Here's another
Here's another
Originally Posted by stratos4life
Here's another
Love it!!
Great images, thanks for sharing.
now stretch it out to 400 per side
i agree. thats what ive been saying. the lower you set the range the larger objects will appear. dont expect to see a crappie when you scanning 400 feet to each side
it is possible, but not the intended use of side scan. finding structure is
At 400 ft your not gonna see much i wouldn't think and a fish that would be a negative. I would rather have a unit that you say blacks out at 80 and be able to utilize it for it's purpose, than to say yeah I can scan 800 ft of water but I'm disappointed.
Isolated bass, even big ones are extremely hard to detect on SideScan.
thats just it. the purpose of structure scan is not to find fish...its to find STRUCTURE. finding fish is possible but its not the intended use. if you find the structure you usually find the fish
Well why do you care to see fish then? I can see both structure and fish and not just in the water column but your right I can't scan 400 ft both sides But what I do scan looks good and does,what I think it should.
For you that's all that matters. Great image too.
Good images is a plus for me. He simply asked for a pic of fish out to the side I showed him. Now he is saying the unit is made to find structure. My point is why say it pretty much isn't possible then I show you and now it's made to find structure and not fish. I say it's for both if it's set up properly. But next time I'll just back out and stay on the lowrance page.
Dang it, I thought I bought a fish finder:
Yessss!!!! Looks awesome!!! I use mine to find fish also, regardlessDang it, I thought I bought a fish finder:
of what some say it was "designed" to do.
------------------------
Last edited by TroyBoy30; 08-27-2015 at 11:39 AM.
You asked to show us pictures showing individual fish, and that is what he did. He "picked" the ones he had.
Lowrances SS beams tend to be more dense and focused to an area closer to the boat (which is why that was my choice ultimately). I have an easier time finding fish with SS that are closer to the boat with Lowrance than with Hbird. There were many times, with my bird, that I would see fish on 2d and completely miss them with SI. Not so much with my Lowrance. Some call this an issue with range, but I call it focusing more around the areas closer to the boat, which is where I fish anyways. Near the boat!! And I have had both, at one point both at the same time.
Just because lots of inexperienced users post shotty lowrance pictures on here with limited range doesn't mean its range is limited. You can keep taking your below the belt shots at Lowrance, but that doesn't push any of us to hop on board with the bird or garmin.
I have plenty of experience with the bird.
Can you see the fish here? Maybe not........
Why do you keep telling us to interpret your images of 80-100', when we all clearly agree that it is hard to spot fish at that range?
And yea, this is blacking out at 80'..............
Monte, sorry to jack your thread. Sometimes you can give people proof to back up your thesis, yet you just can't win an argument with them.
Can't see the stripers here either...........
Blacking out at 80'
Can't see the school of fish on the left? Again blacking out............
And the downscan blows........
Peace guys, Im out.........
5ft on a grass flat see the white dots to the left that's pvc pipes and still not blacking out.
all of those shots show multiple fish. look at the range of the lowrance shot. 80ft! no one ever said its impossible to see fish. I said it difficult to see individual fish...meaning 1 fish
Last edited by TroyBoy30; 02-04-2016 at 06:11 AM.
You didn't say show us a pic with 1 bass at 400'. You were clearly implying that you just cannot see single fish with SS, which was disproved. This is the statement that started this whole dilemma. Also, plenty of people scan at 50-60' when looking for FISH. I run SS on my trolling motor linked to my console graph to see which way the schools shift. This has increased my catch immensely.
Reply With Quote
