Fishfinder Vertical Pixels

[Golfisher]

Just as the topic description says, I'm wondering if 240 vetical pixel is good enough for most inland fishing purposes . I'm thinking of buying a portable finder (Eagle FishEasy 245ds Portable), but there is another one (Eagle FishMark 320 Portable) that offers 320 pixel--it also costs a hundred bucks more. Is it worth the extra money to get 80 more pixels?

[just2manylures]

I was in BPS this weekend and they had the Fish Mark 320 on for $199. I already got the 320c, but the bigger screen would be nice. I had many a units with a 240 screen and they did the trick

[Golfisher]

So long as it does the trick, I'm cool; thanks for the reply.

[John Bacon]

For inland lakes, the fish finder is more usefull as a bottom or structure finder than for marking fish. A high pixel count is not critical for this. The 240 will be more than enough. It wasn't that long ago that 240 was better than anything on the market.

[Tomcat]

IMHO, its false economy to buy a sonar unit that doesn’t provide the performance you want/need. For instance, if you want to be able to see bottom hugging walleye, then a 480 vertical pixel unit would be preferred over a 240 vertical pixel unit. Here’s why.

 

Target separation (e.g. seeing fish close to bottom) depends on screen resolution (pixel count) and the ability of the transmitter and receiver to generate a short pulse and then read it accurately. Divide the typical depth by the screen's vertical pixel count and you get the amount of linear depth represented by each vertical pixel.

 

Consider a common fishing depth of 40 feet and compare the abilities of a 480 vertical pixel unit to a 240 vertical pixel unit. Multiplying 40 feet by 12, you get 480 inches. Divide 480 inches by 480 vertical pixels and you find out that each vertical pixel represents 1 inch. If you divide 480 inches by 240 vertical pixels, each pixel represents 2 inches.

 

To separately display two targets (e.g. the fish and the bottom) you must have at least one blank pixel between them. Consequently, at 40 feet, the 480 vertical pixel unit is capable of showing something 1 inch off the bottom while the best the 240 vertical pixel unit is capable of doing is to show something 2 inches off the bottom. Consequently, with a 240 vertical pixel unit, you could miss walleyes hugging the bottom.

 

However, for water depths and bottom contours only, I agree that a 240 vertical pixel unit is more than adequate.

[tbayboy]

Well said Tomcat, that actually points it out quite well thanks.

[NBR]

If I were you and could get the 320 pix into my budget I would for the reasons Tomcat expressed.

[Pigeontroller]

Absolutely get the highest resolution finder you can afford!

[sonny]

i would tend to agree with pigeon,,,you don't want to look back and wish you spent a little more,,,and then have to upgrade.....ugpgrade first!

[Golfisher]

Thanks guys for the input, particularly Tomcat for elaborating on the pixel difference. I think I'll get a 240 pixel finder for now though, since I'm looking for a portable finder that I can use on rented boats to find depth and bottom structure. But I'll remember your suggestion when I get my own boat.

[bigbuck]

I picked up the Eagle 320 Portable and have yet to use it out on the water but I have spent a fair amount of time fooking around with the Demo mode and it is pretty neat. It's cheaper at Lebaron's and the 12volt gel cell battery/charger are cheaper at BPS (it beats having to keep using the D-cells).