Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Fontana, NC
    Posts
    5,460

    Comparison Screenshots GT50,51,52

    These will be separated in two posts. Today I did some comparative screenshots of a tree using the DownVu/ClearVu from the GT50. GT51, GT52, GT22, CV22 and Lowrance LSS1 on Gen1. I tried to make each pass exactly the same. That is near impossible to do. Even though I used landmarks to orient the pass often I could see differences on the 2d, depth, etc. Only a couple of feet would make a lot of difference. Is this an apples to apples comparison. Nearly, but not. I made several passes with each transducer/frequency combination. Then I cherry picked the best screenshot from each. The 2d is shown beside the down sonar so you can judge just how comparable the ClearVu is. If the look of the 2d is different, if the depth was different, then the pass was slightly different. Even with all the excuses I am making, I still think this presents a fair enough comparison to judge differences as to detail capability. I used default settings and fixed range. The fixed range is essential for making comparisons. On the Lowrance I did not have a default contrast. So I used my subjective judgment and figured that 65 on the Lowrance looked most like the Garmin default. Future tests are probably not an option as our water is coming up about one foot per day. Changes in depth definitely make later comparisons to these screenshots not apples to apples. I also had to resize the Garmin shots as they were much larger than the LSS. Resizing these to a smaller size caused the loss of some detail on the Garmin shots.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    My wife asks if I'm going to fish every day. I can't fish every day. Some days I might be sick.

  2. Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Harwick Pa
    Posts
    931
    #2

  3. Member Astrochris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    308
    #3
    That is great work LW,, so time consuming.
    Sacrificing your precious time on the water to help us out is a sign of incredible commitment to Garmin users.

    Thank you
    Cheers


    C//

  4. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    998
    #4
    Thank you Leonard. Appreciate your efforts greatly, and all that you bring to the table. I have no doubt that this was about as objective and honest a comparison as one could hope to see. I have the GT52HW on my 93sv chirp. Supports everything I thought I was seeing, and then some. Great to get to see the comparisons. There are differences in the ducers that many of us never considered. I also looked at the next post. I thought the comparison to Lowrance (albeit Gen1--IDK if that matters, I have no experience here) was eye opening. The CV part.......hmmm. Thanks again. Very good work.

  5. Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Harwick Pa
    Posts
    931
    #5
    ya thats great work

    but damn if Garmin's 2D isnt sharp as hell in all of those, huh?

  6. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Louisville Ky
    Posts
    15,367
    #6
    This was a lot of work so I must say many thanks. Just my .02 but I cant see much difference between the gt52/50 and the Lowrance. The Lowrance seems to be maybe a bit more "delicate" of a pic but the GT's seem more bold. To me its more of what do you like. Im reallyglad to have seen these as I was really quesioning my Garmin purcase.

    Any chance you will do side scan ? Yes I cant blame you if you said heck no

  7. Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Albany, MS
    Posts
    1,919
    #7
    I have a chirp 93sv. Will a GT 52 transducer produce the same quality images on my unit as yours?
    2013 Pro Team 190
    2013 Mercury 115 Optimax Pro XS
    Minn Kota 70# Edge
    22p LightSpeed Prop
    Humminbird 898 at console
    Humminbird 598 at bow

  8. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Fontana, NC
    Posts
    5,460
    #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Axkiker View Post
    This was a lot of work so I must say many thanks. Just my .02 but I cant see much difference between the gt52/50 and the Lowrance. The Lowrance seems to be maybe a bit more "delicate" of a pic but the GT's seem more bold. To me its more of what do you like. Im reallyglad to have seen these as I was really quesioning my Garmin purcase.

    Any chance you will do side scan ? Yes I cant blame you if you said heck no
    There is really not a need to. The elements of the GT50,51, & 52 are different from transducer to transducer. Within each transducer the down and side elements are the same. The side views should have identical detail. The smaller the front to back part of the cone, the better the detail, at the right speed of the boat. That's a variable I did not account for.

    GT50 1.1x53@455 0.7x 30@800
    GT51 2.0x51@260 1.4x29@455
    GT52 2.0x50@455 1.0x30@800

    Correction: Since this post is tied to the one on the GT22/CV22 I need to point out that the down sonar and the side sonar on the CV22 would be quite difference since it doesn't have a down element. The side sonar on the CV22 and the GT22 would be the same.
    Last edited by LWINCHESTER2; 04-03-2017 at 06:57 AM. Reason: Correction
    My wife asks if I'm going to fish every day. I can't fish every day. Some days I might be sick.

