Menu
What's new
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

Omega vs T2 - Treasure Hunting Magazine quote

B

blake_mulder

New member
"I believe it fair to say that the T2 is a much more powerful model. Even the in air results above the ground showed a decisive difference between the two machines for a coin lying on the surface showed the T2 could pick it up at 8 - 12 inches while the Omega would only get 5-6 inches. The T2 also appeared to have better iron discrimination"

I'm surprised at this as some Omega users comments here on this forum dont back-up this statement!
 
n/t
 
Also take into account that the T2 comes standard with a DD coil whereas the Omega comes with a concentric coil. I would like to see the comparison when they both have the DD coils on.
 
n/t
 
Hi Elton,

Your statement holds some truth but, in actual use it goes beyond price because of variables in design. The Omega's published sensitivity spec is lower than the T2's. However taking the different operating frequency into account, users reports of better response and depth on coins with the Omega is logical. Conversely the T2's better response to lower conductive targets.

The statement of "better iron discrimination" IMO is subjective and as brought up by lafatlife could very well be coil dependant.

HH Tom
 
Tom, not sure I understand your statement of better response and depth on coins when air tests on coins show depth of only 5-6 inches - and also, we can make most any detector deeper by changing coils but do we have to accept that when we buy a detector we have to also budget for a new coil to get acceptable performance? I was taken aback by the review, especially as I had heard such positive results on this forum. I was looking for a lightweight detector for coinshooting and was considering the Omega, but if I have to buy another coil to get acceptable depths then the overall cost means I would probably look elsewhere. Teknetics must be chuffed with that review...
 
blake_mulder said:
"I believe it fair to say that the T2 is a much more powerful model. Even the in air results above the ground showed a decisive difference between the two machines for a coin lying on the surface showed the T2 could pick it up at 8 - 12 inches while the Omega would only get 5-6 inches. The T2 also appeared to have better iron discrimination"

I'm surprised at this as some Omega users comments here on this forum dont back-up this statement!
Click to expand...


Why would Omega owners back-up an such a statement when it is not true? My Omega will airtest a quarter at 12". The deepest coin I have found was at 8" and it came in clear even lifting the stock coil a few inches off the ground. Just because it was published doesn't make it the truth. I guess who ever did the test missed the sensitivity knob on the left. HMMMM lets see, Omega sens 40. T2 sens 99. Yup that ought to do it for a fair comparison.

blacktoe
 
You stated the article said the T2 got 8-12" on the coin.. which was it 8" or 12"? What was the coin used? And just how reliable is that to base a decision on anyway??? Almost without exception the older coins I found with the Omega at previously hunted sites were in excess of 6" and gave definite dig me information both audibly and visually via the meter. In my mind this puts the value of his testing at a very low mark. There are many field tests reviews and reviewers out in cyber land that I totally disagree with after spending time using the same detector in the field.

Even with the added cost of the DD coil the Omega is still cheaper than the T2 and it includes the addition of options and features that many consider a necessity.

My main point in my previous post was that if you are going to compare 2 different detectors you have to take into consideration the design philosophy and intended use. IMO the T2 and Omega meet their target of performance and feature set very well.

Tom
 
I'll back you up on the depth blacktoe and state that in good conditions the Omega will dig 10-12" quarters with no skewing up or down of the Target ID! :thumbup:

Tom
 
Go ahead and believe that crap if you want to, but if my Omega only got 5-6 inches on a coin I'd have wrapped it around a tree by now. First Texas gives me not a damn thing, so I can say with conviction that my Omega beats my T2 in ground and air tests. If you like the features and setup of the T2, buy it and you'll be happy. But I prefer the Omega in most situations. I've been detecting since I was a kid. Certainly wouldn't have much interest in a machine that only got the depth you quoted. And my Omega sees targets that T2's don't. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.
 
I dont understand why a reviewer would make such a comment on depth. People have differing views, but depth of a machine is not subject to likes or dislikes, its not down to personal preference - it will detect objects at a given depth and thats that - overall the reviewer (Bob Smith) liked the machine, but telling folks in Treasure Hunting magazine that the Omega only air tests coins at 5 - 6inches just has to put people off buying it. Thats why I mention the review here, I want to make an informed decision so want advice, not just from a magazine review, but from actual users.
 
