Minelab GPZ7000 information and questions

old hand said:

Wal I have a friend that has a 5000 with mods and a 7000 he knows the 5000 inside out but the 7000 is early days and he says its got potential .Hope you will post your results. l have been considering getting my 4500 modded but when people ask me about getting a detector modded I have always advised against it regards john

Click to expand...

Your friend won't have Woodys latest mod, as he has only just completed it. I'm pretty sure the detector I will be using will be one of the first with the new frequency mod pot fitted. I, like yourself, have not gone down the mod track as the 5000 with the correct timings set up, and knowledge of the many ways they can be tweeked has proven deadly. The new kid on the block, with it's hefty price tag, has changed my view slightly and if a modded 5000 can produce similar or better results it's got my interest.

I like to use the sharpest tool in the shed out prospecting, but I also like versatility and value for my hard earned cash. I personally won't be laying out for a 7000 unless "totally" convinced that it's at least 20% better than the 5000. Pictures of nuggets found with the 7000 do absolutely nothing for me...similarly reports and pics from trade associated people. I can post lots of recent pics of small sub grammers, and well over once pieces with the 5000....so what....that will not sway a serious operator. :/

WalnLiz said:

loamer said:

Don't shoot the messenger on this post - just reporting what has been on another forum. I think some of us can guess the test-pit so I have no doubt it's a very good pit. Also, I have also been told of this testing by some other people who highlighted the 1.56% improvement, which supports some other comments that the zed (7000) is marginally better. I guess we will all have to make up our own minds. I might add, this chart/report has caused a lot of chat.

"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."


https://www.prospectingaustralia.com/forum/img/member-images/981/1425379338_capture.png

Click to expand...

Seen a few similar results from an extremely experienced "Professional Prospector" colleague of mine who sold his 5000 for a new 7000. Something more worrying to me from his results and obsevations, was a "Shadow Zone" from the coil config, which seems to not see certain mid sized nuggets at mid range depths that the 5000 easily picks up. Small shallow OK....large deep OK but need further convincing of much in between. :|

I'm getting hold of the 7000, and a modded 5000 from Woody next week and will run both against my standard 5000, in my own test areas, to see which in my opinion is the sharpest tool in the shed. I'm certainly sitting on the fence for several more weeks before I take any quantum leap to upgrade to what might not be the best bang for your buck. :/ My observations only and not intended to stir any wasp nests.

Wal.

Click to expand...

Wal,

Can you try and run a 4500 with an 18, a 5000 with a 14 and 18? I think you will be scratching your head about the 40%. Ours were unmodded. Just for even more fun, wack a joey on the 4500 and run it against a 2300 if you have the time.

I will certainly be running a 14"NF on the 5000's as it needs to be a fair comparison with coil size on the 7000. Pointless running an 11" on the 5000 vs the 14" on the 7000. The 40% is a load of cods whallip as I've already done those tests.

I'll take a 4500 with me mate and get back to you....take care mate.

WalnLiz said:

I will certainly be running a 14"NF on the 5000's as it needs to be a fair comparison with coil size on the 7000. Pointless running an 11" on the 5000 vs the 14" on the 7000. The 40% is a load of cods whallip as I've already done those tests.

I'll take a 4500 with me mate and get back to you....take care mate.

Click to expand...

Lucky I kept the 4500 just incase. I am very much looking forward to seeing your comparisons Wal.

WalnLiz said:

I will certainly be running a 14"NF on the 5000's as it needs to be a fair comparison with coil size on the 7000. Pointless running an 11" on the 5000 vs the 14" on the 7000. The 40% is a load of cods whallip as I've already done those tests.

I'll take a 4500 with me mate and get back to you....take care mate.

Click to expand...

Thanks for doing these tests.

Not sure if you are aware as yet but coiltek are also
introducing A new 14" coil in April which may help
change the landscape In reference to detecting small
gold deeper for the GPX.

More info is on the website link below.

http://www.coiltekmanufacturing.com.au

Heatho said:

I honestly think the GPZ needs to be run in deeper ground than you would normally detect to get decent Gold, in most of the flogged shallow patches you might as well run an SDC and save $7000.

I hope they keep developing MPF technology and make a bigger SDC with more coils and settings/timings.

Everytime I use the SDC I'm amazed by it and rarely come home without a nugget.

Click to expand...

That'd be good but I don't know that MPF would allow much bigger sizes in reality. I have a feeling what we've got in the SDC has been matched for a reason & we may not see much in the way of future coils/settings - I hope I'm wrong. In essence I think the GPZ is a bigger SDC with more settings/timings & future coils that also allows you to match, surpass or compete with the GPX range, depending on circumstances, all in one machine with a very wide range covering coil already in the 14"?
I think in coming months (not in the couple of weeks that's past) "everytime I use it I'm amazed" could also be getting used to describe the GPZ? Remember the hullabaloo that went on for months with the SDC & still goes on at times now!
Things seem 50/50 on the GPZ at the moment - good reports & bad, some testing falling short, some exceeding expectations. I'm sitting on the fence & keeping an open mind to it.
I'm not open to the price at the moment though . If they could have kept the price more incremental to previous new releases then some of the current negativity may not be getting bandied around.
One comment I seen sums people thoughts up I reckon. It was something like "I purchased the GPX5000 cause I wanted the best machine available & thought upgrades would be in small steps. The increase in the GPZ isn't a small step. I hope the GPZ fails so I still have the best machine available".
Unfortunately I think there's a lot of negative feelings like this due to price & based on little else. Once an attack on the GPZ starts many get on board with the argument without having even seen one let alone used it. Sounds familiar again?

