I have been thinking about picking up a new filter for my 50 gallon tank. I have been looking at the 360 c-series from marineland but I have just recieved an offer from a friend who wants to sell me his newer trickle filter complete with bio balls, pump, sponges and overflow box off of his 75 gallon for alot cheaper than the marineland will cost me. I have a trickle on my 60 gallon with a Magnum HOT and it seems to do a great job but Im not experienced with the newer canisters. Cost is really not my concern but a few bucks saved is never a bad thing these days. But, if the canister is better I would also like to take advantage of that. Which one of these filters provides better filtration for freshwater? They will not be the only filter running on this tank, I also have 2 penguin hob 200 w/ bio wheels that will stay. Any opinions and why? Thanks in advance!
Canister wet/dry or wet/dry trickle filter for fresh water
- Thread starter Beardog
- Start date
CWO4GUNNER
USN/USCG 1974-2004 Weps
Well you already have experience with a trickle filter so your really in the best position to decide if your friends is a great deal, sounds like it to me especially coming from a friend.
As far as canisters you also have some experiences with the Hot Mag which is actually quite a little engineering marvel. Because the Hot-mag uses a circumference style filter the ratio of the filter surface foot print is huge in relation to the Hot-mag's size. When it comes to pressurized enclosed or "canister filters" circumference style media filtering is the only way to go IMO and all you will see in industrial applications becasue of the efficiency. The magnum-C series is a stackable media style canister filter and while it is true it can hold allot of media volume, a stackable canister filter is only as effective as the area footprint of its fisrt basket becasue that is the limit of surface area water has to work with the given amount of pressure available and why IMO the C-series has not exactly been as effective or popular as claimed and prices have fallen on it significantly.
Canister and wet/dry are two completely different applications with benefits that really cant be compared as I even have a sump and love it for what it can do different then a canister. However if you go canister take a lesson from the designed of the Hot Mag and buy a circumference style media canister filter, the FX5. I got mine (2 ) new off ebay at different times for $230 shipping included during time ending bids. FX5 bids
As far as canisters you also have some experiences with the Hot Mag which is actually quite a little engineering marvel. Because the Hot-mag uses a circumference style filter the ratio of the filter surface foot print is huge in relation to the Hot-mag's size. When it comes to pressurized enclosed or "canister filters" circumference style media filtering is the only way to go IMO and all you will see in industrial applications becasue of the efficiency. The magnum-C series is a stackable media style canister filter and while it is true it can hold allot of media volume, a stackable canister filter is only as effective as the area footprint of its fisrt basket becasue that is the limit of surface area water has to work with the given amount of pressure available and why IMO the C-series has not exactly been as effective or popular as claimed and prices have fallen on it significantly.
Canister and wet/dry are two completely different applications with benefits that really cant be compared as I even have a sump and love it for what it can do different then a canister. However if you go canister take a lesson from the designed of the Hot Mag and buy a circumference style media canister filter, the FX5. I got mine (2 ) new off ebay at different times for $230 shipping included during time ending bids. FX5 bids
I am a BIG fan of wet dry trickle filters I am switching all my 55+ gallon tanks over to them from canisters. I would grab the deal from your friend 
all my tanks are freshwater.
all my tanks are freshwater.
CWO4GUNNER
USN/USCG 1974-2004 Weps
Rod I know your partial now to the Wet/Dry for their convenient media basket removal. But to be honest in that respect I find my Tom's PS4 wet dry no more convenient then my FX5. In the beginning becasue I knew no better I was lugging the FX5 from under my cabinet, but after studying it I realized all I had to do was shut the intake valve off and pump some of the water 1/4 back into the tank, then just remove the canister lid and service each basket just like a wet/dry. The only thing that my Tom's PS4 has over my FX5 is the auto fill tank, man what a blessing no more lugging pails everyday to replenish or adjust evaporating water. I only remove the suitcase style tank by its handle once every two weeks and fill it with RO, then set it back in its auto dispensing unit. For that reason alone I wish I had an auto fill on every tank. But as far as filtering capability and polishing, my PS4 doesn't compare to my FX5's performance, not even close.
I have been reading so much about all the different canisters, and how great they are I thought that maybe I was missing out on something. Does the water in a canister flow over the media and drop down to the bottom where its pumped out? or is the media totally submerged in water all the time and the water just pushed through it? If its totally submerged all the time I would think the oxygen level on a trickle filter would be alot higher which woud promote better bacteria colonization. So Im thinking that a canister is a better mechanical filter and a trickle is a better biological filter. Would that be a fair statement?
So Im thinking that a canister is a better mechanical filter and a trickle is a better biological filter. Would that be a fair statement?
Yea i would agree with that - i use a HOT magnum and a wet/dry on all my tanks and its a great combo.
Yea i would agree with that - i use a HOT magnum and a wet/dry on all my tanks and its a great combo.
Yeah, My 60 gallon with the Magnum HOT and the wet/dry always has sparkling clear water and it demolishes ammonia. I think Im going to pick up my friends wet/dry, and take the extra money I'll save and ditch the Penguins and pick up another Magnum HOT. The Penguins dont really impress me that much.
CWO4GUNNER
USN/USCG 1974-2004 Weps
Yes that is a true statement but not very accurate. Once an aquarium is established the biological bacteria that brakes down ammonia and nitrite are predominantly in the tank covering every bit of surface area including the sand to such an extant that the filter whether canister or sump (unless the sump is huge 50%) colonize bacteria to a much lesser degree that the difference in bio between comparable canister and sump are much less impacting then mechanical filtration.
In other words you can get away with swapping out a completely new unestablished filter on a cycled tank with little to no impact or a spike perhaps, but placing an established filter on a large un-cycled tank will have devastation toxic effects on inhabitants until that tanks comes up to reasonable speed on bacteria colonization.
So in my opinion mechanical filtration is the bigger more important part of any filters performance becasue only a filter can mechanically clean an aquarium which is about as necessary as bio filtration. While bio colonization/filtration happens everywhere in the system in all filters and to a much greater extent in the aquarium.
When it comes to my choice in filters, mechanical consideration which is in very short supply always takes precedence while bio colonization which is plentiful even without a "bio filter" must take 2nd place. That is why I have both canister and sump on my 244 tank but without a doubt its my FX5 with a little less bio but massive mechanical filtration that stomps the pedal to the floorboard when it comes to keeping that tank looking sparkling and great.
In other words you can get away with swapping out a completely new unestablished filter on a cycled tank with little to no impact or a spike perhaps, but placing an established filter on a large un-cycled tank will have devastation toxic effects on inhabitants until that tanks comes up to reasonable speed on bacteria colonization.
So in my opinion mechanical filtration is the bigger more important part of any filters performance becasue only a filter can mechanically clean an aquarium which is about as necessary as bio filtration. While bio colonization/filtration happens everywhere in the system in all filters and to a much greater extent in the aquarium.
When it comes to my choice in filters, mechanical consideration which is in very short supply always takes precedence while bio colonization which is plentiful even without a "bio filter" must take 2nd place. That is why I have both canister and sump on my 244 tank but without a doubt its my FX5 with a little less bio but massive mechanical filtration that stomps the pedal to the floorboard when it comes to keeping that tank looking sparkling and great.
Review of the Fluval FX5 vs Eheim Pro3
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68458
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68458
Did not know that, so the tank itself holds more colonized bacteria than the wet/dry does? I figured the bio balls with the massive amounts of oxygen would provide the most surface area and optimum growth space for nitrifieing bacteria to flourish. Even with weekly water changes and gravel vacs the tank itself holds more nitrifieing bacteria? Interesting.