Screen Size or Screen Resolution?

[kwk]

Am I better off getting a fishfinder with a smaller screen size, but better resolution (240 x160 i.e. Lowrance x-51 or Eagle Fish Easy 2) compared to one with a larger screen size but only 160 x 160 pixels (i.e. Garmin 160)? I've got about $200 to spend and am narrowing it down to these models.<br /><br />I understand that Lowrance also makes the Eagle models. What is the difference between the x-51 and Fish Easy 2? The features look almost identical.

 

[Xenos]

Re: Screen Size or Screen Resolution?

Not sure if this is what you are looking for but it may help. If you have a 160 pixel unit and you were in 80 feet of water each pixel would represent 6” and a 240 pixel unit would be able to have a pixel represent every 4”. As you can see if you are trying to distinguish between different readings such as fish arches more pixels will give you a more accurate readout.

 

[Boatist]

Re: Screen Size or Screen Resolution?

kwk<br />The most important thing is vertical pixels and power. The difference between the X51 and Fish Easy is the case color and name. Also the Garmin 160 is also 160 Pixels so they all three have the exact same resolution. The second number is horz or how long strobe will stay on the screen. The very right most pixel row in what is under boat now every pixel to the left of that is history. All the units you listed are good shallow fresh water units. In 100 feet one pixel would equal 7.5 inches with 4 times zoom each pixel equals 1.875 inches. So a 7 inch high fish would only light one pixel, a 14 inch high fish would light two pixels without zoom. With a 20 degree transducer in fresh water 100 feet is about the limit you will see fish with 1200 watts p/p. Salt water about 50 feet. If you fish over 100 feet deep or any salt water I would go with the X91. One thing good is if you take care of units they last a very long time. Transducer may go bad but units very solid.