new fisher smart machines - Mosca and CZX

[adamBomb]

I could be wrong on this because I haven't done my homework on the CTX, but isn't the f75 a deeper machine?

No. Very different machines. F75 won't work on a wet salt beach or in the water so it's impossible for it to be deeper in those environments...you are going to find more info in forums on the etrac/explorer vs f75 since they are more comparable...for example see here: http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/head-head-comparisons/221233-e-trac-vs-f75.html

Metaldetectorreviews.net has the

I dont trust this...those reviews are just not something I would rely on and definitely not the tests...who knows who those end users are...

http://treasuremtndetectors.com/top-5-metal-detectors/

Or this...

I air test a quarter at 16'' on my CTX. 13'' on my Excal. 13'' on my CZ21. Those numbers could all change in a different setting (ie sound/interference/EMI/type of Headphones)

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[jjack9977]

I can air test a quarter at 16" on my 75 as well, without boost. Whether that would be a diggable response on either machine would be another issue. I'll be honest though. I watched a lot of air tests where people were trying to do the best they could with the CTX 3030, and none so far came up with a diggable response past 12". Many saying it is only slightly better than the etrac. The F75/T2 were anywhere from 14"- as much as 18" out in the sticks. I don't see it as even a contest when it comes to a quarter air test. There are going to be those who will argue different regarding which is deeper, but I've done enough research to answer my own questions in a fair and impartial way using enough neutral controls and even many biased toward the CTX, that in the majority of environments the F75 LTD and T2 LTD are deeper machines. I don't have those machines, but the tamer version, so I don't have a dog in that race other than to say that if I were convinced that the CTX were a deeper machine with better target separation I'd want to replace my 75 with it rather than upgrade it in the winter. Being a relic guy in farmland, my preference is for flat out depth.

 

[TheHunterGT]

FBS machines and air tests do not mix. Never have never will. Minelabs do not like having air between the coil and ground...so an air test is the LAST thing that should be taken into consideration with the CTX.

There is zero doubt in my mind a deep quarter on a T2 or F75 will ring up iron and lose ID well before a CTX does. Especially in mineralized ground. My T2 Classic goes to 9-10 inches on a dime/penny and then starts to jump everywhere on the ID...mostly sub-40....which means the tone goes with it. Sure I get high tones and 83's every once and a while at 11-12 inches.....but I would probably never dig them unless the site was gridded 10X first in an effort to save my sanity.

CTX will ID that deep quarter all day and then some. So what good is the depth of the F75 and T2 if they cannot ID anywhere close to the CTX? Makes for a moot argument really. Even if it didn't....I still have not read anything or seen anything that makes me think the T2/F75 are as deep as a CTX in a clean site. If farm fields with low stubble are your thing...I think you are absolutely missing items the CTX could find. If iron gets involved...the XP Deus is finding the stuff they all miss.

I love my First Texas products. LOVE THEM. But the CTX and even the XP Deus are IMO better on depth...ID....unmasking. I read tons of forums and websites just like the rest of the MD world does. Just have to agree to disagree here.

 

[TheHunterGT]

Back on topic of the Mosca/CZX....I wonder if these will have fancy displays and menus to try to match the Minelab and XP Deus? Black and Grey LCD's are getting a bit boring...even the XP Deus has stretched that about as far as needed.

A backlit full color display would be great on the eyes.

 

[jjack9977]

