I'm replacing my trusty old Lowrance X65 fishfinder and am considering
a 3D unit. It seems to make so much sense...and yet it's difficult to
hear a good word said for them on any Newsgroup. What's more, the
comments all seem very dated and may not relate to newer technology -
so what are the latest views?

My impression is that a few years ago there were more 3D units on offer
than now - that suggests either the market was a lot smaller than the
manufacturers thought or the technology couldn't meet the market need.

I'm fishing my home waters here in Scotland in the 70 - 250ft range (so
all these negative comments about 3D in shallow water aren't relevant)
in an area that is only lightly fished and about which there's little
local knowledge of underwater features, hotspots, wrecks etc (so 3D
sounds ideal).

Looking at the units available only the Hummingbird Matrix 47 3D comes
up and on paper it looks good. Their Matrix 37 with side-imaging looks
very impressive too - who could argue with the screen shots on their
website (http://www.humminbird.com/generic2.asp?ID=514)- have a look,
they're incredible. But looking at Newsgroup comments about Hummingbird
they come in for a slating.

So what's a guy to do? What's your considered view? Hummingbird bad? 3D
bad? Do I stick to 2D and keep looking at the sea bed through a
pin-hole?

it looks interesting .... I am not a fisherman but could iamgine that
just by seing the fish on the screen doesnt mean you catch them or
they are stillt here by the time you get the hook down ..

I see fishfinders more useful to find the fishs depth and habitat
rather than the fish itself ...

I heard people say these 3D / forward looking units work well,
apparently commericlas use them ... but its "too easy" to catch fish
....

Also consider that the actual image you will get wont look as it does
on the screen ... it can be quiet a challenge to get a normal finder to
read properly a 6 beam transducer may be more difficult ...

Matt

I read the web site which says effective to 100ft
You are talking of 70 to 250ft
a.. Side beams are extremely narrow front to back providing "thin slices"
of the bottom for high resolution imaging.
b.. Side Beams look out to 240 feet, with a depth limitation of 100 feet.
Save your money unless you are into hydroghraphic surveying.

Keith M

"Pig Sick" wrote in message
ups.com...
I'm replacing my trusty old Lowrance X65 fishfinder and am considering
a 3D unit. It seems to make so much sense...and yet it's difficult to
hear a good word said for them on any Newsgroup. What's more, the
comments all seem very dated and may not relate to newer technology -
so what are the latest views?

My impression is that a few years ago there were more 3D units on offer
than now - that suggests either the market was a lot smaller than the
manufacturers thought or the technology couldn't meet the market need.

I'm fishing my home waters here in Scotland in the 70 - 250ft range (so
all these negative comments about 3D in shallow water aren't relevant)
in an area that is only lightly fished and about which there's little
local knowledge of underwater features, hotspots, wrecks etc (so 3D
sounds ideal).

Looking at the units available only the Hummingbird Matrix 47 3D comes
up and on paper it looks good. Their Matrix 37 with side-imaging looks
very impressive too - who could argue with the screen shots on their
website (http://www.humminbird.com/generic2.asp?ID=514)- have a look,
they're incredible. But looking at Newsgroup comments about Hummingbird
they come in for a slating.

So what's a guy to do? What's your considered view? Hummingbird bad? 3D
bad? Do I stick to 2D and keep looking at the sea bed through a
pin-hole?

Thanks for the replies. Guess no-one has a good word to say about 3D
then.
I can't get my head around how the 25=BA beam works, given that the mix
of data from the bottom of the cone at any one point is displayed on
the screen as only a single data entry. Let me explain - if the depth
of the water at the extreme right side of the cone is, say, 100ft, and
the depth at the extreme left is 120ft, what does the screen show? OK,
I can understand that if there's a fish anywhere in the beam, that will
appear on the screen, but what about varying bottom data?
Also, I'm a bit confused about the recommendation for a dual frequency
transducer, I thought the dual frequency was for only v deep waters
(specs typically say 'up to 2,500ft'). This is what
fishfinder-store.com have to say about it:
"If you need a deep water finder this is the right one, however, if you
are fishing inland waters a dual frequency unit is the wrong choice,
you should select a single frequency unit because on high sensitivity
it has a 60 degree 200 Khz cone verses the dual frequency that only has
an 8 degree 200khz cone. The 200khz is the only frequency that sees
fish.
The Dual Frequency is great in deep water and very poor in shallow
because the 50khz in the dual frequency shows deep bottom structure but
not fish."

DSP - wot that?

Any light shed would be greatly appreciated!

I can't get my head around how the 25=BA beam works, given that the mix
of data from the bottom of the cone at any one point is displayed on
the screen as only a single data entry. Let me explain - if the depth
of the water at the extreme right side of the cone is, say, 100ft, and
the depth at the extreme left is 120ft, what does the screen show? OK,
I can understand that if there's a fish anywhere in the beam, that will
appear on the screen, but what about varying bottom data?

It would "think" the water is 100 ft deep ... the FIRST echo reply it
gets is the depth ... so wide beam transducers will not see in holes
that are narrower as the beam ...

You can download garmin manuals on their webpage which explain a little
bit how it works ..

and get a dual frequency transducers ...

I cant confirm that only 200 khz sees fish ... I doubt it but havent
seen many fish on my finder ..

Matt

Go with 4D. Not only will it show you where the fish are, but also when
they'll be there.

In message ws.net,
Dom writes
Go with 4D. Not only will it show you where the fish are, but also when
they'll be there.

Would that be the sort you need a sonic screwdriver to fix?

--
Steve Walker

If you're still on the fence about 2D or 3D, this may help.

Since you're using your fishfinder for fishing a 3D unit may be of use
to you. Consider what kind of fish you are targeting. If these fish
seek bottom structure, then 3D may be of value to you.

Trade in features you don't use for a better quality unit. Look at your
current unit and figure what features you use and don't use.Dual
frequency is a handy feature. Your X65 is a single frequency unit, 192
khz I think. Bottom zoom is a seldom used feature.

If you're working with a budget consider buying a better quality 2D
unit instead of a lesser quality, but similarly price 3D unit.

If you're looking for another Lowrance, I do not believe that they make
a 3D unit. Humminbird's Matrix 47 (
http://www.humminbird.com/products.asp?ID=492 ) sells for less than
$500. Their new 900 series 947C (
http://www.humminbird.com/products.asp?ID=510 ) , which is color and
has a built in chart plotter, goes for about to $1600. We usually can
beat their prices and we ship to Europe. Let me know if you want exact
prices.

John
Retail4Wholesale.com

....and a laser wrench.

Thanks for that, John. I was just going to get a better quality 2D unit
but then I thought, wait a minute, most of the magazine articles I read
are about people using their 2D units fishing over wrecks and banks
that are well-known features to all and sundry in the heavily used
waters they fish, mostly around England. I on the other hand am fishing
in remote, seldom (if ever) fished waters around my home in Scotland
(Google Earth 58degrees 1minute N, 5degrees 26minutes W), and though my
father and grandfather fished these same waters before me, none of us
know that much about the bottom features. The old marks don't seem to
work any more and I need to go prospecting. So, I thought, what better
way than to strap on a 3D? And if I want 2D mode I just flick a switch.
But I seem to be the only one thinking this way, which worries me a
tad.

I may yet come to you for a price for the Matrix 47 - I already got a
GPS.

Iain