DI worth it?

Hey all,

Deciding between going cheap route with Helix 7 GPS Chirp G2 or adding DI for the ~$50 upcharge.

I was going to go DI but have no experience with any DI or SI units and guess I don’t see many guys ever using the DI. Does it work at speed or do guys typically run a Y cable and 2D ducer with it like the SI units?

Really, I wish the price gap to G2N (networking) wasn’t so steep because I feel that would be best long term value for ability to put it on the bow and network once I convince the wife to buy a boat.

Use case for next 12-18 months will be in a portable case to use for both ice and when I borrow my FIL’s Lund a few times a summer.

So, what would existing owners suggest? Go cheap, add DI feature, or splurge for networking I may realistically never use before the next Helix models come out?

I wasn’t much of a DI guy but i finally took the time to use it extensively and configure it and that’s one of my main go tos now.

Defining weedlines if nothing else is reason enough to get it. Phenomenal.

DI

Networking? If you, and I mean you aren’t planning on adding a second unit, I’m thinking I would pass on Networking. Reason is by the time a person plans on adding another unit, the first one will be “legacy” model.

nhamm wrote:

…
Defining weedlines if nothing else is reason enough to get it.

That’s what originally drew me to getting the DI feature. Playing with the display units at stores, it appears it would be great at doing just that. Seemed like a nominal upgrade cost if it works as well as the marketing and demo models make it seem.

Just never been in a boat with it or seen anyone on TV using it. They’re always in 2D and SI it seems. Thought that may be an indicator that it’s not as usable (valuable?) as HB makes it seem.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

DI
…Reason is by the time a person plans on adding another unit, the first one will be “legacy” model.

Brian, that is exactly my concern.

Looks like I finally managed to find some DI fans.

Love the DI, fishing 20 – 30′ deep weeds is awesome for finding the edge .

nhamm wrote:

I wasn’t much of a DI guy but i finally took the time to use it extensively and configure it and that’s one of my main go tos now.

Defining weedlines if nothing else is reason enough to get it. Phenomenal.

I’m still not sold on DI but maybe I need to use it more like you suggest. It does help pick out weeds better but other than that, it’s basically pointless IMHO. I get its fun to look at, “maybe” slightly easier to read, but the cone angle (or lack thereof) makes it actually less useful than traditional sonar. Sure, you can see what a boulder looks like, you can now see what that sunken tree looks like, you can even see what rocks/sand look like, but you could interpret all that with traditional sonar without the “realistic” picture.

I’d save up for SI or buy chirp sonar or whatever the best 2d sonar is these days.

I’ve had di capable units on my boat since 2008.

I’ll venture to guess that I haven’t actually used it more than 4 total hours. Which is probably 0.0005% of The hours I’ve used 2d/SI and I am being conservative at 6,000 hours in 10 years.

It is worthless junk IF you have SI/2d.

I could maybe see some value if you don’t have SI. Worth the $50, I suppose if you don’t have SI.

They’re is absolutely nothing DI will tell that SI/2D isn’t already telling me.

I agree SI is really where the value is added but I cannot justify the cost increase for a unit that will be in a portable case on a suction cup mount the remainder of this open water season and most likely next. Who knows what HB will be doing with the lineup by end of 2019 or early 2020.

I partially have to agree with FBRM.

The learning curve on DI is much faster and if I (personally speaking) could get rid of 2D, I would. In fact, I was just wondering why I don’t have to 2D screens hidden?

In full disclosure here, I normally fish for larger fish like FBRM. Bob explains why I like it over the 2D perfectly. I can see that rock or log perfectly AND the 30 pound fish behind it. Well, at least what I think is a 30 pound fish.

It is possible to see that on a 2D as well, but it’s much harder to distinguish.

In the end, it’s going to be what each angler is more comfortable with and how they fish.

That Lowrance video was really helpful in how it discussed the benefits of each. I didn’t know the DI cone was so much smaller/tighter than the 2D cone.

Beginning to seem like DI could be useful in certain situations for the nominal upcharge. Being able to pick fish out of weedlines and rock gets me excited.

In 2012 I bought an 1198 SI. The DI wasn’t to impressive. It is my understanding that the DI was a calculation of the side image. In 2016 I bought a new to me boat that had a 858 with a dedicated DI transducer. The DI was more impressive. This spring I bought a Helix 10 G2N SI Mega. The Mega’s have dedicated DI and SI crystals built into one transducer. It is very impressive. I can mark fish on the DI while cruising around on plane at over 20 mph.

Although DI is basically telling you the same thing as SI, just in greater detail directly underneath the boat. It will certainly give you a much more accurate image of bottom structure, content, and fish than 2d sonar.

A few scenarios where DI trumps 2D is when you have a school of perch with game fish mixed in or when game fish are in the weeds. 2D will often clump them all together where as DI will show individual fish and individual weeds.

858

Attachments:

1. 

   20170603_131536.jpg
   

Mega

Attachments:

1. 

   20180714_113724.jpg
   

2. 

   20180714_172010.jpg
   

I have not used DI much, but when I have the detail is really darn good.

Kind of what Pat is talking about.

This is a Helix 7, but it is showing the networked mega image.

Attachments:

1. 

   20180724_200925.jpg
   

arcticm1000 wrote:

Kind of what Pat is talking about.

This is a Helix 7, but it is showing the networked mega image.

Perfect example of how with 2D you cant say with 100% certainty what you’re looking at. Could be a pod of weeds, a tree, bait etc. With DI you can see that it’s a pod of bait fish with 100% certainty.

On my lowrance I have a 3 panel screen the left half is mapping the bottom right 1/4 is traditional and the top right 1/4 is DI. It is unreal the difference in definition and the difference in interpretation I take away looking at both. To me traditional sonar will never be replaced but, DI is something I would not want to go without either. From differentiating bait and fish from weeds and structure to seeing the large marge sitting below that ball of bait fish is in my eyes very beneficial.

Pat McSharry wrote:

Perfect example of how with 2D you cant say with 100% certainty what you’re looking at.

You never can be 100% with 2D.

It also looks like gain is way too high. Panfish making big arcs, screen full of clutter.

I went from having 2D and a dedicated DI unit on my last boat, to just 2D and mapping on my current boat.

Miss the DI.

I can see not being ready to shell out the cash on the SI yet, but $50 for added DI is worth it in my opinion.

FishBlood&RiverMud wrote:

It also looks like gain is way too high. Panfish making big arcs, screen full of clutter.

Agree with this, IMO those 2D screens are a bit of a mess.

Okay, back from the weekend. Thanks everyone for your input on the topic! I was dead set on getting the DI model but I now see Reeds has the regular Chirp GPS G2 model on sale for $299.99.

That’s pretty significant savings and tempting to give up DI for the $150 savings. HB must be clearing out these models?

https://www.reedssports.com/humminbird/humminbird-helix-7-chirp-gps-g2-276541

I have found that I hardly use the DI on my unit. I primarily fish Mille Lacs and I find the 2D sonar much more usefull. I use it to find rocks, its easier to see the bottom hardness on a 2D vs DI. I would go with SI before DI.