You have terrible soil. That's pretty good for terrible soil. If you guys are trying to convince me that the CTX is a deeper machine or that the 75/T2 will leave anything behind for it, you'll have to show me evidence. Because that's where I'm coming from. Show me something that proves your claims in a healthy spirit of debate. I'm not so much trying to convince you guys but just to say that I've satisfied myself that what I'm claiming has been proven in many different tests and venues and by many user accounts. The evidence is there with relatively little effort. If you're as passionate about this hobby as I'm growing to be, and I know you are, spend a day sorting though as I have. I carried this research on for hours upon hours straight. My claims are based on the only evidence any of us have. I don't see any evidence otherwise. It is true for example that the CTX works more accurately on ID within its depth limitations. Even shows you a nail next to a quarter, or a nail over a quarter. But if you know your machine and it's 4" deeper at least you have a shot at that last 4". Nobody has said the 75 ID is unusable because the Minelab is more accurate. It is not so much more accurate that it renders the 75s obsolete lol. These guys testing the 75 are not losing intelligible ID or tone at 12"+ on an in ground quarter and neither do I. Even if so, relic hunters have an interest in deep iron. If it's turns out to be a coin because the ID faded that's fine too. Nobody with any prominence in the industry has ever claimed the CTX is the deepest machine or that max depth is its thing. I don't think Minelab would make such a claim, but I could be wrong. There are however many who stand behind machines like the T2 LTD/F75 LTD, Tejon, and a certain version of CZ-3D as max depth being their thing. We find it hard to believe because it is Minelab after all, and it's a $2,500 machine vs much less costly machines. Once that is put aside, the evidence is all around us that is has very good depth, but not super.

 

[jjack9977]

That aside, I agree, I hope that whatever First Texas comes up with takes the best of the Deus (the only other high dollar machine I'd consider taking over or alongside the 75), the CTX 3030, and its own 75/T2 and gives a color wireless touch pod, ability to update ourselves, and it would be awesome if the system would engage with our smartphones and other devices. I don't see some of those features promised, but it would be nice. There seems to be a focus on improving target ID beyond what we've seen so far, as well as depth, which is hard to imagine. I used to be first in line for the latest iPhone. I don't even think about that anymore next to this stuff.

 

[TheHunterGT]

Just to be clear those 8-9 inch coins were not found anywhere near my house...a good hour drive away in much softer soil. Not to spoil my upcoming T2 review video...but it fails on a 5 inch quarter/dime/nickel just like every other detector has when it comes to my backyard soil.

I'm surely not trying to convince you my man...you made the claim first in post #15 while at the same time admitting you had not done your homework on the CTX. Excuse me if a day later I am taking your newfound knowledge with a grain of salt. To each their own...this hobby is full of awesome opinions that cannot be proven every single MDer has different soil and EMI conditions to deal with. There will never be a lab like test bed for all detectors to use.....just guys in their backyards on Youtube trying to sound more intelligent than they really are. Oh wait....

 

[jjack9977]

Spending a day and a half in research regarding machine depth is plenty I assure you. I'm very well educated in many areas including computers, electronics, physics, assessing credible sources etc. A metal detector is not immune or different than the methods you would use to asses any other product. I didn't give any single method full weight. It was the totality of the evidence including tests done in video, yes. If you're only finding 8-9" coins that's not typical of your machine or mine. Even as new to me as my machine is I find coins far deeper than that. Bear in mind that you too have the tamer version of the machine I'm referring to. We also engage in two different styles of hunting. Coin shooting is secondary to me, therefore a machine that better IDs a coin is not as valuable to me as one that sees deeper. The wealth of Air tests and in ground testing do give a better idea which is deeper than supposing they are all inaccurate. Also, If fbs machines do poorer in air tests then it stands to reason it would do poorly in turned soil like farm fields, high grass and vegetation, stubby corn fields etc., which accounts for most rural land.

 

[TheHunterGT]

I will bow out as tooting horns is not my thing. Take care and best of luck.

 

[jjack9977]

I'm not taking any of this personal and I hope you are not either. I do respect you greatly and enjoy your videos. I'm used to these kinds of debates on a variety of issues from tech to politics. I hope I haven't offended you as that has not been my intent.

 

[adamBomb]

Quit watching air tests on these machines lol. They aren't telling you anything about how they perform when you put dirt under them. Only certain machines actually show their max depth on air tests. Fisher is one of them. Minelab is NOT due to the way the machines auto settings perform. Even top MD engineers and innovators like Tom Dankowski and Eric Foster have stated this...And what I am stating below is paraphrased from Tom Dankowski (search his forum for the same info I cant post other forums links here)...this is not just my opinion...

