$200 fish finder comparison ?

[surfer]

I want to upgrade my fish finder and am looking around the $200 mark (flexible). I see a few threads down where someone mentioned the Eagle Fishmark 480 and i have also looked at that. Three others i am looking at are the Hummingbird 565, 575, and Matrix 17. How do I go about comparing these?

The web site http://www.fishfinder-store.com/ gives good breakdowns (and prices) for each, but I don't know how to read between the lines of what they are saying. Eagle 480, Hummingbird 565, and Matrix 17 all look the same to me and the Hummingbird 575 has some sort of quad beam for side imaging or simulated 90% cone.

Can someone tell me which is better or if one brand has bad customer service that might narrow it down right there. Is the 575 using new unproven technology? Is there another one I need to consider?

Thanks in advance.

Tanner

[Jig Man]

The more pixels the better picture.

[bassboy1]

someone mentioned the Eagle Fishmark 480

And that, my friend, is what you want.

[acar555]

The Humminbird 565 and 575 both offer higher resolution than the Eagle 480 at 640 vertical pixels to 480. The Humminbirds both have higher sonor power as well, so they can see smaller details in the water. The 565 has a dual beam transducer and the 575 a quad beam transducer. With the dual beam you have 20 and 60 degree cone angles. The 20 is the same as on the eagle but the 60 give 3 times the coverage. For example at 20 in 12 ft of water you will see an area under the boat that is 4 ft in diameter, but the 6- degree will show 12 ft. Very benefical. The 575 takes it a step further offering 2 more side looking transducers that extends the coverage of the 565 from 60 degrees to 90 degrees. At 90 coverage at 12 ft depth you will see 24 ft under the boat and be able to tell whether fish or structure is to left, right or under the boat. For the same money as the 480 the 565 offers more and the 575 takes it even further for $50 more.

[fourbizz]

lowrance x-96

[surfer]

Pixel resolution comparison

Eagle fish mark 480 has 480x480 = 230,400 pixels

Hummingbird 565 or 575 both have 640x320 = 204,800 pixels. 11% less

Matrix 17 and Lowrance x96 both have 320x320 = 102400 pixels. 55% less

Unless Vertical pixels are more important than horizontal ones than the Eagle 480 is the clear winner in this department. They all have the same 5 inch screen so that is not an issue.

Eagle fishmark 480 vs. Humingbird 575

The 575 has a simulated 90* cone. This would allow me to sea further to each side, but since its horizontal Pixels are only 320 it would seam to have less resolution side to side.

Now in this screen shot (http://www.humminbird.com/gallery.asp?ID=1070#) it shows three screens. The top half behalves like a traditional depth finder and has aprox 320x320 pixels. The bottom half is split into left and right giving the left and right views 320x 160 resolution each. This seams like horrible detail in comparison to the 480, but could be very useful as a search mode to locate structure.

The 575 also has a regular mode (http://www.humminbird.com/gallery.asp?ID=1070#) with a 60* cone that uses the full 640x320 screen. So after locating the structure you could switch modes and see the cover more clearly. It would still be 11% less clear than the 480.

The 480 has more buttons for easier menu navigation (http://www.eaglesonar.com/images/Products/FishMark480_large.jpg) . I think the 480 is probably the better product, but the 575 has the better search mode.

Anyone have some thoughts about this comparison?

[ThomasL]

When comparing the lowrance x96 to the eagle 480 yes the eagle has more pixs but if you read reviews the eagle also has alot of knocks,some saying it worked three hours and quit and other similiar responses,i've yet to see bad marks for a x96. :-/

[acar555]

With sonars the vertical pixel are more important.  Remember you are looking at depth and vertical equals depth.  The horizontal will give a little more history of what you have gone over, wider screen.  Keep in mind the cone angles and the power rating is each also.  The less time you need to locate stuff the better and being able to see more underwater is a big plus.

[surfer]

Acar555,

In central Florida our lakes are rarely more than 30 ft deep.  Are the vertical pixels still important in these shallow lakes?

ThomasL,

Where can I read these reviews at?  

If I take the Cabelas and Bass Proshop reviews combined there are only 6 reviews on the Lowrance x96.  There are close to 30 reviews with both Huminbird 535 and Eagle 480.  I see the three complaints for eagle, but it looks like they got taken care of.  Humingbird looks like the champ when relying on the reviews.

Sorry I am full of so many questions.  I just don't have the experience to understand this stuff yet.

Thanks again.

Tanner

[Lucky Craft Man]

I have the Eagle FishMark 480.  Extremely good unit.  I like it so much I am moving it to the front of the boat and am buying an Eagle FishElite 480 for the consol.  That would be my choice of the ones you are considering.

[acar555]

The difference isn't as great is shallower water, but combined with higher sonar power and the higher vertical resolution the Humminbird unit will show better detail.  So in 30 ft of water each line of resolution = .56 inches of water compared to the X96 = 1.125.  It doesn't sound like much but it could mean the difference between seeing a fish on the bottom or close to structure and not.