I saw some distinctive beds with the 797 last weekend.I was in about 5' water.I'm sure the upper end units,would show these with no problem.
Printable View
I saw some distinctive beds with the 797 last weekend.I was in about 5' water.I'm sure the upper end units,would show these with no problem.
I regularly use mine in water that is 6ft or less. You can see to structure, and can find some subtle differences. Still well worth it. The best was when I was in 18inches of water and scanning, all the trails left behind where the props on big boats had torn up the ground were VERY visible as they cast shadows. In one spot, these trails where the spots holding fish, it directed me to the most proptrails (and most fish).
This year, I will be using sidescan for bottom hardness changes in the shallow bays - using the red/green color pallet. Should be interesting seeing what I find with where I know the fish like to hold. Might even find some new spots.
I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by mduncan62
If I see a light area farther out, then I know that the water get shallower, maybe a hump. If I see a dark area, I might have a depression. Those are changes that fish sometimes like to hang out in.
That's useful information.
AgreedQuote:
Originally Posted by Stymie
I have caught more fish of all the major species(BY FAR) from a 1 foot depressed area (maybe 10x 20 yards) in one bay than the entire rest of that bay - including the mouth - Maybe a 9-1 difference.
Agreed to a certain point. The deeper the water, the further and clearer your scan will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie
If your transducer is in 5 feet of water and 20 ft the right of the boat there's a hump that raises up 3 feet, are you going to tell me that you are going to get useful data past that hump? Not going to happen. If that area also had tons of stumps that are just under the water or close to it, your scans aren't going to go very far.
If you are getting true 180ft scans in 5 ft of water, please record them and show us.
And Wasilver, how deep of water are you scanning in the bay?
Not my pic, but its in 2-3 feet of water
Reelfoot Lake Stumps / Logs
The bay I was speaking of, lowest point is 6 feet, most at 4-5 feet.
1st off, that green pallet is the worst, but there is usable data in the shot. So lets see the full 160 that stymie scans. It's not realistic to view a 160ft in 3-4ft of water, and even less realistic on anything less then an 1198 or HDS8 or 10. If you have an a 798 or hds-5 you aren't going to be scanning 80ft on both sides while trying to watch it. You have to be realistic with what you are working with and limitations. Sure a 798 will scan 150ft on both sides, is it realistic to think you can identify everything on that small screen, not at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasilvers
Better yet, this guy does good images... It's at 3ft deep, looks like it started shallower at 125 ft out to each side (cause that's where the land was) - if you scroll down, he analyzes the image, one of the 'fish' was a 3lb bass...
BBC Boards: Shallow water Side Imaging - 3.1 Foot
I have the 798 series, and I usually scan at 75-85 feet out to each side, anything more and you are just looking for major structure and will miss the finer detail. But the crappie still show up!
(hope the mods don't mind me linking to these other sites, I didn't really read 'the agreement' when asked as I signed up)
Great image from an 1100series, I'd love to see the same from a 700-800 series.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasilvers
nice work thanks