In low mineralized soil, depth will be nearly the same between the CTX, F75, CZ3D, Etrac, CZ21, Excal, etc, etc, etc. There is a limit on how deep VLF technology is going to get. What is going to differ is how fast they recover, separate targets, and ID. The F75/Dues are faster, lighter, and have better separation in iron fields, which is why people have them in addition to the CTX. However, as shown in the etrac vs F75 video I posted above, the etrac will ID better and provide a more solid target at depth in regular conditions. If you don't believe me find videos showing the opposite with two people who have knowledge of how to work the machines...additionally, the CTX will perform exactly as the etrac does. This is why I suggested looking up comparisons of those two machines instead since the CTX is really a step above them. You CANNOT say well in this video this guy got X'' and in this other video this guy got Y'' because they were different soil, differ, EMI, etc. It has to be the same or you are reading it way wrong.

As you move into highly mineralized soil the CTX will be MUCH deeper than the F75. Single frequency machines have a lot of problems in soil like this (ie the beach). You cant even compare them here...This is where your whole argument baffles me...

In water, the F75 doesn't even work because its not water proof so the CTX would be the only one of them that even works. Again...there cant be an argument that the F75 would be deeper here...

 

[jjack9977]

Adam, nothing you've said here is inconsistent with anything I've said. I agree (although I take exception that the etrac will outdo the depth reach of the 75 either being slightly less a depth performer than the CTX. Accurate ID is another story. I concede there but maintain that a better ID system within its own depth limits doesn't render the F75 any less deep. Accurate visual ID is a separate issue from depth capability, ask Tesoro). I never put all my eggs in the air test basket. I've read everything Dankowski has said about both machines and the air tests. There will be conditions where the 75 will not outperform the CTX depth wise, but when it does it's going to be the LTD model and I don't think it's going always to blow it away, but certainly surpass it in decent soil and anywhere you have to raise a coil over decent soil. The regular 75 will hang with it depth wise. It is capable of reaching a coin sized object at up to 16". That's a fact. I can put together a little report of sorts citing sources and links. I don't have a problem with that, but I don't think it will be accepted because this stuff is already out there, everywhere. On another note, of course you wouldn't take it to wet beaches or in the water. That's one of the reasons the CTX is where it is in pricing and rank. It's versatile, whereas the 75 is an inland machine. My argument has never been that the 75 will always out do the depth capability of the CTX or even that the 75 has any of the feature sets that the CTX does to aide in better discrimination etc. This is kind of similar to the Android vs. Apple arguments I run into. Android phones may indeed have higher specs, but they are not optimized like Apple's, so when Tests are done measuring raw processing power and real world performance, Apple usually embarrasses Samsung et. Al. Here the depth performance of the 75 LTD is optimized. It will go a couple to several inches deeper (than the etrac/CTX) on coin sized targets soil conditions being decent. That's been proven to my satisfaction even outside of air tests. Even if they were dead even in most soil conditions I would not plunk down nearly double the money for the CTX, but rather buy a separate PI water machine. Now the GPZ series, they are in a league of their own. I hope I'm not out of line with any of this. Just defending Fisher in the house of Fisher. I just didn't see depth as something they needed to focus on in upcoming machines. From my observation, they have the upper hand and at the very least run right with the big dogs. It's modern enhancements and features they lack.

 

[adamBomb]

There will be conditions where the 75 will not outperform the CTX depth wise, but when it does it's going to be the LTD model and I don't think it's going always to blow it away, but certainly surpass it in decent soil and anywhere you have to raise a coil over decent soil. The regular 75 will hang with it depth wise. It is capable of reaching a coin sized object at up to 16". That's a fact.

I would like to see a video of the F75 hitting a target that the CTX/Etrac will not... Every video I am finding of a minelab FBS unit vs the F75 shows otherwise...I searched youtube and I cannot find anything that shows the F75 hitting anything the etrac or ctx does not rather I am finding the opposite...for example this video shows the dues and etrac hitting a coin sized object and the F75 basically passes over...



the video in the other link I posted again shows the etrac hitting something very solid at 8'' and the F75 hitting the target but is quite unstable at that depth...



