Delw It 's the same size as the320,480x480 pixel'16 level grayline,1,500 watts peak to peak ,800 feet depth,built in temp,operates at 70mph but my tracker tops at 45 you just can't have everything . Gary
Hell, I am the last one to ask about a graph.
I do know the fishmark 320 is a fantastic graph for $180, I think if I had to buy another one before the fish mark I would buy the lowrance equivilent the lms 320 for a few extra bucks. http://www.lowrance.com/Marine/default.asp
the lowrance one has 4000 watts peak to peak and some oother options, where as the fishmark only has 1500 watts peak to peak.
Reason is you get more wattage. Ive noticed on the fishmark that deeper than 45 feet the signal isnt as good as it is at like 20 feet.
I just got the fishmark 320 cause it was cheap and I needed one pretty quick, soon as I get the money saved I am buying the x18 x19 x17 or what ever they call them now and in color,unless I can find a x15 for a cheap price again.
Da is a whiz with graphs and I get my graph advice from him and others on the board.
I do know with the fishmark 320 I can see my spoon bounce up and down on the bottom at about the same time frame as I am jerking it up an down. it has a very fast refresh rate. down to about 40 feet
I can also see my dropshot rig at about 22 feet very clearly,
I am not sure but I think for the deeper water I might have to tweak my settings.
Nobody asked me but I'm going to kick in my 2 cents. I have had a Fishmark 320 on my console for about a month now. (Del installed a 320 on his TM a week ago and loves it) It is a great improvement over the X-75 I had there. I have not seen a Fishmark 480 in person. The screen dimensions of the 320 and 480 are identical. Both are 3.5" X 3.5". There are 50% more pixels/inch on the 480 than on the 320. The 480 has 136 px/inch. The 320 has 90.7 px/inch. Does this make a great deal of difference in sharpness and clarity? I did an example web page to represent the two screen displays. I made two identical figures, one @ 90.7 px/inch for the 320 and the other @ 136 px/inch for the 480. Take a look:
Certainly the 480 appears crisper and less jagged than the 320 at normal computer monitor viewing distance of 12 to 24 inches. But are you that close to a graph on your boat? Take another look at the page, but slide your chair back until you're 4 or 5 feet away. Still see a marked difference? If so then the 480 is for you. Personally, I can't see much if any difference from 4 or 5 feet away. But then that's MY eyes!
Other things to consider besides clarity are reliability and performance. The 480 X 480 screen is new and although I'm sure Eagle has tested it thoroughly, the components have to be smaller, and the connections have to be smaller and more numerous, Have these been tested in the bow of a bass boat crashing through 5 foot waves on Pleasant or Roosevelt lakes? Not yet. In comparison I haven't heard of any problems with the 320 X 320 screen in the last year.
The other thing to consider is performance. I can only speculate that if Eagle did not increase processor speed to handle the larger amount of data going to the 480's screen (twice the amount of data than the 320) then scrolling speed or refresh speed would suffer. That's really speculation too and the only way to tell would be a side by side on-the-water comparison.
Am I kicking myself for buying a 320 @$170 instead of waiting a month and getting a 480 @ $209?? Absolutely not. Keep in mind I am not an "early adopter". I waited a few years for the X-15 technology and software to sort itself out before buying a discounted, clearance priced X-16CI. Then I waited a year for the 320 and got that at a discounted price.
The 320 is still a great graph and a great value for the money. If you need to own the latest and greatest then buy a 480. JMO
The 480 will have better clarity at no zoom, 2X zoom, or 4X zoom. But my point above was how much better clarity do you need when you're looking at it from 5 or 6 feet away?
In 40 ft of water on 4X zoom you'll be looking at from 30 to 40 feet on your screen. The bottom 10 feet. (Assuming your graph is set on Auto Depth.) In that case each pixel on the 320 represents 3/8 of an inch. On the 480 each pixel would represent 2/8 of an inch (or 1/4") I don't think that will help me catch a whole lot more fish.
Very informative posts! Guys, we are really lucky to have guys like Da.......ok, Delw too that help us out with these technical questions! It's time to put a graph on the ol trolling motor. I'm going to ask the lil woman and see what she thinks.
I can't believe I just said that. And to think that I've only been married 3 months! Where's my manhood..........Honey? Where's my manhood?
I just want to thank DA and DELW for your input,I'll let you know how it works.I;m hoping the 320 settings that DA stated will work on the 480. Went on a whitetail hunt have'nt got too use it yet. Gary,
Well you sure are proud of yourself "slick" you got the first one!
Just kiddin Wolfer hope Del W can give you some good info he sure is good people, and one heck of a fisherman, I ve seen him in action.......Happy new year to you!! Joe
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.