The Bottomline 480 has 2000 watts peak-to-peak power according to Cabela's web site. I don't know much about it, but it looks like a pretty low-end sonar to me.
For the money, Eagle seems to be a pretty good deal - they're nearly identical to the Lowrance units and are made in the same factory. The difference is usually only in the amount of output power.
And (being a ham radio operator who knows just a little bit about "power"), I'm not convinced that you or I can tell the difference between 1200 watts peak-to-peak vs 2000 watts peak-to-peak in the images displayed on the screen. "Peak to peak" is a misleading number anyway - what you really care about is the RMS power, which is a true measure of "how much" power the unit has.
From the Bottomline web site:
Quote:
The output power of a fish finder's transmitter is stated in watts RMS or in watts peak-to-peak (P-P). The two terms represent different ways to advertise output power, and all you need to know to compare units that advertise different ratings is that P-P equals watts RMS times 8.
Power's importance is based on the perception that more power always produces a better echo. In reality, it is the combination of the unit's power and receiver sophistication that determines the unit's ability to find a fish and display an accurate image.
|
So, suppose you're comparing a 1500 watt peak-to-peak depth finder with a 2000 watt peak to peak unit. The real difference in power is just 62 watts (500 watts divided by 8). That's not much - if you double or triple the power between two units, then you've done something. But to add 33%? Not so much.
If it was my money, I'd find the unit with the best *vertical* resolution and the most features that I'd be likely to use (many units have a dozen features nobody will ever really use but they sound great on marketing material), *then* I'd worry about power.
Unfortunately, $200 just won't buy you very much in any case - if you can possibly save up another $200, you have a lot more options.