Not impressed

OK guys, after much thought tonight, I'll break ranks here. While I have not completed a full range of intended tests under a full variety of soil conditions and machine settings, to date after two days tests, my impression of the Zed is that it is basically two detectors in one (SDC 2300 and GPZ 5000) and no more. This is a wonderful feat of design and engineering, and it is a comfotable machine to swing provided the harness and bungee are are adjusted correctly to body shape. Is it worth 10.7K? At the moment IMO, a definitive no. It has not responded to any target that a 2300 or 5000 could not. Unless I find improvement over the next few days with further tests, I see major egg on Minelab's face unless further software is released very soon.

NB: Day 1 tests on a 10 year+ established test bed (eroded gully with PVC pipes inserted in wall - typical Vic goldfields) 10 - 30 inches - gold nugget test targets
Day 2 swinging on a flattened lead with good variety of targets remaining

They really need more coils with it. Perhaps the 10" mono was a better all-rounder on the 4500-5000? The 14" DOD seems too big for an all-rounder, and the design... wouldn't mono be more sensitive? Time will tell, it's all out of my price range so it doesn't bother me either way.  

The 14" DOD covers an amazing range of target sizes, so it's a bit like comparing apples with oranges. Like I said beautiful engineering, BUT NO IMPROVEMENT in actual gold getting ability

Appreciate your honesty Cal.
Would really like to see some undug tests with all 3 detectors (the 5, 23, and 7) having a crack.
Some real like for like stuff.

BG

Anyone seen this "test " report getting around the net, or have any idea where it came from, or its authenticity ?
Or is it from someone trying to poohoo the GPZ ?
Scary if real though !
Cheers,
Rick

Yep, saw it earlier this evening via my detecting partners facebook account, haven't found original source yet.

Keep the good work up cal.

Appreciate your unbiased,honest opinion on the 7000 Cal. Although still in its infancy stage of learning & and as to what it can or cannot do over a variety type/size targets/ground conditions,do let us know what you think of it,after swinging it over a few more areas/locations,of where you'v lobbed on to gold before.

Cheers Kon.

AraratGold wrote:Anyone seen this "test " report getting around the net, or have any idea where it came from, or its authenticity ?
Or is it from someone trying to poohoo the GPZ ?
Scary if real though !
Cheers,
Rick

Means nothing unless someone reputable puts their name to it. My opinion, way too early to tell.

Unfortunately i think there needs to be a software upgrade
or things will go south real quick

AraratGold wrote:Anyone seen this "test " report getting around the net, or have any idea where it came from, or its authenticity ?
Or is it from someone trying to poohoo the GPZ ?
Scary if real though !
Cheers,
Rick

Without knowing if the ground was highly mineralised or not, not  much can be deduced from this yet.

If it wasn't highly mineralised, then maybe it would be easy for the 5000 to match it.

If it was highly mineralised then the shite's about to hit the fan.

***Confirmed, the graph is genuine, and by an experienced forum member, goldnomad, thanks Robert.***

Thanks for the honest input Cal.

Keep us imformed cal,anychance of some footage of your testing.
It was running threw my mind a coupla days ago it might not be anything special but more like 2 detectors in one like you say......

amen to that slim.Theres a lot of peoples credibilitys and reputations on the line here.

Sorry to hear that Cal. We will not slaughter the messenger as you've suffered enough disappointment.

There was the discrepancy between the US and local testers as to where it's strengths lay.The US Guys said highly mineralised ground yet JP for one, says low mineralisation.

Perhaps this is the problem, it only gets the extra performance over really quiet ground. JP's favourite setting is General/Normal maybe using Difficult dumbs the machine down too much. I believe that 5000/7000 test was done in hot ground in Vic on Difficult setting.

This comment of JP's says a lot and fits with the findings so far
The SDC and GPX 5000 represent nigh on 15 years of development whereas the GPZ is the first of its kind akin to the SD 2000 or GP extreme. For Minelab to get the features of the GPZ 7000 to the level of the 5K would take a huge amount more development time and resources....concentrate on those areas where it does perform, with the hope Minelab will include additional features in future models

source:
http://forum.kimbucktwo.com/index.php?topic=26635.0

It is unerrily quiet from that quarter, all is not good I can sense it. Why is there not a report about the three 10 plus ounce bits he found testing????

It may not be a case as has been suggested of shiny bum bean counters faced with declining share price and years of R&D costs forcing Engineering to release it before it was ready, no looking at the full picture it appears that much of the remaining gold within shallow range fits a certain criteria i.e. porous, ragged with sharp edges, cores of quartz or other minerals surrounded by a gold weave, gold pieces of weight and composition that exactly matches the ground decay characteristics etc.,

Realistically these types of gold are scattered and localised. The US testers said that going back to worked out patches where the gold is solid and fine will not likely produce much more, only gold that fits the criteria mentioned above not easily detected by the GPX and SDC at depth. So taking all this into account it appears that the 7000 needs to be tested against other machines using these difficult to detect pieces, then the 7000 should shine, maybe by 40%

If not the shiny bums should be sacked!!!

Alc

At 44% increase in purchase price over its precedessor the 5000 which came with 2 coils...why is it not a reasonable assumption to expect 44% better performance in typical AUSTRALIAN goldfield conditions....or even an expectation that it would recover 44% more gold than would otherwise be achieved with the 4500/5000 combinations with larger coils?........
At this stage I'm only 44% sold on it....and I may well have been a possible purchaser.....
What about hearing from or seeing video comparisons from even 44% of the testers who have now had them for a while...
The only certainty at the moment is that the arrse has dropped out of the value of the 2nd hand 5000's by about 44% due to all the release hype/stated non- independent performance tests by Minelab against its own previous flagship detector...
Thanks for your honest assessment Cal....
Hoo Roo

Well, this has certainly brought about an uneasy silence across the forum whilst members/potential buyers digest what you are saying Cal. I do thank you on behalf of many of the members for bringing your findings to the forum rather than biting your tongue about all this. Please continue to test and bring your results to us here, as we all wait with baited breath. I also ask that any other owners of the GPZ7000 that have done tests, to input their test results, whether they be for or against what Cal's has written here.

