03-11-2015, 12:55 PM
This is funny. Up until just a few years ago, 83 wasn't even available on most "recreational" fish finders like Lowrance and Humminbird. 200 was all we had in the 80's, and 90's, and even into the early part of this century. How did we even catch anything? (It would be like fishing without I-pilot or GPS--No chance of even a bite!)
All you need is 200. 83 is a little wider. The 20 vs 60 comparison has other variables not considered, and the 83 is NOT 3 times as wide as the 200, despite the marketing hype. In fact, the transducers do not even shoot in a true cone shape as often illustrated. But I digress.
The 200 gives you better resolution, and better separation of fish from the bottom and other structure. I have a dual frequency. I fish with the 200. I look for fish with the 200.
[signature]
All you need is 200. 83 is a little wider. The 20 vs 60 comparison has other variables not considered, and the 83 is NOT 3 times as wide as the 200, despite the marketing hype. In fact, the transducers do not even shoot in a true cone shape as often illustrated. But I digress.
The 200 gives you better resolution, and better separation of fish from the bottom and other structure. I have a dual frequency. I fish with the 200. I look for fish with the 200.
[signature]