Find's Treasure Forums
Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!
You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.
Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.
Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.
Click here to register!
Need Support Help?
Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you
Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.
Need advice CZ or F series
- Thread starter ahunter
- Start date
Well the CZ goes deep is heavy and has poor ergonomics but on the whole is a quiet and user friendly and likes iron. Meter is basically areas and not specific numbers.
F75 is light well balanced, noisy to get depth, and expect a learning period and has an accurate digital meter. To be fair I tried an early one and understand the newer ones are not as noisy.
Google around as Tom D has excellent info on both and may help with your decision...Indeed the type of ground in your neck of the woods and what you are looking for would help getting more info.
F75 is light well balanced, noisy to get depth, and expect a learning period and has an accurate digital meter. To be fair I tried an early one and understand the newer ones are not as noisy.
Google around as Tom D has excellent info on both and may help with your decision...Indeed the type of ground in your neck of the woods and what you are looking for would help getting more info.
A CZ goes with me on nearly every beach trip and it gets used. F75-LTD gets a lot of use over the dirt. I am not using the CZ over dirt much at all anymore. When it rains, I do sometimes pick up the CZ20 and go hit a tot lot.
It does depend on ground conditions and hunting preferences. Both are great detectors with some different strengths.
tvr
It does depend on ground conditions and hunting preferences. Both are great detectors with some different strengths.
tvr
I've had both detectors twice each. As others have said, there are pluses and minuses to each.
Both are very capable of finding deep coins and relics. The F75 likes iron, the CZ-3D absolutely loves it. Longtime Cz-3D users say you can tell iron falses from good targets and that may be true most of the time. But I had enough "that's a lousy iron signal but I'm going to dig it anyway" targets turn out to be good targets that it frustrated me. In clean ground the Cz-3d was a joy to use, in trashier ground not as good.
The Cz-3D is an analog machine and there is a wide variance in depth capabilities from one detector to the next. I've seen Tom calibrated 3d's go from 8 something inches to past 12 in Tom's Florida dirt. In general, the 1021's are deeper than newer El Paso units, but it's not a hard and fast rule. Units that are not properly calibrated are subject to unwanted condtions like incorrect IDing and deep audio smear. Depth differences between individual F75 units are negligable, as digital detectors tend to be. I definitely prefer the sound of the CZ-3D audio to that of the F75.
The F75 is prone to EMI interference, especially with the bigger stock coil, while the 3D is not. A lot of anecdotal evidence points to the more newly manufactured F75's (and newer manufactured high gain FT products in general) being less EMI prone. The F75 is noticeably better ergonomically than the CZ-3D
I've never found anything better than the F75 with the 5" coil for finding coins at depth in dense iron. In a less trashy hunting environment, I would prefer a deep and properly tuned 1021 CZ-3D over the F75.
Both are very capable of finding deep coins and relics. The F75 likes iron, the CZ-3D absolutely loves it. Longtime Cz-3D users say you can tell iron falses from good targets and that may be true most of the time. But I had enough "that's a lousy iron signal but I'm going to dig it anyway" targets turn out to be good targets that it frustrated me. In clean ground the Cz-3d was a joy to use, in trashier ground not as good.
The Cz-3D is an analog machine and there is a wide variance in depth capabilities from one detector to the next. I've seen Tom calibrated 3d's go from 8 something inches to past 12 in Tom's Florida dirt. In general, the 1021's are deeper than newer El Paso units, but it's not a hard and fast rule. Units that are not properly calibrated are subject to unwanted condtions like incorrect IDing and deep audio smear. Depth differences between individual F75 units are negligable, as digital detectors tend to be. I definitely prefer the sound of the CZ-3D audio to that of the F75.
The F75 is prone to EMI interference, especially with the bigger stock coil, while the 3D is not. A lot of anecdotal evidence points to the more newly manufactured F75's (and newer manufactured high gain FT products in general) being less EMI prone. The F75 is noticeably better ergonomically than the CZ-3D
I've never found anything better than the F75 with the 5" coil for finding coins at depth in dense iron. In a less trashy hunting environment, I would prefer a deep and properly tuned 1021 CZ-3D over the F75.
Love my NASA tuned 3D. Poor ergonomics for sure but that's the only thing I can ding it on. The one thing I keep hearing and worried me before I bought it was its supposed attraction to iron. But the truth is I dig way less iron with my 3D than I ever have with any other detector. As much as I like it, I did order another FT (T2se) digital detector. Can't wait to compare!