Garmin 60CSx discontinued

I just discovered that Garmin has discontinued all 60-series and 76-series GPSes. The 60CSx (same as the 76CSx) has been the standard by which other hiking GPSes have been measured for a number of years.

The follow-on 62-series and 78-series have been available for a while now. These GPSes use the STM Cartesio GPS chipset (also used in the Garmin Oregon and Dakota) rather than the SiRFStarIII chipset of the 60/76 series. They probably have similar reception characteristics. The newer models add a few features, but also take some away. (IMO, the newer models are not necessarily an overall improvement.)

The 60CSx was introduced ~2005. (I bought mine in 2006.) A ~6-year product run in this market is extraordinarily long.

It appears that 60CSxes are still available from some retailers so if you want one, act soon.

Doug

Good info, as usual, Doug. Thanks. We use the 60CSx's for our fieldwork and have ordered three more, as our volunteers are becoming more used to using them. I just can't see spending the extra green for the aerial imagery of the 62 series, especially considering the size of the screen.

Had to be since before Christmas since the price dropped (Amazon.com) to $199 and $229 for the 60/76 respectively. Because they've been discontinued, it was hard to find carrying cases.

Tim

The Model T of GPS. I hope to use mine for a long time to come.

sigh. I hope the next GPS receiver I purchase has more features I want than the 76csx provides, rather than fewer.

arghman said:

sigh. I hope the next GPS receiver I purchase has more features I want than the 76csx provides, rather than fewer.

Click to expand...

The newer Garmin 62/78, Oregon, and Montana model lines as well as some models from other manufacturers all provide some newer, different and/or additional features at some "newer" prices. However, Garmin has also removed or changed some features that may be important to you. https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=145 (You can also download the manuals from the Garmin website if you want more info.) Whether the new feature sets are worth the new prices is up to you.

Doug

A built-in camera in some models? Sounds like something the geocachers would love, especially since it's waterproof. Not a feature I need, though. I'm curious, with the 60 discontinued I can't do a "compare" of the feature sets …*do you have a link to a list of the added/removed features?

MichaelJ said:

A built-in camera in some models? Sounds like something the geocachers would love, especially since it's waterproof. Not a feature I need, though. I'm curious, with the 60 discontinued I can't do a "compare" of the feature sets …*do you have a link to a list of the added/removed features?

Click to expand...

The Oregon and Montana are both touchscreen--a strong minus IMO. The Montana, in particular, adds a lot of fluff.

The 62/78 cases appear to be very similar to the 60/76 cases so the external cases that work for one will probably work for the other. The 62 and 78 are both push button. The electronics is basically the same as the Oregon except for the input modality.

I published a list of differences in http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=36346 A slightly edited version:
Some of the obvious new features are:
* new display (same pixel counts)
* 1.7GB internal memory (in addition to the microSD card slot)
* 1000 -> 2000 waypoints
* 50 -> 200 routes
* 20 -> 200 saved tracks
* 2D -> 3D magnetic compass (allows GPS tilt compensation)
* Navigation to registered (fairly small) photos
* custom maps (Garmin's version of make-it-yourself maps)
* Unit-to-unit data transfer with bluetooth
* Garmin Connect compatible (Garmin's online community)
* OK with new lithium batts
* Contexts

Lost features:
* games

There have been some comments on the sci.geo.satellite-nav (Usenet) thread "Accuracy plots of garmin gpsmap 62 st?" http://groups.google.com/group/sci.geo.satellite-nav/browse_thread/thread/817306e19c7d1971# (Post by Ed. M, Jul 4, 4:10pm includes links to more info).
* poor altimeter accuracy
* flimsy case

IMO there are no fatal flaws (for backcountry navigation) in the 60CSx, given that I already have 2 (a new and an old--there are some improvements in the more recent units http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=38355 ), I don't think it is worth the money to buy one of the newer ones. However, if I were going to buy a new one, it would likely be a 60CSx, particularly given the current discounts.

Doug

The increased tracks and routes is very nice, but it seems completely arbitrary and foolish to limit it to any specific number, other than "available space on the SD card." Did they get rid of the 500 points per saved track? That, likewise, seems foolish and arbitrary to me.

There is absolutely no technical reason why I should not be able to load the entire WMNF trail set into the device given and adequate amount of SD card space.

Tim

bikehikeskifish said:

The increased tracks and routes is very nice, but it seems completely arbitrary and foolish to limit it to any specific number, other than "available space on the SD card." Did they get rid of the 500 points per saved track? That, likewise, seems foolish and arbitrary to me.

Click to expand...

There is a feature comparison function on the Garmin website: https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=145 .

The tracks, routes, and waypoints are saved in the internal non-volatile memory. (Any track written to the memory card is not used by the GPS.) Presumably the software uses static memory allocation. It is also possible that too many trackpoints would slow the display down too much. Perhaps this was necessary in earlier units, but for whatever reason Garmin has continued the limits.

There is absolutely no technical reason why I should not be able to load the entire WMNF trail set into the device given and adequate amount of SD card space.

Click to expand...

You can do it by making your own custom map. (I know, it is much harder than just loading some tracks...)

If you read enough discussion groups, you will find that people have decided that Garmin should have added every feature known to man. (Sure, I have a list of features that I would like too, but the 60CSx works pretty well in spite of their having ignored my advice... )

Doug

DougPaul said:

Lost features:
* games

Click to expand...

Hallelujah! It was particularly galling to see them spend some of their engineering effort on games instead of useful features.

arghman said:

Hallelujah! It was particularly galling to see them spend some of their engineering effort on games instead of useful features.