I've said it before and I'll say it again.
The GPZ will find stuff all on shallow ground that has been detected properly by a competent operator with a GPX.
It will however, do well on deeper ground.
Do not get a ZED and run over shallow ground and expect it to pay for itself.

Redfin said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again.
The GPZ will find stuff all on shallow ground that has been detected properly by a competent operator with a GPX.
It will however, do well on deeper ground.
Do not get a ZED and run over shallow ground and expect it to pay for itself.

Click to expand...

i hear what your saying mate those decent size nuggets are all but hammered with the gpx under 18 inches i do however hear everyday of lots of small stuff being found by the gpz in the really tony depart net that would compete with the sdc. obviously this wont pay off your detector in a hurry

Wolfau said:

WalnLiz said:

I will certainly be running a 14"NF on the 5000's as it needs to be a fair comparison with coil size on the 7000. Pointless running an 11" on the 5000 vs the 14" on the 7000. The 40% is a load of cods whallip as I've already done those tests.

I'll take a 4500 with me mate and get back to you....take care mate.

Click to expand...

Thanks for doing these tests.

Not sure if you are aware as yet but coiltek are also
introducing A new 14" coil in April which may help
change the landscape In reference to detecting small
gold deeper for the GPX.

More info is on the website link below.

http://www.coiltekmanufacturing.com.au

Click to expand...

I reckon the DD version pro Elite is a great coil, Reeko uses one and I can't believe the tiny targets he gets with it on his 2200, the mono should be more sensitive, should be excellent.

Looking forward to your test results and evaluations Wal.

I think the GPZ is a beast and is proving itself, though yes I agree it's for deeper ground. Any surfaced/shallow areas that have been flogged by GPX's and SDC's will have very little left for the GPZ. In deeper or virgin ground it will do really well I believe.

Minelab gpz 7000 gold how much it costs?

genis said:

Minelab gpz 7000 gold how much it costs?

Click to expand...

LS?

$10700

rumour control has the yet to be manufactured 20" SDD for the zed at $1,500. (and as a matter of interest who owns the Coiltek factory in Adelaide now????) It is heavy with the 14" SDD - I can only imagine a 20".

Hopefully the 20" won't pick up the tiny lead shot I'm finding so much of.

A 20" coil in that config will need more than a hip stick to swing a reasonable amount of time......I suggest a gym membership and a personal weight trainer should come with the cost of the coil...

Some good tips above for GPZ7000 users.

Bruce also explains how ZVT works & that it "IS NOT PI TECHNOLOGY"!

Bruce Candy said:

Zero Voltage Transmission (ZVT) ZVT has the same major advantage as PI for ground balancing in not detecting the major soil component X, but has the same advantage of CW (Continuous Wave) metal detector technologies compared to PI for detecting very large nuggets because ZVT is CW (unlike PI that is not CW), and also the same advantage as PI for being relatively insensitive to saline soils compared to VLF.
What is the ZVT transmitted field, and how does it differ to PI?
Both ZVT and PI measure a signal (receive signal) immediately after a very rapid change in magnetic field. During the receiving (measuring) period, PI does not transmit a magnetic field at all, whereas ZVT transmits an exceptionally constant magnetic field (until the next very rapid change in magnetic field occurs). The ZVT transmitted field alternates between transmitting very steadily in one direction; e.g. North Pole pointing into the ground; then rapidly switches to South Pole pointing steadily into the ground, then back to North and so on.

Click to expand...

Reading through some of the testing carried out to date I think most has probably been inherently flawed due to a lack of understanding & incorrect operation. The simple, but important & different, start up procedure doesn't even seem to be getting carried out correctly let alone setting up the GPZ optimally. The one test I have read that I am confident that was done correctly showed an overall average of 27% improvement in the GPZ. Minelab state up to 40% that test seemed to fit in with that - I can't find anywhere that Minelab have said that 40% is guaranteed across the board? A 27% average suggests that in some areas 40% or better was achieved - in others a lot less.
One thing that I have found some testers have been doing is setting the GPX up to run well in the prevailing ground & speric conditions. They have then been trying to set the GPZ up so the settings are similar or matched to that of the GPX to be fair? Thats not fair testing & the GPZ should also be set up to run optimally for the conditions i.e. if the GPX has to be ran with lower gain or in fine gold or whatever to compensate for ground or EMI but the GPZ can still be run in normal & high yield & audio smoothing off or on low then it should be run at its max too. People need to accept they are two different machines & to get a fair comparison both need to be set up for their individual optimal performance, in my humble opinion. People need to move away from the previous PI operation mindset I believe.

I'll be looking forward to Wals testing too, another trusted source, & hopefully now with more info like the technical paper + people discovering more about set up/operation the testing moving forward is carried out in a more knowledgeable fashion with information on how it was done & under what conditions being passed on more openly. Leaving the GPZ in general/difficult with no feedback as to why when it very well could gave been run in general/normal or high yield/normal isn't good testing in my opinion.

I'm not trying to talk the GPZ up or put the GPX down. I just want to see open testing done with facts on the how & why.

P.s Wal - to be completely fair to the GPX you may need to test it running an 8", 14" & 18" coil in various settings & on various target sizes on both machines against the GPZ's 14" DOD. I don't believe in my opinion the 14" DOD & a normal 14" mono are like for like? The 14" DOD appears to have a much greater range through various target sizes etc?

The real testing is out in the field & the upcoming season should be an interesting one?

Yep ths is straight up and on the ball good post mbasko.

I look forward to the Wal's results.

Z

One thing that always amazes me with marketing from high end profile companies ( Minelab / Codan ) is the lack of training videos. (step by step). If this was my company ( marketing department) I would have launch by now about 10 videos which discuss in detail the settings and variations. (infield) Instead of here it is "we think its wonderful" now see how good you can make with your own experimentation.

The ZakMan