My point exactly and my image was showing that shallow water isn't an issue either. But I don't care, either way I'm impressed with a lot of the brands while some of us complain about the same thing. Why scan short that's useless then it's I scan far and it's still useless. Either way I'll keep using my lowrance and you use whatever will,make you happy.Originally Posted by rotus623
-----------
Last edited by TroyBoy30; 02-04-2016 at 06:09 AM.
Once again..............
5 bass in 100' beam. Next time Ill tell the other 4 to get lost so I can meet your demands. And you keep saying that anything under 100' is not useable but that is just not true. I see why so many people on here steer clear from your biased ignorance.
You just choose not to hear/see anything that proves against your point.
Show me one spot where I said Under 100 is not usable. There is obviously a reading comprehension issue here. I've never said that. I assume it's usable for you Since that shot is in 8.8 foot of water. If I scan at 40 ft in the depths we fish all I will see is the water column. Normally for a 10 inch screen 80-100 ft is the recommended scan range. At least that's the recommendation made by Doug in the Humminbird section.
That's also not 1 bass, it's 5 with an obvious shadow. Those are easy to see. My point was a lot of times there are fish and they are simply hard to see by inexperienced users.
I keep using this pic as an example because it shows some obvious fish and some not so obvious fish. This is only at 80 ft and it's very hard to tell what dots are fish and what dots aren't fish. I know which are fish because I dropped a waypoint and turned around and caught them. Most will see the obvious school of fish and totally miss the second one
Last edited by TroyBoy30; 08-27-2015 at 02:43 PM.
Can you circle the not-so-obvious fish? I am trying to learn as much as possible. Thanks.Show me one spot where I said Under 100 is not usable. There is obviously a reading comprehension issue here. I've never said that. I assume it's usable for you Since that shot is in 8.8 foot of water. If I scan at 40 ft in the depths we fish all I will see is the water column. Normally for a 10 inch screen 80-100 ft is the recommended scan range. At least that's the recommendation made by Doug in the Humminbird section.
That's also not 1 bass, it's 5 with an obvious shadow. Those are easy to see. My point was a lot of times there are fish and they are simply hard to see by inexperienced users.
I keep using this pic as an example because it shows some obvious fish and some not so obvious fish. This is only at 80 ft and it's very hard to tell what dots are fish and what dots aren't fish. I know which are fish because I dropped a waypoint and turned around and caught them. Most will see the obvious school of fish and totally miss the second one
One thing you need to keep in mind. The bigger the scale the smaller the fish or single fish is going to be. I keep mine on 80 or less looking for schools. If you get much above this you are only going to see major terrain changes and large objects.
With Raymarine you can adjust your transducer out and you will lose some between down and side. This will allow you to look under docks and objects really shallow that you would miss other wise. They have a demo looking under a dock in 2-3 ft of water on Raymarine site. You just need to know if your going to fish deep or shallow and just for the job.
Raymarine does a great job at the water column on the side imaging.
Would you give me the link? I can't find it on the Raymarine website.One thing you need to keep in mind. The bigger the scale the smaller the fish or single fish is going to be. I keep mine on 80 or less looking for schools. If you get much above this you are only going to see major terrain changes and large objects.
With Raymarine you can adjust your transducer out and you will lose some between down and side. This will allow you to look under docks and objects really shallow that you would miss other wise. They have a demo looking under a dock in 2-3 ft of water on Raymarine site. You just need to know if your going to fish deep or shallow and just for the job.
Raymarine does a great job at the water column on the side imaging.
Thanks
no i cannot. that's my point. if those fish weren't grouped like that, how would you ever be able to differentiate them from all the other clutter
a lot of improvements have been made for soft object returns with the new batch of garmin transducers though. namely the GT52
Last edited by TroyBoy30; 02-05-2016 at 07:21 AM.
They did a demo with the prostaff guy deminstating it. They where really impressed. I will try and see if they have it recorded.
Being one of those inexperienced users, care to share the proper setup I need to use...........cause i have black screen past 80ft on my HDS5 Gen2 with LSS-1You 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?
You need to be on 455 and not 800
Reply With Quote
