03-03-2010, 03:48 PM
[quote TubeDude]Yesterday I was fishing shallow water...7 feet at the deepest. Even the 565 does not do a really good job of finding fish in shallow water. The "footprint" of the sonar cone on the bottom is only about 2 feet so you can go by a lot of fish without knowing they are there...even with the wider beam secondary. I get much better fish readings at depths over 10-12 feet. [/quote]
In shallow water even if you do mark fish with it, they will have scooted by the time your gear gets over them.
I have the 565 in my pram and don't really find it that useful for fly fishing. I mark fish I don't catch and catch fish I don't mark. Most of what I catch is within 5 feet of the surface and lots of it is either sight fishing or fishing known structure in known depths. If I was trolling deep in the summer or jigging vertically I can see the FF being much more useful, but for me, not so much.
Personally, I find the water temperature display more useful than the fish marks, but I don't think I will even try to rig it up on my Outlaw Rampage.
[signature]
In shallow water even if you do mark fish with it, they will have scooted by the time your gear gets over them.
I have the 565 in my pram and don't really find it that useful for fly fishing. I mark fish I don't catch and catch fish I don't mark. Most of what I catch is within 5 feet of the surface and lots of it is either sight fishing or fishing known structure in known depths. If I was trolling deep in the summer or jigging vertically I can see the FF being much more useful, but for me, not so much.
Personally, I find the water temperature display more useful than the fish marks, but I don't think I will even try to rig it up on my Outlaw Rampage.
[signature]