How good do side imaging units work in shallow lakes? The lake I normally fish is 9'-10' deep on average. How far out to the sides can I expect a side imaging unit see? Trying to figure out if it would be worth the cost for shallow lakes. Thanks.
Printable View
How good do side imaging units work in shallow lakes? The lake I normally fish is 9'-10' deep on average. How far out to the sides can I expect a side imaging unit see? Trying to figure out if it would be worth the cost for shallow lakes. Thanks.
This time of year, I use mine in shallow water of <4 feet a lot. I keep the distance around 50-80 feet. I'm looking for structure. 50-80 seems to give me decent resolution for what I'm doing.
So, in 4' of water the unit will "see" 50'-80'?
mine give me a real good look. there is a 2' difference between the transom mounted and the bow mounted on the trolling motor. i have one set at 110' and the other at 150'. your cursor will tell you distance from boat and i'm working on depth at cursor. bigger screens are better.
Might see further. This range is my preference most of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by sah
Do to the shape of the 455khz vs the 800 khz sonar beam...I use the 455 in very shallow water....(5ft or less)...
Read here...
http://www.crappie.com/crappie/fishi...am-shapes.html
Rickie
They work fine in shallow water, just need to have it on shallow setting.. Yes you can see beds and anything else that is there. A definite time saver.
What do you mean by Shallow Setting.Quote:
Originally Posted by brushnjigs
Lowrance has a shallow setting,,not sure on the birds if they have itQuote:
Originally Posted by wilbur
That would be 100'-160' in 4' of water or less, if what he's saying is true. I would think that if you had 160ft of 4ft water, the probability of getting useful information goes down a little. Any rise in the bottom or even structure in water that shallow will stop your scan.Quote:
Originally Posted by sah
In no way am I saying it doesn't work well, I'm just saying the limitations get compounded in water that shallow.
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
Mike, 80 feet is about 4 boat lengths. That really isn't that far.
You are only trying to be argumentative. You and I both know that if we see a bunch of stumps 40-45 feet away, that those stumps have our attention. Don't really care what is beyond them. I'm heading to those stumps.
I have my unit set this way, its my preference. It works for me. If your unit doesn't scan this far, take it up with your manufacturer.
80FT on each side isn't realistic on a 700 series though. 30 ft is.
I have a 798 and always use 80 feet. You might have meant to say 150 was not possible-I'll admit that 150 + is harder to see but structure still shows up. On new lakes, I use the max (250?) first to get an idea of where to start, then zero in on structure.
Edit: I wish I had my old computer with pictures when I was pulling at 125-150 feet. But your concern seems to be the screen size. I'll add this, a 798 screen is 640-640 resolution. An 898 screen is 480x800 - now take some off for the info screen locked on the left of the 898 and you have about 640 left. So the 798 and 898 are about equal as far as resolution go - in my eyes- (the 898 adds 800 mhz and the hd transducer).
Here is what you are looking for... Do I wish I had a bigger screen to look at? Am I delighted with my smaller unit? Absolutely to both of those questions. I can say though, I wouldn't be here if I had bought an 1197 back then, my wife would have killed me :)