Maybe that is why such statements are made, To increase readership? :shrug:
Who knows why the guy got the results he did. Perhaps he set it up wrong. Perhaps it was partially masked by something in the ground. Perhaps perhaps perhaps. :nopity:

You've read one review in a mag where the guy didn't like it's performance. You have no doubt read several reviews here from actual users who do like it's performance and find it to work much better than the magazine article stated. You have plenty of information to make a decision. If you are looking for a detector, check out the features sets and options that match most of your targets and site conditions and go for it. One thing I have learned in the short six years I've been doing this with the nearly 40 detectors that have passed through my hands is that they all find metal, they are all dependant on site conditions, they all need a accessory coil or two, they will all surprise you occasionally with performance you didn't think they had, they will all have certain conditions they absolutely suck in, and they all have certain conditions they excell in.

Good luck on your search.

Mike
 
It's one of the 2 main detecting hobby magazines over here in the UK, the other being The Searcher.

http://www.treasurehunting.co.uk/

http://www.thesearcher.co.uk/
 
That way you can have more than one to read :clapping:

I like reading field tests myself, but I really like reading more than one. Feature performance is more important to me than depth claims because depth claims are all ground dependant. Be nice to see the whole article.

At least they are no longer reporting those same numbers for the T2. I remember that being reported over there a couple of years ago. I probably got a copy of that on thumbdrive somewhere. :crazy:

HH
Mike
 
Another thing to add to this is what were the settings on each machine? I have both machines and really like them both. The fact that the Omega can notch in nickles gives it a slight edge over the T2 in my book but then again I just lower the discrimination on the T2 to foil. Do I dig a lot of junk, you bet but I do the same with the Omega.

Honestly the omega is a great coin machine. You will not go wrong with it. As far a depth go, as everyone was saying, it all depends on the area you are detecting. Some machines are more sensitive to outside interference than others are and don't forget the items that are in the ground.

As far as the air tests go, and referring back to the DD coils, was the coin tested on the Omega exactly in the sweet spot or not? If it wasn't, the depth will be off. When using the DD coil, anywhere in the middle line will pretty much be a consistent reading on depth where as with a concentric coil the depth will be off if not exactly in the middle.

Does the person who did the test have experience with the different coils? (Having not read the article I do not know.)

The bottom line for you is to find a machine that you like and you take the time to get to know. If you know what your machine is telling you, you will know when to dig.

Don't just read one review. Read a lot of reviews and talk to people on different forums to get an overall idea about the machine.
 
I remember we talked about this one quite a bit too. Especially on the low conductor. We fiqured the guy was a minelab salesman :rofl:

The most offensive part of this whole thing was showing the Xterra 50 with the high frequency coil was equal to the F75/T2. I can personally attest to that being a big crock of non-family friendly you know what. :rant::rage:

Anyway for your viewing pleasure I will repost a picture of where the european tester placed the T2/F75 in relation to other units. That will help to put this whole Omega report in its rightful place.

HH
Mike

[attachment 147800 T2inadepthtest.jpg]

[attachment 147801 T2inadepthtest2.jpg]
 
This is the same guy who also reported the Nautilus way down the list. What's he doing? Just taking it out of the box and turning it on.
 
I've owned, tested, and used more of the detectors listed than not. I've definitely had the so called "superior" units (according to this test) and all of the other units in question as per this discussion thread. Based on my experiences and observations, the insinuated results of this published test are more of something I'd have to agree to disagree with, period. Regardless of the shown results, it's way too one dimensional. My two current favorite detectors are the LTD and the Omega/11DD (and yes, MH, I'm a serious F-5 fan now also :biggrin:). If I hunt stubble, I use an LTD and in most all other (than extreme) apps, I use the Omega/11DD (or even its siblings with the same coil). I'll grab the Omega over the original T-2 every time and that's saying something because I still really like the T2. The thing to remember here is if you trust that FT delivers continual improvement in their ongoing detector offerings, the Omega is more of a recent offering than the original T-2 by what, almost 4 years now? If one doesn't trust that FT delivers with continual improvement, why would they even surf this forum? Good luck if and when you make your choice on your next detector.
 
Hehehe, I like these tests. That guy seems not to know how to set up the Omega. I sell Metal detectors in germany ( Not only Teknetics ) and treasure hunt myself.
My personal favorites are Teknetics T2 LTD, Teknetics Omega and the C.Scope R1.
The Omega only 5 to 6 inches on a coil ? Good joke ! My Omega does way more than that with the smallest coil ( 5"DD) on it. On open fields I like the 11" DD best.

Andy,NM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top