The GPZ7000 intro video what am I really seeing?

Why is it that those bar graphs show the GPX 5000 detection depths for various size nuggs from tiny to large as being the same but show the 2300 and the GPZ7000 as being different for the same varying size nuggs? Or is my Shingles meds playing with my brain again/still.

adrian ss wrote:Why is it that those bar graphs show the GPX 5000 detection depths for various size nuggs from tiny to large as being the same but show the 2300 and the GPZ7000 as being different for the same varying size nuggs? (

Hi Adrian, the 5K is the benchmark against which the others are compared, so it has a 100% value in each test scenario.

That's where Minelab were sneaky, if you make the 5K with 15×12 the benchmark, the Zed then only gets the target at 21.7% deeper. Still not bad, but hope the other advancements give more benefits than just raw depth.

Cheers.

I think that I still prefer pure detecting capability as against having a fancy display and GPS capability.
Never the less, the GPZ 7000 appears to be a pretty nifty detector although not having Iron ID or rejection seems a tad odd for a 10.7k metal detector that is designed specifically for gold field work where there is almost always truck loads of rusty iron rubbish laying about.
But when someone says it does not cut the mustard they better be prepared to back it up with some facts that I feel sure ML would be interested in knowing about.

G'day Adrian

A lot of people were using Mono coils on the GPX machines anyway and no discrimination, I would rather dig it and know for sure mate.

cheers dave