Guys,
on a scale of 1 to 10, please rate how useful you feel down imaging is to your fishing success.
Printable View
Guys,
on a scale of 1 to 10, please rate how useful you feel down imaging is to your fishing success.
I'd rate mine as a solid 8 .... but, that's comparing it to a b/w 2d unit, and that's not really a apples to apples comparison. That would be a Lowrance Elite 5 DSI vs a Lowrance Strata 128, and several other (older) models of Lowrance depthfinders. I'm giving the DI capabilities such a high mark, simply because I can see an "image" of what's beneath the transducer versus a pixel blob rendering that I would have to interpret.
To me, actually "seeing" that it is a tree, brushpile, stump, or whatever ... vs ... seeing a b/w or color "blob" of pixels, and basically having to guess what it is, makes Down Imaging more advantageous.
... cp :kewl
Let's see ...
For dropshottin about a 8 or 9 ...
For vertical jiggin about a 8 or 9 ...
For Ky riggin about a 8 or 9 ...
For dock shootin about a 0 ...
For casting about a 0 ...
For long linin about a 0 ...
For crankin about a 0 ...
For spider riggin about a 0 ...
But then that's just me ...
Rickie
On the bow I give it an 8.
1 for me, I mainly cast jigs.
X2. Love to see the brush with them fish hovering over it!Quote:
Originally Posted by rnvinc
so thus far, everyone seems to like DI on the bow and don't really use it much at the helm,
I was envisioning SI to find brush and DI to get a good look at it, see if it's worth fishing.
My ideal would be just that. Side at the helm then drop a waypoint on something I found. Send that waypoint via network to bow to pick it apart with the di. My only problem is I cannot afford a side image unit lol. I guess I got to do with my di.
Very interesting !! Except for the dock shooting score, I would think Down Image scores would be just the opposite of yours, Rickie. :scratchhead :donoQuote:
Originally Posted by rnvinc
Seems like most any fishing method that requires the boat to be in constant motion, would be a good fit for DI ... as it would show you a "picture image" of what it is you're going over. With that in mind, one would think that ... if slow presentations like using a Ky Lake Rig, Drop Shot Rig, or Vertical Jigging would receive a 8-9 score --- and DI image production requires a little speed for best results --- then constant motion methods like crankbait/jig trolling should receive a better score than a zero.
Now, of course, one has to remove the influence factors of the GPS & mapping capabilities, when answering the question of what score you'd give DI (alone) ... as it affects your fishing success. And I can see where Spider Rigging may receive a low to middle range score, seeing as how your baits are well in front of the DI scanning range ... and GPS waypoints or map contours would be a greater influencing factor ... but why would near stationary methods receive such high scores, and constant motion/speed methods get zero's ??? Are your scores pursuant to the use of "regular" DI, or the 360* imaging unit ??
... cp :kewl
My scoring would pertain to how some "vertical presentations" are using the DI technology...
The DI info is generally "what was passed over" in opposition to methods that need info from the MFD unit of "what's coming up ahead"...or "what's straight under the xducer...or "what's out to the sides of the boat"...
Some using vertical presentations are incorporating a system of "passing over a marked waypoint" with DI to determine if there are fish holding on the structure/brush..
*If there are fish ...then a buoy would be tossed out and the boat repositioned to fish the structure with the 2d...
*If there are no fish...then continue on to the next marked waypoint...
Conversely....longlinin,cranking, and other faster type trolling main focus is "what's ahead of the boat"...wherein, the chart is the most important tool...and DI's narrow beam (from to back) does not give as much pre-warning as the 2d cone shaped beam...of structure "coming up" to give time to adjust the troll pattern from potential hangups or problems...
DI's beam angle seems a little short (sideways wise) to get any useful info from under a dock where a SI beam could potentially pick up suspended fish under the dock..
Once again, these are just my opinions of DI usefulness broken down into the different fishing methods...as each method requires a different type (or scenario) of sonar unit information needed...
Rickie