Posts: 682
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
Just curious if any experts in the fish finder world exist out there. I'm not looking to start the debate between the normal fishfinder vs the flasher (vexilar, marcum, etc). I know a million posts have been put out there about that!!
I'm curious more on the details and thoughts of normal sonar fishfinders. For example, is power "that" important? 1500 watts vs 2000 watts. What do I gain? Also, 188 vs 200.. is that worth it on the other "power" one (can't remember off the top of my head).
I understand cones, 9, 20, 60 or whatever and can do math. I'm curious is 60 just too much or is there a limit in depth where is just covers "too much" in people's opinion.
I'm just looking for some hard facts on what all the technology of a finder really does for me, etc.
I have a fishing buddy 1200, with a 9 deg cone and only 250 watts of power. I'm going to upgrade, but want to know if I really should, before I do and what I might gain by doing so. I can't afford a flasher, so again, please don't turn this into a debate. I know they are cool, but so are fish finders in general, they are all COOL! [  ]
Thanks in advance - F4F
[signature]
Posts: 1,614
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation:
0
Hey F4F-
A few more facts would help. What depth range do you typically fish (30 ft or less? 50 ft? 80-100?)? Do you want something that will show your jig 100' down? Do you want it primarily for open water fishing or for ice fishing?
[signature]
Posts: 682
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
Primary ice fishing in < 30ft of water (75% of the time). I do hit the Gorge every now and then and fish depths 30+ to 70'ish.
F4F
[signature]
Posts: 15,546
Threads: 1,315
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
13
Here is a good thread on the subject:
[url "http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/gforum/gforum.cgi?post=90962;#90962"]http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/gforum/gforum.cgi?post=90962;#90962[/url]
[signature]
Posts: 5,856
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
Good suggestions by everyone.
Power does matter. If you can afford it, go bigger. Some will claim it scares the fish, that is rubbish. I can generally catch more fish using the finder, than those in my party not using one.
Cone angle is an interesting dilemma. If you are only fishing flat bottomed lakes, like Schofield, and most areas of the berry, or even Utah Lake and Willard bay, go for the wider cone angle...as in shallow water it will show you more area, and in theory more fish. However if you fish areas with steeply sloping banks, the finder is going to tell you the depth of the shallowest part of its cone. Therefore the wider the cone, the shallower the finder thinks the water is. I have a 20 degree cone angle, and when fishing Causey, there is generally 3-5 feet of water beneath the bottom that doesn't show up on the finder. So make your choice based on the types of water you fish. Some of the more expensive units, have dual cone capabilities. For example the new Garmin 250 dual frequency, can use either a 20 degree cone or a 45 degree cone, so one of these units might be worth your money if you fish in a large variety of settings.
Basically, go with as much power as you can afford...for those of us stuck on a budget, I think the Eagle units are great, they have a lot of great features, are in the moderate power range, and usually have really good screen resolutions for the price you pay.
Hope you can find one that will fit your needs.
[signature]
Posts: 864
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2003
Reputation:
0
Power is certainly better, especially with cone angle. I have a Vexilar FL-8se with a 15degree cone transducer. That translates to about a 10 foot diameter circle of read on the bottom at a 40 foot depth. It also allows for greater separation of targets. I can easily see 2 "marks" on my display from the 12" separation of my bottom jig, and the flasher I use just above it.
But the point made above is very accurate: "How deep do you plan to fish most often?"
[signature]
Posts: 145
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
High powered sonars are not necessary on most freshwater in this area. They help in really deep water and there isn't much of that around here. A better thing to look for is pixel count in the vertical screen dimension. The more pixels, the finer resolution of the image on the screen. A single pixel of a 160 pixel sonar represents 2.25 inches in 30 feet of water. A single pixel of a 480 pixel sonar represents .75 inches in 30 feet of water. A narrow cone angle will give you better resolution of bottom structure. Also there will be less "dead space" in the cone area when the bottom is steep. As stated above, the wide cone angles will return the depth of the earliest return from a steeply sloped bottom and fish in the deeper portion of the cone area will be hidden. A wide cone angle will display more fish if the bottom is flat. Dont overlook a color screen. Color displays show more information on the screen relating to the density of the objects (fish) returning the sonar signal. A color change from blue to red or from red to yellow is easier to see than a slight difference in shade of grey. This makes it easier to distinguish hard vs. soft bottom, fish laying on bottom, or fish in weeds or brushy structure.
I'd go for higher pixel resolution and color over power (watts) for any water less than 200 or 300 feet depth. More power doesn't hurt anything though.
[signature]
Posts: 682
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
I've been researching them for a month and using everyone's comments, I'm leaning on this one:
[url "http://www.humminbird.com/products.asp?ID=365"]http://www.humminbird.com/products.asp?ID=365[/url]
I can get it < $200, get the dual transmitters, the 640 vertical pixels and the power. Any thoughts?
F4F
[signature]
Posts: 682
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
Just to add to that. Do you think the dual transmitters concept is helpful and slick?
F4F
[signature]
Posts: 1,244
Threads: 10
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
I researched this quite a bit before buying mine. A lot of finders have a lot of 'bells and whistles' that aren't necessary.
As has been stated, the 3 most important things are power, cone, and pixels.
Power combined with pixels can really help define what you are seeing down there. This is especially helpful ice fishing when you want to see your jig and any little thing going on down there.
Without adequate resolution (pixels) the extra power doesn't do you a lot of good.
If you are primarily ice fishing I would go with the 20 degree cone. 9 degree might be good in deeper lakes, but I want to know when a fish is coming into the area of my bait. I have had countless times where I have seen a fish show up on the finder at a different depth than my bait. I reel up or down to that depth and get a bit instantly.
Ignore the little things like adding a little fish symbol when the finder thinks there is a fish down there. Though it might make a slow day seem more exciting, I get a LOT of false readings on that.
The side finder idea might be a good thing with ice fishing. Most people say to fish right off the bottom, but I have had a number of times where I have caught a stray fish right near the top when I'm not getting a bite down low. I've never used a side finder, though.
[signature]
Posts: 389
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
Nice unit. Power is good. Solid symbols for fish in the center of the cone, and hollow symbols for those on the edge is nice also. Target separation is good. Zoom looks good too. I like the alarm. My unit doesnt have one. Would really be helpful for those times when I am gazing off.[crazy] LED back lighting will help for your nights on Strawberry. Pixel density is good too. Looks like a good unit for the money. Just what we all need, another reason to go fishing!!!
I only have a single 20 degree transducer. I don't know that I miss a second one. I have 1500 watts peak to peak and it gets me to the bottom with my transducer.
Chester
[signature]
Posts: 863
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2003
Reputation:
0
I have the matrix-17 and love it,sounds like the 565 is about the same
[signature]
Posts: 5,856
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
Although I'm not familiar with humminbird units, that one looks like it would do the job for you nicely.
[signature]
Posts: 682
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
Thanks for all the help and input. I'll be ordering that one tonight and now I'm over anxious to try it out!
[cool]
F4F
[signature]
|
