Garmin 405 vs 305 (Read 3125 times)

I've had a Polar S610 for about four years and ready to switch to something with a GPS. My issue with the S610 is mostly that it saves only one workout detail and it is easily blown away by hitting the big button on the top. Just last night I did it by accident and got pretty pissed about it. Having a HRM really helped me tune into what a specific heart rate felt like. I can guess within a few beats where my heart is usually. For running pace, I'm too sloppy. I could guess the pace within a minute, but not much better. I figure a GPS watch would help my sense of pace in the same way. I've been thinking about the 405 because it doesn't look like a PC slapped to my wrist, but I've seen people complain that it doesn't do this as well as the 305. Is there a good source for the 305 v 405 for helping me with the decision? Thoughts? Advice?

Googling "305 v 405" will bring up lots of discussions. I have the 305. I do not find it too big and it was WAY less $. Less $ always good. Word on the street is: better satellite tracking (though I don't know why this would be; I would imagine they use the same stuff) and 305 shows more info/easier to read.

I have the 405 and it's way cool but unless the geeky appearance of the 305 bothers you it's a better deal, for all the reasons mentioned above. There has to be a smoothing function that would make a more smooth line:

The 305 is easier to read, especially in lo light conditions. As a matter of fact, when I'm running in the dark I can't read the 305 display even with the backlight on and contrast adjusted. This is because I'm old (or my arm is not long enough). The 405 would be even worse. The 305 and 405 use the same gps chipset / receiver so the tracking should be the same.

The 405 may have the same chipset (I'm not aware of the internals), however it picks up the GPS satellites faster than the 305.

On what data do you base this assertion?

Overall the 405 is has better functionality

The 405 has fewer functions than the 305. What functionality are you referring to?

http://www.amazon.com/Garmin-Forerunner-Receiver-Heart-Monitor/dp/B000CSWCQA Not sure if its the best deal, but better than 299

I have the 405 and it's way cool but unless the geeky appearance of the 305 bothers you it's a better deal, for all the reasons mentioned above. There has to be a smoothing function that would make a more smooth line:

Wow,I have an old 201 that does better than that. The only time I get really bad spikes is when it has loses contact with the satelites and extrapolates when it picks them up again. The 201 does have a smoothing control that I have maxed out. The 405 doesn't have one?

I have both. Or, I had both before my 305 died. 1) I think the learning curve was faster on the 305, though if you use either often, you'll figure them out, so I'd actually disagree w/ the "better functionality" statement, but that's just me. 2) The 405 is usually quicker at finding satellites, but not always... sometimes, it frustrates me just as much as my 305. 3) My 305 died 12 months and 1 week after I bought it. Out of warranty, I wasn't interested in buying another one that might die so soon. (Admittedly, it IS way cheaper) 4) My biggest thing? I'm a lunchtime runner. I wear the 405 as my everyday watch... Sometimes, I'd forget to pack the 305 in my bag, and those days made me sad. I've never forgotten my 405 cuz it's usually on my wrist. 5) The comment about the 305 being better to adjust on the run is very true... I don't push buttons when I run, but if I did, it's way easier on the 305. All in all, if you want to save money, I'd go 305. Otherwise, I prefer the 405, but only a little and only because I've never forgotten it.