  9. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Fontana, NC
    Posts
    5,460
    #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Tommy O. View Post
    I have a chirp 93sv. Will a GT 52 transducer produce the same quality images on my unit as yours?
    I used a 7610xsv for this but I have a chirp 93sv. Haven't notice a difference.
    My wife asks if I'm going to fish every day. I can't fish every day. Some days I might be sick.

  10. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    lewisburg
    Posts
    1,067
    #10
    Correct me if I'm wrong but did you scan with a cv transducer ? All the pics i saw were using a gt transducer with the down crystal

  11. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Fontana, NC
    Posts
    5,460
    My wife asks if I'm going to fish every day. I can't fish every day. Some days I might be sick.

  12. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    lewisburg
    Posts
    1,067
    #12
    Yes just saw that sorry and thank you for your work

  13. Member MonteSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    3,184
    #13
    Great job. As said not too much difference between Garmin Transducers.

  14. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    232
    #14
    Quote Originally Posted by LWINCHESTER2 View Post
    There is really not a need to. The elements of the GT50,51, & 52 are different from transducer to transducer. Within each transducer the down and side elements are the same. The side views should have identical detail. The smaller the front to back part of the cone, the better the detail, at the right speed of the boat. That's a variable I did not account for.

    GT50 1.1x53@455 0.7x 30@800
    GT51 2.0x51@260 1.4x29@455
    GT52 2.0x50@455 1.0x30@800

    Correction: Since this post is tied to the one on the GT22/CV22 I need to point out that the down sonar and the side sonar on the CV22 would be quite difference since it doesn't have a down element. The side sonar on the CV22 and the GT22 would be the same.
    It's even more complicated. Since Garmin is CHIRPing also for the scanning sonars the transducer Q-factors and CHIRP bandwidths's will have to be taken into account. If the Q-factor of GT50 and GT51 were the same reducing the frequency from 800 to 455 or 455 to 260 kHz will reduce the resolution by 43%. But the Q-factors are not the same, GT50 has for 455kHz a Q-factor of about 7.5 while GT51 has a Q-factor of 22.7 at 455 kHz. GT51 has a Q-factor of 8.7 at 260 kHz so the resolution is actually better at 260kHz than 455 kHz for this model.

  15. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Fontana, NC
    Posts
    5,460
    #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Scuirus View Post
    It's even more complicated. Since Garmin is CHIRPing also for the scanning sonars the transducer Q-factors and CHIRP bandwidths's will have to be taken into account. If the Q-factor of GT50 and GT51 were the same reducing the frequency from 800 to 455 or 455 to 260 kHz will reduce the resolution by 43%. But the Q-factors are not the same, GT50 has for 455kHz a Q-factor of about 7.5 while GT51 has a Q-factor of 22.7 at 455 kHz. GT51 has a Q-factor of 8.7 at 260 kHz so the resolution is actually better at 260kHz than 455 kHz for this model.
    Really interesting and I'm not disagreeing. How do you get the Q-factor numbers? You must have the Garmin engineers children kidnapped and held somewhere.
    My wife asks if I'm going to fish every day. I can't fish every day. Some days I might be sick.

  16. Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Clarks Hill Lake
    Posts
    20,876
    #16
    not sure where those numbers came from but im pretty sure they aint close

  17. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    232
    #17
    Why do you think these numbers incorrect?

    The Q-factors were calculated by me based on CHIRP bandwidth information given by Garmin when 76xx series and the new transducers were introduced.

  18. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Benton, KY
    Posts
    587
    #18
    Quote Originally Posted by TroyBoy30 View Post
    not sure where those numbers came from but im pretty sure they aint close
    Dang Troy... you should know him from THT ...

    Rickie

  19. Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Clarks Hill Lake
    Posts
    20,876
    #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Scuirus View Post
    Why do you think these numbers incorrect?

    The Q-factors were calculated by me based on CHIRP bandwidth information given by Garmin when 76xx series and the new transducers were introduced.
    just cause ive seen semper post q factor numbers that are much lower. at least for the gt52

  20. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    232
    #20
    Which numbers did Gil post for GT52?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast