Underwater Cameras

[pvoll332]

How useful do you find them? Do you feel they are more or less useful than a flasher? How well do they work in darker water, and what cameras would you recommend?

[sjburnt]

.

[Scott K]

I would say it supplements the Vexilar. I wouldnt want to fish without a flasher.They dont work the greatest in the dark, or stained water. They are a blast, and fun to watch, you can learn a ton from them, but if I had to choose between the 2, the Vexilar will win 99% of the time. Marcum, and Aua Vu would be the best choices.

[harvey lee]

Without a doubt I would first get a flasher. My camera is very useful but I would be lost without the flasher.

[Glockwinger]

 Originally Posted By: harvey lee

Without a doubt I would first get a flasher. My camera is very useful but I would be lost without the flasher.

I agree wholeheartedly.

However...last weekend I watched a walleye chasing down a perch on the camera! That was really cool to watch and I wouldn't have gotten that pleasure with the vex The flasher is usefull at all hours and the camera is pretty much for daytime fishing. Just my .02.

[metrojoe]

I have to agree with the other posts. A camera is useful, but it could never replace my flasher. IMO night fishing and fishing in stained water lakes the camera is useless.

[SM1]

My marcum 560 works very well at night. I know the less expensive camera's are worthless even before sundown. As stated earlier, it really depends on water clairity. Since I mainly fish on very clear water lakes, I almost exclusively use the camera and my flasher takes the back seat. Why would I use the tool that gives me less information (flasher) about the bottom im fishing? IMO you get much more "information" with the real image of a camera as compared to the combinations of color flashes. With the real image there is no doubt about what you are seeing.

Now when it comes to fishing stained or cloudy water, or suspended fish its the complete opposite- I exclusively use my flasher.

[gill man]

If you can only get one, without a doubt get the flasher. I have a camera and a flasher, and while the camera is a lot of fun, and a great tool, it isn't nearly as versatile as a flasher.

A camera can't tell you depth either, which is very important. How are you going to find an underwater hump with a camera? You'd have to drill holes, lower the camera to the bottom, mark that depth, then do it again and compare at the next hole. Cameras slow you down a lot - you have to wind up the cord each time you move, find your bait (if you aren't downviewing), and they really are a bit of a pain at times. If you are fishing and have fish scattered 15-20 feet down over 30 feet of water the camera won't be much good. Unless you shell out a good deal of money, cameras don't work at night.

I don't want to steer anyone away from a camera. I have one and love using it, but they certainly have their limitations. I wouldn't think twice about getting a flasher if I was in your situation (and I was....the camera came MANY years later).

gill man

[gill man]

I forgot to add any infor about cameras if you are interested in getting one. I have the Cabelas camera with the 7 inch screen. I got it during their 'One Shot Deals' (but they had it a few time, so you might want to check) for $119. Pretty good deal if you ask me. Marcum sounds good, and I have used the cheaper model Aquaview and it seemed nice too.

gill man

[sjburnt]

.

[gill man]

Never tried anything different than what it has. I have heard of people attaching waterproof flashlights above the camera to cut down on the reflection of particles in the water (which is what the problem after dark is). Not sure if it would work or not.

gill man

[PerchPounder]

A camera will never replace a flasher. To me they are both equally useful in opposite situations the flasher is obviously going to far out perform a flasher in dirty water and at night but the camera will usually prove more useful in clearer water during daylight hours. I don't have a lot of camera experience but I have used them to find fish in clear water when you can see a greater distance and also when you mark fish on your flasher but they wont bite you can see what they are and how they are reacting to what you are doing.

[anyfishwilldo]

I will have to agree with most everyone else. The camera accents the flasher. I can go fishing without my camera, but feel completey naked without my flasher(I say flasher rather than Vex or Marcum so an arguement will not ensue).

[SM1]

Many of the comments downplaying camera's must be coming from experience with less expensive model's.

The truth is some cameras do work at night and some do not.

The marcum 560 does work at night, but the water needs to be somewhat clear. In addition, the 560 does show depth, temp, and has a pan feature where the camera scans 360 deg. I went with this $600 camera because I can use it twice as much through out the day (day/dusk/night), and not just during the day light hours.

I really like my camera, and while fishing walleye, perch, and sunnies, my vex just sits in the case. It seems most everyone prefers a flasher over a camera on this thread, but I think the camera' deserve a little more credit.

[gill man]

 Originally Posted By: SM1

Many of the comments downplaying camera's must be coming from experience with less expensive model's.

The truth is some cameras do work at night and some do not.

The marcum 560 does work at night, but the water needs to be somewhat clear. In addition, the 560 does show depth, temp, and has a pan feature where the camera scans 360 deg. I went with this $600 camera because I can use it twice as much through out the day (day/dusk/night), and not just during the day light hours.

I really like my camera, and while fishing walleye, perch, and sunnies, my vex just sits in the case. It seems most everyone prefers a flasher over a camera on this thread, but I think the camera' deserve a little more credit.

I'm sure you are right, I said my camera doesn't work at night, and it cost $119. Yup, cheap. The only thing is, a lot of people can't, or don't want to spend $600 on a camera. It was hard enough to make myself spend what I did. I have a feeling that most people that ask these 'either/or' questions on cameras and flashers only have enough money to get one of them, and are looking to maximize their benefit with what they can spend. Also, if had 600 dollars, and neither a camera or flasher, don't you think you would be better off with a $400 flasher and a $200 camera?

gill man

[SM1]

Absolutely. I kind of felt dumb spending 600 on a camera but I already had a flasher. I just got sick of using everyone elses stuff and not having one to use for myself, and I got spoiled right away with using a different 560 before I got mine. As with many things, you get what you pay for. Flahsers and cameras are often used for the same purpose, but they each definately have their own specific uses. I guess I had a flahser before a camera.