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!