New Fish Finders

[skookum9]

I have a handheld Lowrance GPS unit that reads less than 1 MPH. I believe it reads in tenths of MPH's but I can't remember for certain and I left it on my boat which is over at my Dad's right now. I'll have to double check to be certain but I am almost positive that I have measured speeds that slow in the past. Now you've got me starting to doubt my memory about this. I am curious about how slow you feel you need to measure your speed at. Most, although not all, trolling that I know about occurs at 1 MPH and above. At these lower speeds, like .8 MPH, I just rely on the action of my flasher to tell me when I've achieved the correct speed. If I wanted to be more precise, I would use a true water speed meter, since this will factor in water currents as well and give me a really accurate measure. There is one made here locally in Oregon or you can simply make one yourself out of some simple tools.

 

[Targa165]

Hello everyone, I've been reading this site since last summer but have never posted anything before. It's a great site with lots of info, and it's been a real wealth of knowledge for someone that is just getting started with kokanee fishing. I had to get in on this thread because I am dieing to tell someone that gives a hoot about my purchase at Cabelas this last weekend. I jumped in all the way with a new Lowrance HDS-5 with lake insight and I also bought the new Minn Kota power drive V2 with i-pilot. I can't wait to get on a lake and try them out. From what I've read the HDS is the newest thing in fishfinder/GPS systems. The new i-pilot by Minn Kota is going to make handling a boat and fishing soooo much easier. I'm anxious for the ice to be gone so I can get on the water and put this stuff to use. Once again thanks everyone for all the great info provided on this site. I don't know if I am posting this right since I have never posted anything here before, but here goes. click

 

[RAHFISH]

I have a handheld Lowrance GPS unit that reads less than 1 MPH. I believe it reads in tenths of MPH's but I can't remember for certain and I left it on my boat which is over at my Dad's right now. I'll have to double check to be certain but I am almost positive that I have measured speeds that slow in the past. Now you've got me starting to doubt my memory about this. I am curious about how slow you feel you need to measure your speed at. Most, although not all, trolling that I know about occurs at 1 MPH and above. At these lower speeds, like .8 MPH, I just rely on the action of my flasher to tell me when I've achieved the correct speed. If I wanted to be more precise, I would use a true water speed meter, since this will factor in water currents as well and give me a really accurate measure. There is one made here locally in Oregon or you can simply make one yourself out of some simple tools.

Thanks for the reply--I would be very interested in what you find on the readings below 1mph, hope I am wrong and I can make them read that low. I find that I do a fair amount of trolling below the 1mph threshold and would like to know for reference where I am at. I try to keep records and having the data would be useful. I do a lot of salt water fishing in tides and currents and the flasher/dodger action is certainly something I watch carefully, along with the normal GPS data to measure actual speed of presentation.

I am familiar with the precision units that go to lower but do not favor going that way because it becomes one more piece of gear to store (and for me to step on!!)

Then again, this whole problem might just be frustrated engineer worrying about cr*p when you are not getting bit!!

Once again, thanks---RAHFISH

 

[skookum9]

Okay, your last sentence has me laughing my backside off, but it is probably more true than any of us would hope. This sport tends to turn us all into little mini-engineers and you hit that nail on the head about how we worry about the most trivial when not getting bit. I still favor the water speed device idea, I think the local one is called accu-troll but I'm not sure. I'm hitting the water for a few hours in the morning so I'll try to remember to check my GPS for low speed readings. I sure do wish they would have stocked kokes here in the lake in my backyard, would have made it a more interesting fishery.

 

[skookum9]

Rahfish, you were so right, I guess I had just never noticed before. My GPS unit will read in 1/100th of MPH but won't read anything less than 1.00. I suspect that this may have to do with accuracy issues since GPS systems are not all that accurate but I don't know for sure. Because of the lack of accuracy of a GPS in general, I would still recommend the accu-troll unit, or one like it. Unless of course you happen to have DGPS in your area and then that's about as precise as you can get. I tried to troll at lower speeds and just found that it was too slow for my personal taste. Good luck on your search and happy fishing!

 

[Kokonuts]

Been reading the reports and they all sound good BUT very $$$$$$!

Sooo what would be a good basic unit under $500 for those of us with a tight budget and are too old to learn all the fancy gizmos on the larger units?

.....thumbsup.......Kokonuts

 

[skookum9]

My wife was kind enough to have bought me a wonderful unit last year. It was a super great price because it was on sale at Bi-Mart. I think she only paid $150 for it at the time. It doesn't have all the fancy bells and whistles on it but it does have a dual frequency transducer and it is a color unit. It also gives you a choice of fish symbols or sonar marks so you can get a more real reading if you'd like. She bought me an Eagle 320C. Not at all the fanciest but I wanted it because of its cheap cost and magnificent color display. Also, it was for my 10ft pontoon craft that I fish out of the most so I didn't need everything. I have seen a lot fancier units that didn't have as nice of display and that was the most important feature to me. What good is a FF if you can't see what it says because the light is glaring off the screen. Now if I didn't already have a reliable hand-held GPS unit then I would have wanted this feature on my FF but since I do, that was a lot of money I was able to save.

