GPS and laser rangefinder (LRF) technologies each have distinct pros and cons. I chose the LRF mainly because 1) it got better reviews from users, 2) it doesn't require course loading, 3) it doesn't require annual fees and 4) I was impressed with it when I saw a friend use it. But I still wasn't sure how much its negatives vs GPS (mainly the line of sight requirement) would diminish its usefulness on the course.
Now that I've used it for a few rounds, I'm really enamored with it. It's much more flexible than I thought it would be. One thing I don't like about GPS units is that they haven't mapped enough points from tee to green. With the LRF I can always find some useful target to measure. A tree, bunker, 150 pole, a person, a mound, etc, etc.
GPS companies will say that the most useful yardages are to front, middle and back of greens. That's arguable. For me, having the distance to the pin +/- 1 yard is amazing. On most courses you at least know if the pin is cut front, middle or back. With that info and the exact yardage to the hole, I step up with a lot of confidence in my club and shot selection.
Yes, I find it gets a bit more tricky to hit the flag from about 220 and beyond, but I've found tricks to get better at that and you will too. Plus, if I'm over 200, I just make sure that I have some clue where I am as a sanity check. If Bushnell figures out how to incorporate optical image stabalization into these units, that'll make them even better. But for now this is just fine.
Some people wonder if having to look through the binoculars as opposed to looking down at a GPS unit is a disadvantage. For me it's a non-issue in part because the LRF locks on target so quickly.
I love this golf gadget. It sure makes the round more pleasant than pacing off yardages, speeds pace of play, and I can honestly say that I think it's saving me strokes already. What a great toy. Get it as a gift if you can. ;)
