.blogs.com/my_weblog/2...series-updating-iconic-outdoor-handheld-.html

And here's the answer to your question Guy. It will support all the maps I have posted on GPSFileDepot;

When they say subscription BirdsEye, is that the same BirdsEye photo's that we post here?

Guy

 

[Boyd]

No Guy, that is the name Garmin has given their download service for aerial imagery - see: http://forums.njpinebarrens.com/f16/garmin-birdseye-aerial-imagery-subscription-7213/

For the pines, it's the NJ 2007 orthophotography which Ben has included in NJPB Live Maps, but you can zoom in farther. The full resolution imagery from the State is 1 foot per pixel. They have sampled at ~ .5 meters per pixel to be compatible with their other imagery from different sources.

It is a reasonable compromise I think, and is easy to download and install (although time consuming). I have a full 16GB memory with all the pines plus a large chunk of upstate NJ. It is all available on the GPS anytime and can be combined with road and trails from other maps.

The full resolution 1 ft per pixel image is on top and Garmin's BirdsEye version is below for comparison.

 

[Boyd]

There are three different GPSMap 62 products and info is now available on Garmin's site. See the following comparison with links to the detailed specs on each model: cID=145&compareProduct=63802&compareProduct=63801&compareProduct=63800

Antenna is apparently the same as the 60 series: "...employs a quad helix antenna for unparalleled reception".

GPSFix has opened up a new GPSMap 78 series and confirmed the ST Micro Cartesio chipset however. So that implies the 62 series will also use the Cartesio and not the SiRFStar IV. http://www.gpsfix.net/gpsmap78-internal-2/

I was hoping that Garmin might have decided to use the SiRFAtlasIV system-on-chip in this new line of GPS’s but as we reported several weeks ago when the FCC photos first became available Garmin has stayed with the STMicroelectronics Cartesio (STA-2062) and ST GPS RF chip (STA-5620) both of which are used in the Garmin Oregon and Dakota.

 

[Teegate]

So without using your maps, I would have to use Garmins prescription service for aerial maps? I would never purchase that so I am trying to get straight what aerial maps I could use.


Guy

 

[Boyd]

You can make your own maps from any kind of downloaded or scanned imagery. See this: http://forums.gpsreview.net/viewtopic.php?t=15841

I have used GlobalMapper, a rather expensive high-end program to make the maps I posted here: http://www.gpsfiledepot.com/maps/byuser/282/

But there are more user-friendly programs that are free or very inexpensive especially for this - see some of the links in the thread above.

I am curious as to why you would never purchase the BirdsEye subscription? Considering that you can download unlimited imagery for the entire world for $30, it is a pretty exceptional deal. I have already filled a 16GB card, as I mentioned. Garmin has never offered 16GB of data for $30 before. If I never download anything else, I think I've already gotten my money's worth. After downloading, it is yours to keep forever. You don't need to continue the subscription after the first year.

Regardless, it is actually completely free to download the imagery and very simple. You can then use it on your computer with BaseCamp for as long as you like. But you must subscribe in order to transfer the imagery to your GPS. If you own a GPS that supports BirdsEye, just connect it to your computer and run BaseCamp (which is free). It will guide you through the setup and download process. No purchase is necessary.

 

[Boyd]

We're getting really of off-topic with this, but it seems like the best place to post since we're discussing the 60csx vs the newer Garmin models. I did a bit of pseudo-scientific testing of my Oregon and 60csx over the weekend and got some surprising results. The newest version of the Oregon software is very good. Again, my tests were not completely scientific, but imply that the Oregon series has actually overtaken the 60csx in terms of accuracy and repeatability. Here's one example, zoomed way in to a cedar swamp. The track from the Oregon (yellow) is much better than the 60csx track (blue) which is scattered all over the place. This may come from the 60csx being a bit too sensitive and interpreting reflections as actual signals from the satellite.

I walked over the same narrow trail which runs from the upper left corner of the image towards the lower right corner 8 times. You can see that the Oregon formed a relatively tight pattern while the 60csx looks more like a shotgun blast.

The background for this image is the NJ 2007 full resolution 1 foot per pixel imagery. You can see each of the blocky pixels in the images, so each of these squares would be 1 foot x 1 foot.

