What would be the minimum depth you would use your FF? 75% of the water I fish on is anywhere from 1-ft to a max of 14ft and Im not sure if my fish finder is really beneficial in the fact that it only scans such a small portion at a time being so shallow. I haven't noticed any increase in the fish I catch either. Any thoughts and suggestions would be appreciated if I am wasting my time with the FF. 

Mine works great as long as the transducer is not buried in the bottom.

It showed me those fishes in the creek channel on the right, and I caught some of them.

 

 

Thats side scan imaging right? I have a Lowrance 4x thats dual beam. 83/200 I beleive.  What model are you using? Would it be more beneficial to go with side scan in shallower ponds?

 

Mine works great as long as the transducer is not buried in the bottom.

It showed me those fishes in the creek channel on the right, and I caught some of them.

 

 

That is Humminbird Side Imaging. It's all about the coverage.

 

That image was done with a 1198c SI Combo. The smaller display models will do the same.

 

In shallow water, you don't get much infomation other than the depth.

I'm in the same boat as you Kritter.  Most of the waters I fish are less than 10ft deep with an occasion hole that will drop to 12 maybe 14 ft.  I bought a Humminbird 561 dual beam and it hasn't really worked all that great.  I have learned a few things about my lake and where drop offs and flats are, and depths, plus the temp readings are great.  The whole set up was less than 250 bucks so it didn't set me back that much(trolley motor mount).  For guys like us that beat the banks a lot we need Side Imaging, but that's expensive.  Humminbird has the 698ci SI Combo for 699.99.  This is the one I am going to be getting next.  I think its the most inexpensive SI model on the market but don't quote me on that.  They also have a slick KVD version with red buttons for the same price that's really neat looking as well.