# Garmin 450 vs GPSMAP 62s



## jimbowilly (Jan 8, 2007)

I am comparing these two units on the Garmin site. The differences are:

*MSRP*
Oregon = $399.99
Gpsmap = $449.99

*Unit dimensions*
Oregon = 2.3" x 4.5" x 1.4" 
Gpsmap = 2.4" x 6.3" x 1.4"

*Display size*
Oregon = 1.53"W x 2.55"H 3" diag
Gpsmap = 1.6" x 2.2" 2.6" diag

*Display resolution*
Oregon = 240 x 400 pixels
Gpsmap = 160 x 240 pixels

*Display type:*
Oregon = transflective color TFT touchscreen
Gpsmap = transflective, 65-K color TFT

*Weight:*
Oregon = 6.8 oz (192.7 g) with batteries
Gpsmap = 9.2 oz (260.1 g) with batteries

*Battery life:*
Oregon = 16 hours
Gpsmap = 20 hours

*Built-in memory:*
Oregon = 850 MB
Gpsmap = 1.7 GB

*Touchscreen:*
Oregon = yes
Gpsmap = no

*Picture viewer:*
Oregon = yes
Gpsmap = no

*Outdoor GPS games:*
Oregon = yes (Wherigo only)
Gpsmap = no

So from what it appears, for $50 more you get more memory and battery life with the GPSMAP, but it weighs more, is larger, and has a smaller screen.

And reading this thread http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=646096 it seems like the Oregon 450 is better choice for accuracy.

Are there other benefits to the GPSMAP that are not listed on the Garmin product comparison that don't show up? Basemaps perhaps?


----------



## pop_martian (Mar 20, 2007)

I'm pretty sure the Oregon is geocaching friendly if you're into that sort of thing.


----------



## big0mike (Jun 11, 2010)

jimbowilly said:


> So from what it appears, for $50 more you get more memory and battery life with the GPSMAP, but it weighs more, is larger, and has a smaller screen.


That sealed it for me. I like the more compact unit with a larger screen. I wasn't sure I'd like the touchscreen as much as real buttons but my 450 is very nice and highly recommended. Plus, you can make "custom maps" for your 450: http://www.garmin.com/garmin/cms/site/us/onthetrail/custommaps


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

One thing that's not discussed much is the external antenna capability of the 62, while the Oregon does not. This is typically used in a car sense (some windshields block GPS signals), but some folks use an external antenna to help boost accuracy (they mount it to their hat or something).

But for me, the compactness of the Oregon was a pretty big deal. To be honest, I'm not even using all the available memory on mine. I've not even put an external memory card in it. Also, what I've noticed is that while the GPS can only display a certain number of raster map tiles at once, you can load it up with those things and will display only enough for the area you're in.

I prefer having the touch screen for text entry when saving waypoints. I ABSOLUTELY HATE trying to enter text when I can only use the arrow buttons and "enter" to choose letters. half a dozen arrow button presses and then the "enter" button just to select one letter? ugh.

both are pretty equally friendly for geocaching aside from the wherigo player (of which there are not many wherigo caches).

the lower-res screen is supposed to have slightly better visibility than the touchscreen, but in my experience, the touchscreen is not that bad. the accommodations I make for the touchscreen compared to my previous GPS receivers (taking off my sunglasses sometimes) don't override the improvements in text entry of the touchscreen. and the slightly reduced memory is also not a big deal.


----------



## big0mike (Jun 11, 2010)

NateHawk said:


> I prefer having the touch screen for text entry when saving waypoints. I ABSOLUTELY HATE trying to enter text when I can only use the arrow buttons and "enter" to choose letters. half a dozen arrow button presses and then the "enter" button just to select one letter? ugh.


Another excellent point. I hated that as well. So much that I'd just enter a waypoint and wait until I got home and plugged it in to rename it.


----------



## jimbowilly (Jan 8, 2007)

Yeah, naming waypoints using the rocker bar is a massive pain.I didn't even think about that. I hate doing it so much I usually don't. I have an old Garmin eMap and the screen is littered with waypoints named 942, 941, 943, etc. Having an on screen keypad is a huge selling point. That sold it right there.

Although I really don't do it any more, what is meant by Geocache Friendly? Don't you just enter the coordinates as a waypoint and the head out to look for the cache?

Another question about the Oregon. What maps comes with the 450 as opposed to the 450t?


----------



## pop_martian (Mar 20, 2007)

jimbowilly said:


> Yeah, naming waypoints using the rocker bar is a massive pain.I didn't even think about that. I hate doing it so much I usually don't. I have an old Garmin eMap and the screen is littered with waypoints named 942, 941, 943, etc. Having an on screen keypad is a huge selling point. That sold it right there.
> 
> Although I really don't do it any more, what is meant by Geocache Friendly? Don't you just enter the coordinates as a waypoint and the head out to look for the cache?
> 
> Another question about the Oregon. What maps comes with the 450 as opposed to the 450t?


The oregon has the ability to save the geocache page so you can see the hints and description while out. This eliminates the need to carry a printed copy of your cache. At least the oregon I demoed had this feature.


----------



## jimbowilly (Jan 8, 2007)

pop_martian said:


> The oregon has the ability to save the geocache page so you can see the hints and description while out. This eliminates the need to carry a printed copy of your cache. At least the oregon I demoed had this feature.


Thanks. That would be a handy feature. Back when I was doing it, I remember printing out the web pages with the hints and the comments. The kids are older now but they still remember going out looking for "treasure".


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

jimbowilly said:


> Thanks. That would be a handy feature. Back when I was doing it, I remember printing out the web pages with the hints and the comments. The kids are older now but they still remember going out looking for "treasure".


All the info you need is right on the GPS. Name, terrain and difficulty rating, description, latest 4 or 5 logs, and even a list of the trackable items included.

The 62 has that capability, also.


----------



## Redmon (Jan 12, 2004)

I went with the 62s. A few of the many reasons:



> The Garmin GPSMAP 62s brings a long-awaited update to the fabled and much-loved GPSMAP 60CSx, which has reigned supreme as the gold standard handheld GPS for more than four years. During that time, Garmin experimented with new interfaces, first with the Colorado series, and later with the Oregon and Dakota lines. These have been fine-tuned through many software updates, adding things like paperless geocaching and the ability to add custom maps and aerial imagery.





> The 62 series inherited a number of features from the Colorado, Dakota and/or Oregon series. These include the ability to utilize Garmin custom maps and BirdsEye aerial imagery, a tri-axial compass, new customization options, advanced track navigation, wireless data transfer and paperless geocaching. None of these were available on the 60/76 series; I'll explore each in more detail.


Sounds like you cant go wrong with either. Mine is sitting under the xmas tree so i havent tried it yet.


----------

