Garmin eTrex Vista HCx GPS REVIEW

Alan –

Nice review of what sounds like a good addition to the Garmin line.

I was wondering whether it has the same issue I've seen with the SIRF chip in my Garmin GPS60csx: when I stand still, or set the unit down, the track hops all over the place, jumping many dozens of yards (sometimes more). The accuracy is shown as quite good (e.g. within 24 feet), but the hopping of the track goes far outside what that accuracy would indicate.

This has the unfortunate side effect of also causing the compass to shut down if it's set to turn off when the GPS is moving (if it's not set that way, there's a penalty in battery drain).

– Steve

"What’s not so Good ..

No direct interface with full US electronic map coverage at 1:24K resolution (e.g., you can’t upload non-Garmin maps like National Geographic Topo! maps directly into the GPS unit)
Proprietary Garmin internal maps: Full USA coverage at 1:100K, but limited 1:24K resolution coverage (only for National Parks).
User can’t load raster maps or satellite imagery into the GPS. "

Thats the reason why my Garmin etrex legend C stays at home 95% of the time.
Reception quality never was a problem for me.
But GArmin maps are very expensive if you dont hike often in the same place, and in the past 3-4 years i have never hiked twice in the same country/area.
Otherwise a great GPS, but i wouldnt buy it again for this reason.

Yes, up against cliffs with limited sky view and especially signal reflections off of the cliff face is an extremely difficult reception situation. It was one of my harder test scenarios for the testing the GPS units in the article. It gave unit C fits.

Walking as far away from the cliffs as possible helps.

Alan,

Great review – thanks. I picked up this unit a few weeks ago. I'll be in heavy forest this winter doing lots of non trail work, so this unit will be invaluable. FWIW – the lack of downloadable maps wasn't a deal killer for me. I'm a bit old school so I've never relied on electronic mapping for anything – including a decade of Pacific ocean sailing and racing as well as my local mountains – the Sierra Nevada range. When planning a trip I simply plot key waypoints using NG Topo! then download them into my GPS. I note them on my paper maps and off I go. I sometimes "waypoint" the car at the trailhead just to be safe. Worst case I can use the waypoints to triangulate and get a fix on my position.

Also, when Glen VP, Photon and I were in the Beartooths a few years back (very similar time of year, location and conditions to the recent Wilderness Trekking 3 course) – at one point we were on a ridge and wanted to look for camp. We pulled out the map, found a lake, I entered the UTM into my old unit and off we went. No electronic mapping needed.

This allows me to keep up my map and compass skills, and still have a safety net. Having said that, this new unit happens to be a VERY GOOD safety net!

Mike Maurer

Nice review Alan.

I recently added the Vista HCx to my GPS collection and it seems like a great little GPS so far.

I am curious however, why you did not name the "Unit C" that you compared the Vista HCx to. Unless "Unit C" was an unreleased product, I see no any reason to do this.

Also, one feature of the Vista HCx (or any Garmin unit with x in it's name) is that you can load essentially an unlimited number of waypoints, if you load them as "Custom Points of Interest". This could be useful for the long distance hikers, doing the PCT or CDT.

-Lon

Fre49 wrote:
"No direct interface with full US electronic map coverage at 1:24K resolution (e.g., you can’t upload non-Garmin maps like National Geographic Topo! maps directly into the GPS unit) "

Do you mean there's no way to do it, or that there's only an "indirect" way? Because, if there's a workaround for this, I'd like to try it. I have some National Geographic 1:24,000 Topo CD's, a Garmin GPSmap 76CSx I got at an REI garage sale, and so far only a very beginner's knowledge of GPS use.

Just want to second the other poster’s comment about the unspecified "’Unit C’ a competitor’s current (released this year), best technology handheld GPS" — since when does BPL shy away from identifying products that don't live up to their hype?

Also, I'm curious about the indirect references to prior Garmin high-sensitivity models. I have the 60Cx, and before that had the Legend C (and before than the original eTrex). I have found its reception to be astounding, ranging from dense forested valleys in New England backcountry skiing, to steep sheltered couloirs in western ski mountaineering, to my basement ski room (which lacks windows). Once I even forget to turn it off when entering a building, and it tracked my progress up a windowless stairwell. My previous units had worked well when they had a clear view of the sky, but the 60Cx seems to work no matter what. The only time I've lost reception has been while driving through tunnels.
Now granted the 60Cx does add a few ounces (though the bigger screen is a big plus when using the Garmin 24k maps, where available), but I'd be curious to know whether the comments about being slow in acquiring an initial fix were meant to apply to the 60Cx/60CSx or something else?