Click to expand...

At least one of the games has been added back to some of the newer models...

Haven't really paid much attention or tried any myself--I don't care about them as long as they don't displace anything useful.

Doug

We have a particular use for the 60csx at the land trust, and for that use, they are pretty good, but a few features I would like to see are:

• ability to use the compass in quadrant or azimuth
• it would be nice to be able to load all 576 shapes of our conserved lands on without annoying lines connecting all the shapes to get around the "you can use the micro SD card to hold tracks" deal
• ability to take and geotag photos (I know you can do this on some models of the 62 series)

mostly, these are small complaints, and this has been a great device for a non-profit with limited resources!

I was looking at a Trimble 6000 today which can do most of what is on my wish list, and a whole lot more.....for a mere $8000.

Jason Berard said:

mostly, these are small complaints, and this has been a great device for a non-profit with limited resources!

I was looking at a Trimble 6000 today which can do most of what is on my wish list, and a whole lot more.....for a mere $8000.

Click to expand...

I feel your pain, I use my personal GPS for natural resource purposes for nonprofits, and it SUCKS that the GPS companies don't produce units that are usable for "real work" without paying thousands. The same isn't true for PCs or cameras.

w/r/t geotagging photos: Take a look at the Panasonic TZ20 (I think I have that right) -- some of Panasonic + other cameras now have geotagging capabilities. Your pictures would be much better w/ a camera with builtin geotagging, than a GPS with a builtin camera (though I'd say its a tossup for which solution makes integrating data easier).

wrt geotagging photos:
Synchronize the clock in the camera with the GPS and record a track while taking the photos. There is software that can tag the photos from the track.

Not as convenient as having it built into the camera but there are also some advantages:
* You don't have to wait for the GPS to lock before taking the photo.
* Independent batteries

Unless the camera also includes a magnetic compass, you cannot record the direction the camera was pointing.

Doug

Thanks, Doug. I've been pondering that whole direction thing....

DougPaul said:

wrt geotagging photos:
Synchronize the clock in the camera with the GPS and record a track while taking the photos. There is software that can tag the photos from the track.

Not as convenient as having it built into the camera but there are also some advantages:
* You don't have to wait for the GPS to lock before taking the photo.
* Independent batteries

Click to expand...

I'd have to add this caveat, that if you are doing work that involves lots of stops and starts in a particular area, and a few meters difference is important, this technique won't work well. I've done botanical surveys where automatic synchronization of this type adds more confusion that it's worth, and I have learned that I just have to be meticulous about taking notes to link the GPS waypoint # with particular photos.

On the other hand, if you're biking or driving in a car at relatively constant speed, then this could be useful.

arghman said:

I'd have to add this caveat, that if you are doing work that involves lots of stops and starts in a particular area, and a few meters difference is important, this technique won't work well. I've done botanical surveys where automatic synchronization of this type adds more confusion that it's worth, and I have learned that I just have to be meticulous about taking notes to link the GPS waypoint # with particular photos.

Click to expand...

Starts and stops shouldn't matter as long as you are recording trackpoints close enough together. You simply choose the two bracketing (in time) trackpoints and interpolate their positions.

You can also simply record waypoints at your points of interest.

It also looks like you are asking for more accuracy than a consumer GPS is capable of giving. (Nominal accuracy is 10 meters with an unobstructed skyview. If you are in the woods, you are unlikely to have a good skyview...)

If you want a few meter accuracy in less than ideal conditions, then you should consider professional equipment and training. As it is, you should be ecstatic that you can achieve 10m accuracy for only a few hundred dollars... (What did you do pre-GPS?)

On the other hand, if you're biking or driving in a car at relatively constant speed, then this could be useful.

Click to expand...

Sufficient, but not necessary.

Doug

DougPaul said:

wrt geotagging photos:
Synchronize the clock in the camera with the GPS and record a track while taking the photos. There is software that can tag the photos from the track.

Click to expand...

Get the camera and GPS clocks close. Then …*when you start your photo-taking session, have the first photo be of the GPS display showing the GPS time. Presto! You now have a photo that in its own EXIF info has the camera time, and shows the GPS time. When you bring the track and photos into a geotagging software tool, you know the exact offset between the two clocks and can set that in the software (assuming the software allows it) to get perfect coordination.

DougPaul said:

You can also simply record waypoints at your points of interest.

Click to expand...

That's what I do.

It also looks like you are asking for more accuracy than a consumer GPS is capable of giving. (Nominal accuracy is 10 meters with an unobstructed skyview. If you are in the woods, you are unlikely to have a good skyview...)

Click to expand...

I'll take whatever accuracy I can get out of the system, the same way people who use trackpoints+interpolating will take whatever accuracy they can get out of that system.

GPS absolute accuracy may be rated at 10m (what is it, 99% confidence <10m?), but in practical terms it's been better than that. I have had several surveys where the plants in question have been very difficult to find by eye, and I have to wander around in the general area, doubting the accuracy of the GPS point I took a year or two earlier.... until I find the spot, usually within a couple of meters of where the GPS receiver indicates.

As it is, you should be ecstatic that you can achieve 10m accuracy for only a few hundred dollars... (What did you do pre-GPS?)

Click to expand...

I am! re: your pre-GPS comment: I got into this in 2004, so I benefit from post-Clinton-era GPS accuracy. In the old pre-GPS days, botanists would have to estimate their absolute location and give landmarks. Some of the records are quite vague, e.g. "ravine on south slope of Mt -----" and it's like finding a needle in a haystack.