New Garmin Colorado 300 vs old Garmin 60CS : First impressions review
Dear readers!
I’ve recently bought myself a new GPS, namely the new Garmin Colorado 300, replacing my old Garmin GpsMap 60CS.
The 60CS was a great trekking companion for a good two years, outperforming my old Garmin eTrex Vista in many ways - for instance; PC->GPS transfer time (serial cable vs USB(!)), graphical experience (b&w vs colors), map rendering time and, IMHO, user-friendliness.
I’d kept my 60CS for a lot longer time if it hadn’t been for a loose USB-connector: Sometime last year the USB-connector on the unit decided it wanted to join the USB-cable being (not roughly) pulled out. The connector didn’t loosen entirely, but ever since the USB-connections to my PCs have been unstable and troublesome.
I’m not sure whether anybody else has experienced the same USB-connector problem on the 60CS, but I decided I wanted to go with something new, also tempted by Colorado’s better graphical resolution.
However, since I unpacked my new Colorado 300 yesterday, I’ve browsed throught the menus, gotten familiar with the button configuration, uploaded a topographic map (for those of you familiar with Norway; Trondheim Topo Pro) to it and compared the map screen to that of the 60CS.
Exterior
Before getting soft (as in software, mohahah), I want to show you a few images of the Colorado 300 lined up side-by-side with my old 60CS for comparison of physical dimensions:
Front:

Back:

Back with battery covers removed (we see the Colorado with an SD-card inserted. The 60CS didn’t have a card slot):

Side:

The Colorado lies perfectly in my palm, with my thumb ready to access the rock-and-roller-button:

Focusing on the Colorado, here are some more exterior images:



The last pair of images is included only so that you can see what the physical screen actually looks like. IMHO, it’s excellent to look at IRL, and I hope that these photos can give that impression. I read somewhere that the screen brightness of the Colorado 300 isn’t as bright as the 60CS(x), but I can’t say I’ve noticed any difference between the 60CS and this one on that matter. The backlight brightness is sufficient, and being transreflective, there should be no problem reading the screen in sunshine either (just like the 60CS).
Screen resolution
On the contrary, what I have noticed, is the increase in resolution, which is rather significant. This may make some of the text on the map too small for those of you forgetting to put your glasses on, but for those of us who either remember to do so or don’t use glasses at all (sorry, just had to), this increase in screen resolution makes the map a dream to use! The increase from 160×240 to 240×400 pixels makes it able to show the same detail covering 2.5 times the area. Quite an improvement:-)
Screenshots from the two units compare map resolution of the terrain in the neighbourhood. 60CS on the left, Colorado on the right. Note how cluttery the 60CS seems compared to the Colorado! The two mapscreens cover about the same area, except that the Colorado map is turned some degrees CCW compared to the 60CS-map, because I forgot to set “North Up”…:

More map screenshots of the Colorado 300
The basemap and its looks (shading etc) also impresses me. Having both topo-map and basemap turned on, the topomap shows for zoom-scales below 3km, while the basemap shows else. (Turning off the topo-map makes the basemap show for all zoom-scales).
For fun, here are screenshots zooming in on my neighbourhood in Trondheim:
Notice how the borders of the topo-maps show here.






Improved satellite reception
This really impresses me, and I can’t wait to test this further in a city with tall buildings.
Anyway; I live in the lowest level of a block, and while sitting in my chair indoors (although next to the window) I got satellite reception good enough for the GPS to tell my position(!). Amazing! This wasn’t possible at all with my old 60CS! This is the reception I had sitting in my chair:

Okay, folks, that’ll be all for now. I’m going into bed now, but I’ll be back with some more screenshots of other pages later. Until then!
Tags: Garmin 60CS, Garmin Colorado, GPS, reviews, screenshots

(4 votes, average: 4.5 out of 5)
March 3rd, 2008 at 22:06
Regarding ability to get a fix inside a building. - I have a 60CS and a 60CSx. I expeirienced just the same when changing from CS to CSx.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:52
Did you buy the gps in norway,
In the netherlands it is not available yet.
March 10th, 2008 at 13:09
guido:
Sorry to hear that :-/
Yes, I bought it from a Norwegian webshop.
March 15th, 2008 at 19:07
je possede un garmin gpsmap 60cs
j’ai eu le meme probleme avec le connecteur usb et en fait c’est la soudure sur la carte mere qui était en cause
j’ai fait ressouder et ça marche très bien
j’ai quand meme envie de changer pour un colorado avec la carte topo de france
March 25th, 2008 at 14:47
Question besides the subject: can you tell me what the difference is between the Classic topo Norway maps and the Pro version? My Norwegian is to bad to understand.
Thanks
March 25th, 2008 at 19:29
The (newer) Topo Pro maps are meant for Garmin GPSs with color display, while the older Topo Classic maps were made at the time where most (or all) Garmin GPSs had b/w display. You can still use Classic with newer color display GPSs, but the Pro maps have enhanced coloring for such use.
I’m not sure whether the newer Topo Pro are compatible with older b/w GPSs.
June 8th, 2008 at 15:27
Hi nice review dude! I just bought myself a Colorado 300 for my 3 month journey from Nordkapp-Trondheim. I was wondering if the maps that are pre-installed will do or if I will have to buy more detailed (Topo maps)?
August 19th, 2008 at 15:27
Hi.
Did anyone notice that the battery-life is very very short. For me they last about 5-6 hours on my hike up in the mountains. I not used the gps much during the days, just a look now and then and no “playing” around.
A CS60 that my buddy bring not have to get new batteries during this week, 5 days hike.
I returned mine, make no sense to bring tons of batteries on a hike.
btw…batteries I use is Duracell.
Torgrim
August 19th, 2008 at 16:48
Yes, I’ve noticed that it lasts significantly shorter than the 60CS too. However, I think it lasts longer on rechargeable NiMH than on alkaline batteries. The drawback with the rechargeables, though, is that they auto-decharge 1% or so each day you carry them in your backpack on the hike… :-/
September 2nd, 2008 at 20:46
Hi, I am looking to get a new GPS(hiking) and can you recomended one, please
Colorado 300, Oregon 300 or 60CSx. ??????
Thanks
Edu
ealcaniz@gmail.com
September 2nd, 2008 at 20:57
@Edu:
Hmm, it depends on your preferences.
Self, I love the extra pixels I get from the Colorado 300 compared to the 60CS(x), because it makes it easier to get a wider overview while still seeing the details. This makes the Colorado 300 my choice for hiking.
However, the pixels are smaller on the Colorado than on the 60CS(x), so if I had to wear glasses to see things up close, I’d rather go with the 60CSx. Also, if you’re gonna put your unit on your bike’s handlebars and see the details while riding, go with the one with larger pixels.
Also, take into account what’s being said about the battery capacity above.