[gambusia]

Might be a dumb question:

Any reason to choose one over the others?

Thanks

 

[Scott Hobbs]

83 has a broader beam and good for most areas I fish in. The 50 has a narrow beam and good for offshore deep water.

Plus the 83 is about 100 bucks cheaper.

 

[gambusia]

What exactly is deep water in one compared to the other?

Is 200 feet of water considered deep?

 

[Scott Hobbs]

Most water more than 50 foot is deep to me.. Look about half way down on that page it it gives a quick reason for each transducer setup.

http://www.lowrance.com/en-US/Support/Transducers/

Some good explanations here also.

http://www.fishsniffer.com/forums/marine-electronics/94326-50-200khz-vs-83-200-khz-transducer.html

 

[sundrop]

I don't think inland waters over 50ft deep hold fish very well around central and eastern NC, no oxygen for them down there. Im not certain.

 

[gambusia]

I'm talking maximum lake depth, not necessarily fishing depth

 

[sundrop]

Most better units will do 400-600ft . If you are seeking fish in the higher column you want more "spread" from the sonar cone. Covers more area at shallower depths.

 

[fishjunky]

Higher frequencies have a smaller cone but a sharper/more detailed image of returns which makes it easier to interpret what you are seeing on the screen. The trade off is that you might not see something in that smaller cone that you would have seen in the bigger one.

 

[SurfRider]

My understanding, which is based on vague recollection of some reading, is that under 300ft you won't get much benefit from the narrower beam, but after 300-500 feet depth you might. I never looked further into it because I'm never in water over 150ft.

 

[fishjunky]

My fishfinder has selectable 200 or 455 frequencies... I can tell a difference.