DFF3 or DI-FFAMP

[acho]

Dear friends,
I recently purchased TZT3, with internal sounder and B265 LH transducer. Now I am trying to improve definition at 300-500m deep so I am considering to install either DFF3 sounder with a R109LH transducer ot DI-FFAMP with R509 LM transducer. Any idea which system will work better? Should I keep the B265 LH transducer also?
Thanks

 

[whiteagle]

If you are fishing at depths of 300m - 500m. DI-FFAMP with R509 LM or R109LH will give better results.
I don't need b265lh here. if you are going to use DI-FFAMP. You won't be able to install the b265lh on the TZT3.

 

[acho]

Thanks Whiteagle.
I have 3 TZT3 in the network so theoretically I could have DI-FFAMP AND R509 LM conected to one screen while keeping B265 LH in one of the others. However, do I get any value by that? The disadvantage will be an extra through hole and an extra transducer in the hull.Thanks

 

[gtstang462002]

I would think that the 265 should be used in shallower waters with the high frequency chirp. It will also give you the accufish option to give you an idea of the size of the fish on the image. It works fairly well. Was fishing for cobia this weekend and was running over plenty of marks indicating ~40” fish. When one of the rods started singing we landed a 42” red drum. Redundancy is always a nice to have too.

 

[acho]

Very good points! You convinced me! Thanks

 

[ilhani]

If there are 3 tzt3s on the boat, the b265lh should definitely remain. gtstang462002 as he said, low depths, accu-fish and future bbds can be very useful.

 

[acho]

Thanks. One more doubt. Both in starboard or one will create turbulence and air bubbles into the other??

 

[Rampage13]

Definitely want to have one on each side to have clear path for water and less turbulence = clear picture at speed.