I won't get into any more detail here, but you can see a bunch of other examples and read the full discussion here: http://forums.gpsreview.net/viewtopic.php?t=19442

Even if you aren't interested in the Oregon, I think this bodes well for the new GPSMap 62 series, since it uses the same basic hardware platform. Garmin appears to be concentrating all their energy on tweaking the performance of this chipset and it looks like their efforts are paying off.

 

[Teegate]

Boyd,

Thanks for the info. I will have to think about what I want to do.

I have looked over my tracks from various places I have been, and picked out a few to show you. I rarely have my tracks stray from exactly where I walked or drove.

When Jessica and I traveled with Gloria a few months ago, we walked in various places such as tight roads, open roads, and very dense woods. Gloria can tell you about the area circled in yellow. In this area we were bushwacking and turned around and tried to follow our path back. As you can see I never lost the signal. BTW, AL, that is the stone we discussed tonight. I was oh so close!

This was our last PBX hike. This is dense swamp, brier in places, and tall trees. You can see a few places where we either found something, stopped to talk, or I had to avoid something in our path. This was not a road.

The day before the PBX hike, Bob and I did the usual water drop. This is the route we took. I was carrying Jessica on my back both ways for quite a bit of this section because the water was so deep. There is only one area where the tracks seem off and we may have actually taken that route.

This one shows me driving on a road. Clicking it makes it slightly bigger I believe.


http://teegate.njpinebarrens.com/06072010/tracks2.jpg


I am happy with the signal I get, I just despise the maps.


Guy

 

[Boyd]

See, the difference in your screenshots and mine is that yours are zoomed out MUCH farther. On the GPS itself, zoom in as far as you can go - which will be the 20 foot level. I think you will see a lot of "noise" there, depending on your settings.

What are your track recording settings? Do you leave it set to automatic? That will not show you what is really happening. Set recording to "time" and set the interval to 1 second - that is what I did. The GPS will record you position every second, regardless of whether you are moving. This gives a more accurate picture of the raw data.

So, in other words, I think the relatively smooth tracks in your example are because you are viewing them from much farther away and using a track recording setting that does not capture the real data stream from the GPS. The GPS chip itself sends a new position update once per second, so recording track every second will show you everything. It will completely fill the tracklog in less than 3 hours in this mode however - maximum is 10,000 points.

 

[Teegate]

I am zoomed in all the way on the program I have for the Mac. You can see the slider in yellow.

I changed my setting to one second; however, I think that in reality the reason they don't set it that fast is there is no need for it. Having it check every second would be needed only if you were flying in a plane. For everything we do the auto setting is more than enough. From my tracks you can see that the auto setting does well with even a car.


Guy

 

[Boyd]

Guy,

I do not really suggest setting the tracklog to one second for normal use. I did this for the purpose of testing/comparing the 60csx and Oregon. With these settings, and zooming way in (which is MUCH farther than your software allows), we can see the quality of data that the GPS chips are providing. Awhile ago you said:

I have been sitting here deciding if I wanted to buy the [Oregon] 300 and the reviews of the reception are worrisome. I am concerned that I will experience the same problems as I did with my Legend that my 60CSX does not have. Almost half of the reviews do not recommend to buy it because of this very problem.

The conclusion that I draw from these tests is that the Oregon series is now moving ahead of the 60csx in terms of producting accurate, repeatable results. I say this because the trackpoints which the oregon recorded form a line which defines the trail I was walking on, while the 60csx points are scattered more randomly.

Again, this may not affect your day to day use all that much, but I am impressed by how far they have come with the Oregon software. This makes sense, because Garmin seems to be settling on a single hardware platform using the STM Cartesio chipset on the Oregon, Dakota, GPSMap 78 and GPSMap 62 series. It is a newer and much faster chipset than the SiRFStar III in the 60csx, and apparently they are using that speed and power to do better processing of the raw data coming from the chips.

So the point is not that you should set your GPS to record track points every second, or that you should zoom in to extreme levels - those were just part of my test procedure. The point is that you can have some confidence in the performance of these new units, and that the newer designs will apparently offer more accuracy and repeatability.