Underwater fishing TV, Curiosity

[Wgoodrich]

Has anyone been using and have experience in the new equipment that lets you drop a water proof camera as deep as 250' deep in a lake and see what the camera is veiwing in picture or movie real time form? The equipment I am talking about is found at

www.aquavu.com

Just curious if worth that much money

Wg

[rlfrazee]

hello Wg, I have often wondered the same thing as you. I do have some experience with the exact underwater camera you refer to in your link. The aqua view is one of the better ones. In our lakes here in kansas our water clarity is typically less than two feet. The underwater cameras dont do well here. There is clarity levels due to algae growth and clarity levels due to suspended particles from runoff (silt,dirt,etc.). The camera doenst do well in these situations. Sometimes even though you are supposed to see 4 feet underwater if 2 feet visibilty to naked eye picture is unviewable. Also do not use if windy or under power for obviuos reasons. The multi-light feature of the aqua view is primarily for viewing at low light and at night. It is a different technology than infrared. So in my opinion it isnt worth the money and my friends aqua view quit working the second season he had it. Ever had your boat motor worked on and the cost to do so? His repair cost was a little more than half the purchase price. This is a very clear water only unit and if you dont have clear (like up north) you will be disappointed in the picture the aqua view presents on its screen......RL

[Wgoodrich]

I am a scuba diver and have been for years. Don't much anymore but have to say when I was active I learned much more than you can imagine watching fish in their element.

Then again I know and understand a lot about fish by watching them at all depths, and all kinds of water.

I was up to 100 feet deep in fresh water as well as sea areas like hte Bahamas. Watched all breeds of fish.

In the ocean I swam with barcuda and their look coming from their eyes told me that you could not trust what they would do next and could attack any second. Definitly they were not afraid of you. Octopus, stingrays, crab all flee on sight. Smaller game fish will eat right out of your hand.

Fresh water, I have seen cat fish so big they looked like huge logs on the bottom just laying there like a log. You swim down and touch them and they move off about 10' and again lay like a log. Bass are like stingrays and octopus they flee on sight normally or skirt around you cautiously with suspicion looking you over. Size does not matter in this action with bass some fllee rapidly some skirt you out of curiousity but skittish. Blue Gill are normally found on nests in groups. These little buggers are so small you know they can't hurt you. You take your finger small gill or big one and wiggle it toward that bluegill's nest and that bluegill will attack that finger so visiously and fast that it is impossible to hold your finger in place. It does not hurt but it startles you in the fast and vicious hit that you can not hold that finger in place no matter how many times you try again and again.

In lakes some have long clear view but many you can't see your hand in front of your face. Some have about 6' vision till you get about 10' from the bottom and hte lights go out. Whether big or small 10% of the lake hold 90% of the fish. I have toured the entire lake and found fish on underwater islands, mounds with structure or along weed banks backed into the weeds like you would park a car watching out of the weeds.

Then again while fishing I see on the graph groupings of fish along bottom or suspended and even can see my lure move amoung them but they move out of the way and you can not get one to bite for any reason. This is where I of buying a camera to see what is not biting that I see. I can tell you size of grouping and size of fish but not type of fish.

I think you are right a very few lakes would be great. Most would not be worth having the camara in the water. I do think it would pay to have this type camara in the north for walleye or small mouth considering the clarity of the water.

Anyone else have any thought or experience?

Wg

[rlfrazee]