Where I do think the F75 outperforming the the FBS units depth wise would be on a small coil as I can explain that based on the technology used...but I have yet to see that either...I dont expect these machines to always be the same depth in low mineralized soil but I would like to see an example where the F75 is deeper than the CTX/Etrac. Factory machines can vary in depth from one batch to the next, headphones can make a huge difference (by many inches) and the person behind the machine can make a very big difference...but what I am finding is not showing the F75 doing better depth wise...so lets see one of these examples...

 

[jjack9977]

I'll watch these as soon as I get a chance. I have caught a couple minutes of the first and can't understand a word of it to know what settings or version of the f75 he's using or much of anything else. After I watch them I'll go through and instead of piecemeal, I'll put together whatever I can find in one report. Videos may not necessarily be all head to head as individual testing is just as valid. Of note, I would point out that the section of the Dankowski quote refers to an SE, not an LTD, and in that same paragraph he talks about how the CTX is not good on small relics, pulling an item he tested at 2" vs. the F75 SE at 6". I would also say that any video in a foreign language won't be helpful to me, and any video showing an F75 struggling with a mere 8" should be viewed with a lot of skepticism where it has no trouble at all in 12" beds and I have no trouble at all with very deep coin pulls myself, unless we are talking about a dime, which I'm seeing is for whatever reason not it's best hit for some people when it comes to coins (has not been my experience with it though). But again I'm not a coin shooter primarily. I like relics and coins are secondary or more of a bonus find. The land surrounding me has undergone serious flooding, has been overturned, has overgrown vegetation and grass etc. It was the breadbasket of the revolutionary war, which is why I focus on relics at this time.

 

[adamBomb]

I'll watch these as soon as I get a chance. I have caught a couple minutes of the first and can't understand a word of it to know what settings or version of the f75 he's using or much of anything else.

Yes unfortunately they are speaking another language...it was the only video I could even find of a depth test comparing these two. We need to see a video example of them head to head...

any video showing an F75 struggling with a mere 8" should be viewed with a lot of skepticism where it has no trouble at all in 12" beds.

Why would you be skeptical of the F75 having problems if the dirt is mineralized? We don't know so this is very plausible as this is exactly how these detectors are designed to perform. If that ground had any mineralization the depth of the F75 will decrease a lot whereas on the etrac it will remain at much more stable depth. This is where the multi vs single frequency comes into the picture. This is exactly why people will have a combination of machines because their depth can differ significantly from one patch of land to the next. This is why air tests and even ground tests using different dirt/areas are unreliable. This is why you need exact same dirt and exact same test (ie a video test) to show the comparison otherwise it doesn't matter. I can air test a machine in my backyard and get 12'' but in the front yard get 15'' because of EMI. I can air test at 8'' using crummy headphones and 12'' using good headphones on the exact same machine..it needs to be the same or results can vary a lot.

 

[jjack9977]

No doubt, if the soil was significantly mineralized that would reduce skepticism. Unfortunately I can't discern that from the language. There are people that can look at a soil sample and tell a lot about it visually. I'm not one of those guys. I don't know a lot about the mineral content of the soil in my own area. I can just tell you that the soil is rocky and has been very chatty with every machine, but with every machine I've had so far, the Xterra 70, BH Pioneer 505, Land ranger Pro, Fisher F75 and even some incredibly low end machines, I get the depth the manufacturers claim I should. The fisher is incredibly deep.

 

[jjack9977]

Just wanted to update and say that I'm still in research and prep for putting everything together. I don't always have a lot of free time. I want to do it right and thorough. It is turning out to be more time consuming than I thought and many times I find myself getting sidetracked. Who wouldn't. So many things are interesting. I've learned a lot though and I'm having fun doing it. Nothing I've seen has changed my thoughts on what I originally found, just getting more specific about where each machine cuts off in ID and then in audio in different terrains and levels of mineralization. In reference to the above videos, I've stated I can't understand the Russian test. The other was conducted by an individual who had just received the machine and posted by an individual that if you look into him...well, you should look into his exchanges in various forums. In watching the video, no settings are revealed and I would note that as someone who has been using this machine for a bit, and listening to it respond, it actually had no trouble at all with these coins. I actually believe I hear it picking up on another item.