Fishfinder Challenge

[Jigger]

Looking to replace my old Garmin finder this year and haven't got a lot of cash to play with. Being in school the last few months really put a damper on the budget.. But I found these two units that are within reach and am looking for any opinions from folks who've used either of these units.

 

For the sake of specs, the Lowrance has a 480x480 pixel count, whereas the Humminbird is a 640V x 320H pc. Both screens are 5" and neither is a colour screen. On those merits, I like the Humminbird for the vertical pixel count, but like the ease of use that Lowrance provides.

 

Where I get stuck is on Peak to Peak power. The L. has peak to peak power of 4000Watts, the H. is 2000W. Thinking logically, I'm assuming the 4000w finder draws alot more off the battery then the 2000W unit? But does this draw mean better ID such as bottom hardness, structure features, target separation, etc...?

 

The tranducer on the L. is a 200khz 60deg w/temp and the H. a variable transducer that runs at 200kHz@ 20deg and 83kHz@ 60deg w/temp.

 

Pricewise, the Lowrance is on for $199.00 and the Humminbird $219.00.

 

The Garmin Im running now has a pixel count of 280x280, so either one is a monster improvement over what I've dealt with the last few years. Not that its a bad finder, its just time to move on. It was the first one that I bought and has more than served its purpose.

 

Thanks for any opinions!

[canuckjack]

Can't offer any experience other than that I've been waiting for the H 570 to hit Canadian stores and all of the reviews I've managed to dif up on it have been stellar. Definitely going to pick one up at BPS in a couple weeks....unless of course a bunch of folks come in here and recommend the Lowrance.

[Jigger]

The vertical pixel count is really impressive on the 570. Otherwise, I'd really be leaning in favour of the Lowrance. Because of the difference in vertical pixels, I'd say I'm in the middle of the teeter totter.

[EC1]

Unless there was some major tweeking from the 565 to the 570, I seem to be leaning towards the Lowrance.

I am assuming that my 565 doesn't have enough PTP watts, and seem to lose sight of swivels when ice fishing deeper than 10FOW, BUT, I can see my jig even at 25FOW easy. Don't know what the case that is, my swivel is the one of the smallest available, and I guess its profile isn't the best either to be seen on sonar.

 

The dual beam isn't able to be used on the humminbird until you have fish ID on, which I find that I shouldn't be using all that often.

 

640 and 480 pixels do make some difference, but I think the zoom features would make that difference negligible.

 

I sure like the sound of 4000w PTP and 20 bucks less.

All in all, both should be great, good luck with your purchases!

[Jigger]

So do you assume that the PTP wattage has an effect on the strength of the signal? If so, the Lowrance has that battle won x2. Sounds logical. I don't understand the term peak to peak?

 

Are you saying that if you don't use the fish symbols, you only have use of the narrow field?

 

Thanks for the input.

[EC1]

Yes Jigger, Without FishID On, you will only be using the 20 degree cone.

Lowrance also has a 20 degree cone, but they say "the 20 degree cone is capable of picking up signals up to the 60 degree mark.

 

I don't really know what PTP means either, But my thoughts were more PTP wattage on paper *SHOULD* make a better fishfinder because of its ability to see smaller things at a greater distance, which should allow you to most efficiently use the fishfinder in more occaisions.

[Terry]

PTP peak to peak wattage is just a way of measuring output

and making it sound like it has more..but as long as you compare watts to watts or ptp to ptp then it is fair

 

they just measure the whole wavelength rather then the usable half