Depth/Fish Finder considerations?

[MHH]

I'm looking to purchase a depth finder (trolling motor mount). What do y'all suggest I look for in features, speed, resolution, etc? I don't know where to begin, but I've kind of been eyeing the Eagle 320.

[bipr8]

Speed is very unneccesary.  Eagle makes a very good uncomplicated unit.  I have had 2 of them and they were both easy and worked well.

[Skwerl]

How does the Eagle 320 compare with the Garmin 250 (or even the 250c -color- which is $100 more)? I'm in the same situation where I would like a decent fishfinder without the pricey GPS or other unnecessary extras. Most lakes in FL are less than 35' deep, I don't need something 99.997% accurate to 1500'.

BTW, some people would consider a speed indicator as a desirable feature. No speedometer on my boat.  :-/

[huskertko]

I can't speak of the Garmin because I have never owned one, but the Eagle 320 is a great unit for the money.  I had never used a D/F until recently, I bought a 320 and it is very easy to learn and set up and from what I can tell very accurate.  Again I feel it is a great unit for the price.

[Hinkle2891]

i refuse to use fishfinders. i believe that in a tournament where time is very valuable, yes, they're a very nice tool. but i believe that if you're just having fun on the lake bass fishing, nothing will say "im one hell of an angler" like landing a 6 1/2 pound bass on PURE INSTINCT. i like to use where i think the fish will be rather than sonar. but, if i would choose one, i would choose the eagle.

[senile1]

How does the Eagle 320 compare with the Garmin 250 (or even the 250c -color- which is $100 more)? I'm in the same situation where I would like a decent fishfinder without the pricey GPS or other unnecessary extras. Most lakes in FL are less than 35' deep, I don't need something 99.997% accurate to 1500'.

BTW, some people would consider a speed indicator as a desirable feature. No speedometer on my boat.  :-/

The Garmin 250c is a little more expensive because it's resolution is 320 x 320.  The Eagle 320 and the Lowrance 67c, which are very similar in features, only have a resolution of 320 x 240.  More pixels =  more accurate picture.  I've read nothing but good things about all of these for the price.  For me the better resolution is worth the extra money.  

[huskertko]

How does the Eagle 320 compare with the Garmin 250 (or even the 250c -color- which is $100 more)? I'm in the same situation where I would like a decent fishfinder without the pricey GPS or other unnecessary extras. Most lakes in FL are less than 35' deep, I don't need something 99.997% accurate to 1500'.

BTW, some people would consider a speed indicator as a desirable feature. No speedometer on my boat. :-/

The Garmin 250c is a little more expensive because it's resolution is 320 x 320. The Eagle 320 and the Lowrance 67c, which are very similar in features, only have a resolution of 320 x 240. More pixels = more accurate picture. I've read nothing but good things about all of these for the price. For me the better resolution is worth the extra money.

Actually the Eagle 320 has a 320x 320 resolution on a 5" screen on the non color version, the 320c has the 320x240 on a 3 1/2" screen.

[senile1]

i refuse to use fishfinders. i believe that in a tournament where time is very valuable, yes, they're a very nice tool. but i believe that if you're just having fun on the lake bass fishing, nothing will say "im one hell of an angler" like landing a 6 1/2 pound bass on PURE INSTINCT. i like to use where i think the fish will be rather than sonar. but, if i would choose one, i would choose the eagle.

Sonar is just a tool like anything else.  Most of us use it to find underwater structure and cover that we would be unable to find otherwise.  When its 100 degrees outside and the only fish biting are in the cooler depths, fishing without a depth-finder is like pulling straws.  If you're 300 yards from shore there is nothing on the bank that you can depend on to tell you what the structure is like beneath your boat.  If you happen to find a good spot, you haven't used instinct.  This is just luck.   Back in the 70s we fished without depth finders, but on a busy lake where everyone is beating the shallows, using a depth finder to fish deeper water is the only way to catch deep water fish on a consistent basis.  

[senile1]

How does the Eagle 320 compare with the Garmin 250 (or even the 250c -color- which is $100 more)? I'm in the same situation where I would like a decent fishfinder without the pricey GPS or other unnecessary extras. Most lakes in FL are less than 35' deep, I don't need something 99.997% accurate to 1500'.

BTW, some people would consider a speed indicator as a desirable feature. No speedometer on my boat.  :-/

The Garmin 250c is a little more expensive because it's resolution is 320 x 320.  The Eagle 320 and the Lowrance 67c, which are very similar in features, only have a resolution of 320 x 240.  More pixels =  more accurate picture.  I've read nothing but good things about all of these for the price.  For me the better resolution is worth the extra money.  

Actually the Eagle 320 has a 320x 320 resolution on a 5" screen on the non color version, the 320c has the 320x240 on a 3 1/2" screen.

You're correct, Huskertko.  My mistake.  Thanks for the correction.  

[Madhouse27]

I've always been a Humminbird man myself. Probably from watching too many episodes of Jimmy Houston as a kid. I have a 535 w/ temp. I believe it has 320x320 resolution and a five inch screen. It's definately worth every penny of the low $149 retail price. The other brand I find myself drawn to is Garmin. When the time comes to upgrade a few price points that is probably the brand I will go with.

[Madhouse27]

i refuse to use fishfinders. i believe that in a tournament where time is very valuable, yes, they're a very nice tool. but i believe that if you're just having fun on the lake bass fishing, nothing will say "im one hell of an angler" like landing a 6 1/2 pound bass on PURE INSTINCT. i like to use where i think the fish will be rather than sonar. but, if i would choose one, i would choose the eagle.

Unless you are casting at shoreline structure and cover I can't image being without a fishfinder. Alot of my smallmouth fishing is in deep water where proper structure would be nearly impossible to find without electronics. Once located, the fishfinder along with some marker buoys helps keep you properly oriented to that structure. I guess I would rather spend my time fishing over quality area than randomly casting and hoping. But hey, different strokes for different folks. Use the force, Luke.

[RobDar]

I have personally found the color ones harder to read...well not as a dash unit, but as a bow mount, which is the one I am usually just glancing at while casting or whatever, not really "studying" it like I do the dash mount...I find the color ones harder to read at a glance. Almost too much going on on the screen.  I like the simple straight forward black and white ones that give me just the info i need quickly....depth, cover. bottom detail and fish...

I also use a mid range resolution...enough to make the graph clear to read, but since I have the tendency to be just glancing down at it while fishing, not really studying it like I do the dash mounted one...a high resolution is just money I did not need to spend.