 

[Petty4life]

im looking at adding a second unit to my boat but im being picky101idea101

 

[SuperD]

For people on a buget, it boils down to pixels. Get the most pixels you can find in your price range. My fish finder is really a depth finder on my boat. I use it to select water depth and target arches if I see them. That's about the extent of my techno wizardry. If you buy smaller screen units, think about saving for a second unit that you use as the GPS. I know a few guys that have the 2 of the same FF/GPS units and use one screen as full GPS and one unit as full FF rather than spliting them and not seeing much of either screen.

 

[Petty4life]

ive got a lcx27c at the helm and am looking to put something between a lowrance 510c-525c on the back of the boat

 

[gonefishing]

Try this in the $500.00 Range

Lowrance 5HDX Just the fish finder without the Maping technologies

Turned mine HDS on today, mounted right in front of the steering wheel. Easy to use

and excellent color and pixels I was very impressed. Of course my old Black

and white was easy to beat. The new HD Scaning is a full 120 degrees.

Gives you a broader look rather that the 40 - 60 degrees of many units.

Worth looking at at least.

 

[skookum9]

If you're gonna go for that unit then I would think you just about have to get the mapping for it. It would almost be a shame not to. It's a lot of money to spend on a nice FF but what a nice machine once you've got it. I thought the price on that unit was over $800 though. Still, if I had an extra $1200 or so laying around, I'd be wanting to get the 7HDS. Of course, it would do me no good because you've got to be a good bit smarter than me to figure out how to get all the good out of a machine like that. The color display on the Lowrance, (and Eagle), units is just unbelievable to me. So much better than anything I've ever used before.

 

[dubob]

I think the Lowrance site says that the 83/200 transducer is designed for the shallower waters found in lakes, while the 50/200 is optimized for deeper water.

I went back and took a second look at that. I even called Lowrance back to discuss it some more and did some more research vie the Net and discovered some more stuff.

First off, transducer selection should included considerations of the transducer's operating frequency, cone angle and type of installation. There aren’t that many choices for frequency. Lowrance offers 2 choices for the HDS Series; 50/200 kHz and 83/200 kHz. The 50/200 kHz model is dual-frequency capable, meaning it uses both 50 and 200 kHz transducers. The 83/200 kHz model is dual-search capable, allowing for both 83 and 200 kHz operation. Typically, the high frequency (200 kHz) sonar provides the best resolution and definition of structure and targets due to its shorter wave length (0.29 inches/cycle). It excels at showing minute details of the underwater world. Fifty and 83 kHz frequencies have much greater depth penetration capability, but show less definition due to a longer wavelength (longer than 1 inch/cycle).

Coverage area is determined by the cone angle. The dual-frequency transducers come with both a narrow (12°) 200 kHz and a wide (35°) 50 kHz cone angles. And the dual-search transducers come with both a narrow (12°) 200 kHz and a wide (35°) 83 kHz cone angles. So the coverage area is the same with both choices.

The depth capability of your sonar units depends on its transmitter power, receiver, sensitivity, frequency, transducer and transducer installation. Other things that effect depth capability are: water conditions and type (all sonars will show deeper depth readings in fresh water than salt) and bottom conditions.

The bottom line, I guess, is that the 83 kHz has a shorter wavelength than 50 kHz and will therefore detect slightly smaller size fish that one is more likely to see in fresh water. And the tech I talked to at Lowrance this morning did say that the 83/200 kHz transducer is the better choice for fresh water. I either heard it wrong before or I wrote it down wrong before. Either way, I now stand corrected – I hope. Thanks for nudge Full_Monte. thumbsup

 

[jtravis2]

I bought one last season. It's a whole new world. Mine has the 83/200kz transducer combination. I am still learning about the unit. There's a lot built into it. I like being able to see my downrigger weight and dodger on the screen so I can anticipate changes in bottom contour. Besides being able to see where the fish are relative to my offering (depthwise), I can fish closer to structure with more confidence. Also, the split screen function helps me know where I am relative to previously marked hot-spots on the lake. My wife likes the feature of being able to return to port on a foggy day or on a lake with a lot of arms where we haven't fished before. The track we laid going out is easy to follow on return.

I recently bought the HDS8 and love it, still learning how to use it. Seeing the DR ball is no problem what adjustments have you made to see your dodger?
Thanks

 

[gonefishing]

I orderd and installed the HDS 5. I was lacking the space for anything larger. If anyone has the option, the HDS 8 is the way to go. The screen size is much better. The 5 is fine for me becuase I mounted mine right behind my steering wheel. The only issue is that the It is hard to read from a distance.

Upgrading to the navionics chip is really a plus. The mapping of lakes and setting way points on schools of fish is absolutely awesome.

Seeing my downrigger weight and knowing its actual depth is very nice. Something my old fish finder could not do.

The scroll speed is incredible. I had fish on the screen before my old even new they were close. I was very pleased with the speed of the tracking and its ability to see fish before my gear gets to the target.

Still learning all its capabitlities and getting used to switching screens and adjusting sonar for conditions is a little cumbersome, but after 3 days out, I was getting a handle on it. The more I used it the easier it became, and the more I appreciated this unit.