Fishfinders - 3D or not 3D, that is the question.

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?