<STRONG>As stated, the 3D has had the <span style="background-color:#ffff00;">target segments expanded</span> to include certain additional targets. The target segments on the CZ5 are "tighter" and place those targets in a segment that could be considered trash, depending on what you're looking for. The 3D was <span style="background-color:#ffff00;">"designed" to be used in older sites</span> that haven't had modern use with modern trash such as pulltabs and aluminum can slaw. <span style="background-color:#ffff00;">It's a great idea.</span> Unfortunately, many of those older sites are still in use today, and <span style="background-color:#ffff00;">contain a lot of aforesaid trash</span>. The problem I found with the 3D was that in trying to hunt those sites, more trash read as a good target than I was willing to deal with. When I am on a site that can produce older coins and artifacts, I will <span style="background-color:#ffff00;">dig more of the "trash" segment signals</span> if they sound right and are deep enough to <span style="background-color:#ffff00;">"possibly" produce a good find</span>. I, personally, don't see any advantage to the 3D over other CZ's unless you have an abundance of those sites where it could excel (no pun intended). On the other hand, if you do have those sites, just <span style="background-color:#ffff00;">dig more of the pulltab and zinc targets with the CZ5</span>, as there should be no pulltabs or can slaw to deal with. No, I'm not bashing it. <span style="background-color:#ffff00;">It's just an opinion.</span>
Hope this helps,
Otto...</STRONG>