WindyChuffer
Registered user
Feeling a bit anal this morning so decided to analyse the relative dimensions of the Zumo and the 2820, and share it here. Analysis below:
* Screen Size: The 2820 screen is 42% bigger than the Zumo screen. The Zumo screen is 70% of the size of the 2820 screen. Interesting, as I thought from the brochures that the Zumo screen looked bigger. However, perhaps the aspect ratio of the Zumo is more 'useable' at 4:3 as this squarer more akin to a paper map when compared to the 17:9 ratio of the 2820 which is more a rectangle.
* Weight: The 2820 is 56% heavier than the Zumo. The Zumo is 64% of fthe 2820 weight. No surprises here.
* Volume: 2820 is smallest at 86% of the Zumo's volume. The Zumo is 16% larger than the 2820 in volume. Now I found this surprising, as the brochure gave me the impression that the Zumo was more compact.
Actual Dimensions
=============
Volume (width x height x depth)
--------------------------------
ZUMO: 11.3 x 8.2 x 7.2cm = 667 cubic cm
2820: 14.3x 8.0 x 5.0cm = 572 cubic cm
Difference in vol: 95 cubic cm
Screen (No. of pixels & Area)
----------------------------
ZUMO: 320 x 240 pixels = 76,800 total pixels
2820: 454 x 240 pixels = 108,960 total pixels
Difference in no. of pixels = 32,160
ZUMO: 7.2 x 5.4cm = 38.88 cm sq screen area
2820: 10.2 x 5.4cm = 55.16 cm sq screen area
Difference in screen area = 16 cm sq.
Aspect Ratio
------------
ZUMO: 4:3
2820: 17:9
Weight
-------
ZUMO: 269g
2820: 420g
Difference: 150g
* Screen Size: The 2820 screen is 42% bigger than the Zumo screen. The Zumo screen is 70% of the size of the 2820 screen. Interesting, as I thought from the brochures that the Zumo screen looked bigger. However, perhaps the aspect ratio of the Zumo is more 'useable' at 4:3 as this squarer more akin to a paper map when compared to the 17:9 ratio of the 2820 which is more a rectangle.
* Weight: The 2820 is 56% heavier than the Zumo. The Zumo is 64% of fthe 2820 weight. No surprises here.
* Volume: 2820 is smallest at 86% of the Zumo's volume. The Zumo is 16% larger than the 2820 in volume. Now I found this surprising, as the brochure gave me the impression that the Zumo was more compact.
Actual Dimensions
=============
Volume (width x height x depth)
--------------------------------
ZUMO: 11.3 x 8.2 x 7.2cm = 667 cubic cm
2820: 14.3x 8.0 x 5.0cm = 572 cubic cm
Difference in vol: 95 cubic cm
Screen (No. of pixels & Area)
----------------------------
ZUMO: 320 x 240 pixels = 76,800 total pixels
2820: 454 x 240 pixels = 108,960 total pixels
Difference in no. of pixels = 32,160
ZUMO: 7.2 x 5.4cm = 38.88 cm sq screen area
2820: 10.2 x 5.4cm = 55.16 cm sq screen area
Difference in screen area = 16 cm sq.
Aspect Ratio
------------
ZUMO: 4:3
2820: 17:9
Weight
-------
ZUMO: 269g
2820: 420g
Difference: 150g