Garmin Dakota 20 or Garmin Oregon 200
Simple question which one for mountain biking?
I noticed the screen res is different on each model but with similar specs.
Ok, if you see the screen res is different but other specs look similar (trust me, they are not), you've obviously looked at the spec charts somewhere, but maybe not compared them directly?
Looking at spec sheets is going to be a big part of telling you what is different between the two. Another might help: Look at what Garmin says is the suggested market for these. It calls the Dakota basic, and it calls the Oregon advanced. Now granted, the 200 does not have all the features available. And the Dakota 20 is not the most basic model offered. You're looking at the most expensive Dakota and least expensive Oregon...Garmin has always had a bit of overlap in its product offerings.
This might help:
Also, if you look closely, you'll see the Dakota 20 page lists fitness parts as accessories. The Oregon 200 does not. Garmin does not make this very obvious.
Furthermore, screen shots.
Looks to me that the Oregon has a better screen and better software. The Dakota 20 forgoes the bigger screen and fancier software for extra sensors (electronic compass, barometric altimeter, fitness accessory compatibility, unit-unit data transfer capability).
I like my Dakota 20 for its smaller size and some of the extra features (like the fitness accessories).
I wrote a review of the GPS here:
I would buy a Dakota over any of the Oregon units. I found the Oregon 300's screen too hard to view on the handlebars. YMMV.
Thanks for the info, I read the review on the link below and it also suggests the Dakota for bike use simply because the screen is clearer whilst riding.