Thread: down scan usefulness poll

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

I do not have 2d capabilities in my bow unit. I have my DI unit mounted on the TM. I have/do use the DI image while in a more or less stationary position, for vertical presentations, but with the idea/fact in mind that I'm going to be seeing horizontally stretched out images of cover (much the same as what I'm used to seeing with 2d, while stationary).
Now, I will have to quantify the fact that I'm used to a 20deg cone angle in previous 2d units. And in the normally less than 25 fow that I'm used to fishing, a 20deg cone only covers ~8ft diameter circle of bottom ... & progressively less diameter of water column from bottom to transducer. My DI unit's "angle", though only 6deg "thick", is 45/75deg wide (depending on using 455 or 800kHz setting). And, of course, I can split the screen between the two settings.

Consider, too, that I skipped past a large portion of the technological changes in depth finders ... skipping over the dual frequency 2d, color 2d, etc. and went from a series of low end b/w 2d depthfinders to a DI unit with GPS, mapping, water temp, waypoint marking, speed registering, color imaging capabilities, which can be customized to my preferences. I will also admit that I bought the unit primarily for those capabilities, as much as or moreso than for the DI image capabilities. I've just learned to admire the DI images, over the pixel blob images of 2d, as they take a lot less "interpretation" (or experience) to understand what's being shown. I'm still in the newbie learning phase of DI, so I'm hoping to continue to get better at using its capabilities.

... cp

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.

Originally Posted by rnvinc

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

X2. Love to see the brush with them fish hovering over it!

Originally Posted by rnvinc

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

Very interesting !! Except for the dock shooting score, I would think Down Image scores would be just the opposite of yours, Rickie.

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

1 for me, I mainly cast jigs.

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.

Originally Posted by brettw

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.

This is indeed, effectively using each sonar tool (2d/SI/DI/GPS) for what each is "best at"...

SI advantage is "findin stuff"..
DI advantage is "pickin it apart"...
2d advantage is "sittin on top of it"...
GPS advantage is "guidance to it"...

Rickie