Well done once again Cal, and I for one am glad you "broke ranks" as you put it.

Really people??? After 3 and a bit days???
At least wait until after the weekend when a lot more old patches get hit up.
cal said himself he hasn't done a full range of tests.
We've also seen it ping gold on ground that's been gone over with the SDC and 5000.
Not trying to stick up for the company as they've probably priced me out of one too but just think it's a bit early for sharpening the knives.

toadskin wrote:

AraratGold wrote:Anyone seen this "test " report getting around the net, or have any idea where it came from, or its authenticity ?
Or is it from someone trying to poohoo the GPZ ?
Scary if real though !
Cheers,
Rick

Means nothing unless someone reputable puts their name to it.  My opinion, way too early to tell.

I was one of the testers. What do you want to know?

Robert

goldnomad wrote:

I was one of the testers. What do you want to know?

Robert

Good to hear you was on the test team Robert

The "general" timing selection is not the optimal setting for small gold a few grams and smaller, especially sub gram. For that size fraction High yield is better. That is why high yield (the small gold setting) is the default setting for the GPZ. So half the test was run on little bits less than 5 grams on the wrong (less than optimal) setting for that size, and I was wondering why you chose to do that?

G'day Robert, where was the testing done?
Which site?

At least half of those larger targets should've given a much better response in General (5 to 50 grams) over the 5000

Chris that's a test that's been floating around the web and unverified as far as can be seen, it's Cal's findings that are disturbing

P.S. I see that it maybe verified, by Robert

So I'd still like to hear an answer to my question.
As far as a general lack of finds when pounding old patches, I have expected some of this and in many cases the reason is more geological that the performance of the GPZ. Many patches just don't have the gold at depth prospectors commonly assume is present. See the following thread for some more comment on this....

http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/691-does-the-gpz-do-better-in-highly-mineralized-ground-or-mild-ground/

G'day Chris,

We are all asking a question, which has still not been answered and that Question is why have all the Testers stopped talking??? And we are not convinced that the members have caused them to Run away and Hide. I believe there is more to this crap than meets the EYE. MINELAB WHAT IS GOING ON HERE???????. We need Answers NOW!!!!

Regards.

Unhappy Customer.

Mike.

Quote" there are certain number of folks out there who just want to cry and complain no matter what the facts are"

Maybe they want to cry because they've spent $10,700 and the facts just don't don't add up.

This reminds me of when the 5000 came out and comparisons were made against the 4500.It still remains basically unanswered.
What is of concern is spending 10700 when you can pick up a 4500 or 5000 for a third of that price with similar results.Also having a huge range of available coils and accessories to match.
The best deal to date that I've seen is the 2300/5000 package especially if there are 2 operators.

Reno Chris wrote:So I'd still like to hear an answer to my question.
As far as a general lack of finds when pounding old patches, I have expected some of this and in many cases the reason is more geological that the performance of the GPZ. Many patches just don't have the gold at depth prospectors commonly assume is present. See the following thread for some more comment on this....

http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/691-does-the-gpz-do-better-in-highly-mineralized-ground-or-mild-ground/

Neither will shallow bare bumbed gold patches produce the expected same amounts of gold,if they have already been cleaned out thoroughly,by previous detectors in the past.
Fellas,I'd pay close and careful attention to what Reno Chris,JP,and Steve Herschbach have stated,for it does make sense.

Cheers Kon.

Sorry Cal we're wandering off topic here.

JP's cross reference

GPZ 7000 Search Modes = Similar GPX 5000 Timings

   High Yield/Difficult = Fine gold

   General/Difficult = Enhance

   High Yield/Normal = Sens Extra

   General/Normal = Sharp/Normal

The 7000 should've creamed all over the 5000 on those bigger bits

Reno Chris, unlike a few of you pros, most of us don't have old patches and those we have found, I can assure you we've picked them clean of anything significant. We need this machine to do what Bruce said it will do, and that is "open up the goldfields again". Not just the old patches, would you agree?

Cal wrote:OK guys, after much thought tonight, I'll break ranks here. While I have not completed a full range of intended tests under a full variety of soil conditions and machine settings, to date after two days tests, my impression of the Zed is that it is basically two detectors in one (SDC 2300 and GPZ 5000) and no more. This is a wonderful feat of design and engineering, and it is a comfotable machine to swing provided the harness and bungee are are adjusted correctly to body shape. Is it worth 10.7K? At the moment IMO, a definitive no. It has not responded to any target that a 2300 or 5000 could not. Unless I find improvement over the next few days with further tests, I see major egg on Minelab's face unless further software is released very soon.

NB: Day 1 tests on a 10 year+ established test bed (eroded gully with PVC pipes inserted in wall - typical Vic goldfields) 10 - 30 inches - gold nugget test targets
     Day 2 swinging on a flattened lead with good variety of targets remaining

Well this is not surprising to hear.. been checking out what others are saying about the 7000 on some other gold forums and there are quite a few owners that are already not happy with their new machines. I'm reading people asking for their money back and cancelled orders on the 7000. What the hell, its hasn't even been a week since it was released, are people expecting to much for their money..