Yes wondering what species you see on the graph is why friend purchased underwater camera. Thought if he could see what he was trying to catch then could change bait or lure to try to get them to bite if gamefish he sought. I thought that camera would be just the ticket for walleye and crappie. Just dont have the visibility in our lakes that we fish most of the time to make good use of this tool. I also agree that most of the fish are in 10% of the lake and only 10% of the fisherman know how to find and cach them. When they demo these cameras at the sport shows I have attended it doesnt take you long figure out their videos are in clear water. Then they talk about how they do in stained water. I'm not talking down the product just the way they try to market it. Kind of like a singer he only sings songs he can sing well. Now if you go up north enough then I think underwater camera would be an asset among your other tools to locate fish. I would love for these cameras to see better in our lakes but not sure this is good thing. If too many fisherman are able to locate and catch these fish then over harvesting will be big problem. Its bad enough now. In the winter when the crappie really concentrate on the creek channels those who know how to read their electronics find these schools fairly easily. Then those who dont many times crowd in until many boats are into the school of fish. Just my experience.
What intrigues me with the camera is what an asset it would be when you just cant seem to get on any fish yet you see them on the graph. What are they? The camera will tell. But the camera has to see both so you can see the type fish and navigate the camera. Plus it must prove reliability for the cost.
Ive always wanted to scuba dive, my son does it often, as you have, from Florida to Hawaii. The pictures he brings back from these trips is something really neat. But clear water makes this possible. If you watch some of Roland Martins florida shows he uses the aqua vu in clear water and it is quite impressive. I just dont see it predominantly in my area being used by tournament fisherman, guides, or recreational fisherman. I know many very successful fisherman, none to my knowledge use the underwater cameras anymore. I think it will go the way of the color meters that we saw so much of 10 to 15 years ago. Cost and the inablity to control the elements for reliable operation will be its demise.
Now consider Mother nature. Yesterday we had over 4 inches of rain it will be 3 weeks or better before you can even think about using an underwater camera, but I can still use my flasher and graph to find fish. Now lets say you drop that camera into water that it cant see too well through and you move it into a brushpile and hang it up. When you read the instructions on that camera it will tell not to exert more than 20lbs of force on the cord connecting it to the main unit. Kiss your camera good by. I say this from talking to those whose camera units are taking up space on the bottom of a lake. They are not very forgiving. I'm always open for change just that these cameras havent proven their worth in other than very clear water in my view.
Now that I have said all this if you buy one keep me informed this is one fishing aid I would love to be proven wrong.......RL

[6pack]

My fishin buddy has a U/W camera, not sure of the brand name. As stated works great in some lakes VS others. Although his is not permenently attached to boat as web shows. We used it last fall to locate 2 cribs we had dropped from the ice. We to date have no use for the dept feature at say 200 to 300 ft, which may have some price bearing? We generally are only in MAX 48', generally the 20 range is more normal max depth rate. It has been a big help for structure when coming back for ice fishing.
Actually I see it as a metal detector of the sea. It is amasing while sad to see the items that careless people has discardted into our waterways. 20gal buckets are the norm, which we attribute to ice fishermen.
My partner has used his camera, much longer than we have been friends. Anything in particular you wish to know I can ask him his point of view if of any help to you.
2 points here, game fish is closed now, but crappie fishing is coming into it's own thru ice.(still have 30"). Also come spring I would'nt feel any better about S/D with the Muskies. What it's worth!

[Wgoodrich]

Wannabbe, how far up north are you. Great lakes or Minnisota are etc.

Also have you guys used these in northern lakes to find walleye?

In southern states like Alabama / Florida the waters are stained to not being very much use for the cameras as I can see it. Down deep the lights tend to go out in the viewing capacity, just too stained. Yet if you were fishing up north in the glacier lakes or in Kentucky / Tennessee say Dale Hollow or Cumberland lake you probably could read your watch through the underwater camera at 100 feet or more deep.

I suspect if you were in Lake of the woods in Canada you would have use for the 300' depth for the camera. That is the only place I have read beyond 100 feet average in depth in lakes.

Just my thoughts.

WG

[6pack]

Just below the UP of Mich.WI. We have many clear(spring fed) and then not so clear waters.
Just noticed your repost, actually we were looking for a way to attach camera to boat in a more permanent way as web showed. When having along we just lowered into water again searching more for structure. Yes have seen walleyes,northern, and smaller pumpkins and gills. The only time along, with camera while viewing walleyes they were all in the slot.
Will get back with some input kindah late again as usual.
Rl hit it on the head with the electronics, still trying to learn my own which all is new to me. Although can say when larger fish on the screen a larger fish is usually caught. Take Care