I have the Garmin 60 CSx and have owned other GPS' starting with the original Garmin eTrex.

I can't say enough about its ability to find and hold a signal. As Johnathan stated above, I can accurately track myself moving from room to room, up and down stairs inside my house! It never loses a signal outdoors and I am almost constantly in highly dense forests. Also, it have never "jumped around" as was mentioned earlier.

As to maps, just a note to add. The 1:24K maps produced by Garmin, although called "National Parks" actually include many National Forests and State Parks, but not all. For instance, all the White Mountain Nat. Forest and the Adirondacks are included. Also, all the Appalachian Trail.

>Also, I'm curious about the indirect references to prior Garmin high-sensitivity models. I have the 60Cx, and before that had the Legend C (and before than the original eTrex). I have found its reception to be astounding, ranging from dense forested valleys in New England backcountry skiing, to steep sheltered couloirs in western ski mountaineering…

Not sure which references to prior Garmin high-sensitivity models you mean but that certainly does not apply to the GPSMap 60 Cx. I had a chance to use a GPSMap 76Cx for a few months and had similar reception success with the unit.

As to the Legend C, I can say that it is probably a lesser receiver technology than the Venture Cx tested. As you can see from the testing, the Venture Cx is good but certainly not in the same league as the new H designation eTrex units.

Part of this is a Garmin nomenclature confusion for its high performance receivers. The following may help clarify:

eTrex Series ‘H’ (e.g. Vista HCx)
These have great high sensitivy receivers that substantially outperform their non-‘H’ predecessors like the Vista Cx. But Garmin will not disclose what receiver technology they use in the ‘H’ units.

GPS Map Series (GPSMap 60 Cx, 60 CSx, 76 Cx,76 CSx)
Many of the units picked up a high performance receiver with the ‘x’ designation. But in fact the ‘x’ designation means that they have an expandable micro SD memory slot. Rumor has it they use the the SiRFstarIII chipset but Garmin will not confirm anything more than that they have a high performance receiver. (The eTrex series also picked up the ‘x’ designation for the micro SD slot but did not pickup high performance receivers. That didn’t happen unit the ‘H’ designation. Thus the eTrex Cx models do not have high performance receivers. There has been a lot of confusion on this point.)

eTrex Series Non-‘H’ (e.g. Venture Cx)
As above an ‘x’ designation does not mean a high performance receiver. It has to have an ‘H’ in the model name to have a high performance receiver. But the receivers in the non-‘H’ eTrex models still performs quite well. The 'x' models receivers perform considerably better than their older non-‘x’ predecessors like the Legend C.

Edge 205 & 305 and Forerunner 205 & 305
These units last year were known to have a high performance SiRF chipset. These may have (or not) moved on to other receiver chip sets as the Garmin site only lists them as “high performance receivers” at this point and does not mention a particular maker. In my use (not systematic/official testing), I found the receiver performance spotty in the Forerunner 205 & 305. The Edge units did better.

In summary, Garmin is now very mum about what receivers are in what unit. Don’t expect to know the receiver technology of any Garmin unit in the future. Garmin “reserves the right to select whatever they feel is the best technology for a given GPS unit.” – Rough quote from a Garmin rep.

To date, Garmin has done an excellent job of developing handheld GPS units with first-rate performance. I would expect them to make good choices on receiver technology for their future units.

"Not sure which references to prior Garmin high-sensitivity models you mean…"
— Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to:
"The new Garmin high sensitivity receiver fixes a problem I had with earlier SiRF-based high sensitivity receiver units: these SiRF units were good at maintaining a fix, once acquired, but had difficulty acquiring an initial fix."
… which I now notice is not specific to Garmin necessarily. But I don't understand why you're not calling a spade a spade here (or however the saying goes) — if you have experience with certain SiRF GPS units not acquiring an initial fix quickly, then please let us know which ones.

"As to the Legend C…"
— Once again, sorry for the confusion. I should have stressed that I was referencing that only to compare/contrast the amazingly consistent reception on the 60Cx as compared to prior units I had owned.

Overall, the review does an excellent job of comparing the new unit to two existing units, but it doesn't reveal the identity of one of the existing units, and it doesn't compare the new unit's performance to that of the high-sensitivity models that Garmin has now had on the market for almost two years.

…

Sounds like it has a lot of battery-hungry bells and whistles that hikers don't need and/or will rarely use……..but you still have to pay for them.

MSRP = $642 is, IMO, rediculous. I have no intention of surveying or trying to find my way through the trackless depths of the amazon rain forest. Thanks, I'll pass.