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

S

Shenandoah Digger

New member
Does anyone know how the depth of the Omega compares to the T2? Thinking of adding one to my arsenal. Looks like a pretty good machine.
 
He done a test with a quarter size coin and was picking it up at 12 inches. He has it on video. I'll see if I can find it.
 
Here's a video of the air test of the delta detector there's one for the gamma also. But they both get the quarter size coin at the 12 inch mark. I'd say the whole line of detectors will do this .





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLXnb0XmYbY
 
The Gamma did 13" at this test and the Delta 12 " with a one Euro coin. The best part is that the all metal modes on both detectors get very impressive inground depth even in bad soil.
Due to the ground balance feature I use the Gamma more than the Delta. Here in germany many change from Garrett, Tesoro or even Fisher to the new Teknetics. My personal number one is the T2 with the new small 5"DD coil.

Andy
 
Thanks for the info, but I don't see an air test for the Omega. Does it get better or worse depth than the other two? Thanks.
 
I've been using mine a lot for about a week so I'd be glad to share observations I've noticed thus far if there are any questions.
 
First off, thanks for stepping up to the plate and trying out the Omega Brad!

Hehe well here goes! :lol: How about your overall thoughts on it compared to a yardstick such as the similarly priced ID Edge. They both use concentric coils but other than that I assume they are totally different in design philosphy and performance. True/false? any glaring differences?

Tom
 
It's been awhile since I sold my Edge (and Excel), so I'm going on memories and impressions. I like it considerable better than the Edge for multiple reasons. First, the swing feel and weight is better. That was always one of my biggest digs on the old Fishers regardless of how they hunted. That "box on a stick" feel was as annoying to me as the weight is on an Explorer. The Omega is faster and IMO deeper. It has particularly better coin audio compared to the Euro-Fishers and even the T-2/F-75. It offers hands down better interface and control compared to the Edge. I've taken the time to compare the Omega with the T-2, F-75, and the Gamma. For most situations around coin hunting, my choice would be the Omega followed by the Gamma. Keep in mind that the DD's of the T-2 and F-75 affords them a slight advantage in separation on targets sitting near iron but when you run the same shape concentric on the F-75 as what comes on the Omega, I like the Omega's performance better. Also keep in mind that I've found multiple silver coins in an area that none of my other detectors have produced any. I shudder to think what the Omega/Gamma could do with a similarly designed DD as what comes stock on the T-2. :surprised: To be clear, all of the targets that I listened to with all these detectors were all detected in varying degrees. Upon digging them, almost all were coins in the 8 to 10" range with a couple even deeper yet. I use a Predator 75 digger on the grass and the targets were of a depth mid-way up the handle on the average. On one in particular, the coin was at a depth equal to the full length of the 75 digger. If you have one of them, you know what that distance is but I hesitate to say the number as some will think I'm BS-ing. I would think so too if I hadn't done it but I'm well aware that this was a "freak" but hey....I'll take a freak recovery any time! Almost all the targets have been co located with iron to various degrees. To put this into additional perspective, the Omega seems to have the unmasking ability along with the operating stability of the Excel with virtually the depth of the T-2/F-75. I'd commented on this previously about the Gamma and now also with the Omega, both have that really special modulated audio on high conductive targets. At least with me, it is much more apt to catch my attention in and amongst iron when running with no disc. The high tone sound over a deep coin on the F-75 and concentric is a little louder but noticeable "choppier", if that makes sense. It's just more apt to get lost in the multitude of other tones. When the Omega talks, you'd better listen because there are MANY less un-repeatable signals with it. Another thing to add...I've always liked and preferred the threshold based all metal of the T-2 and F-75. I thought I was able to hear more nuances around the fringe depth targets not to mention it helped calm these two bad boys down a bit. I've also been using the Omega and Gamma relic hunting in fields while using all metal and even without the constant threshold, I'm able to hear targets of similar depths without the audio monotony of an ever present threshold. Point being I've evolved to feeling quite confident that Gamma/Omega's all metal is essentially equally up to the challenge and if it continues to score great finds and build even more confidence, I might even grow to prefer AM without the threshold unless I want to run it on the edge for some reason. Now don't get me wrong here... there are times that I'll still want some of the additional features that the top of the Tek/FRL lines offer BUT....I really believe the Omega will be my detector of choice most of the time. Whoda thunk? When I was getting familiar with the Gamma, frankly I was thinking how is the Omega going to fit in and really justify itself at the next price point between it and the T-2? Now that I've had some time on the Omega, my take is "never doubt Dave"! :biggrin:
 
Wow what a great detailed report Brad. That is the kind of info I look for on a detector.

One point in particular caught my attention, not that the rest wasn't good but this is striking to me.

When the Omega talks, you'd better listen because there are MANY less un-repeatable signals with it.
Click to expand...

Fewer non-repeatable falses is a good thing. Not only is it less tiring it saves time. A lot of the complaints on the T2/F75 I believe stemmed from an excessive amount of falsing in iron. If it's hitting on the same targets and running stable with less falsing well it don't get much better than that.

Tom
 
I've been waiting for your report Brad. I'll be ordering one soon. Great job.
 
What features make the Omega better than the Gamma? I really liked your report too. It looks like the Gamma and Omega are a lot more refined than the F5 that I have been looking at. I have not seen any report on the F5 that even comes close to what you are saying about the Teks.

Thank you,

blacktoe
 
I'll try and keep this brief and concise (which is tough for me :rolleyes:) but remember, this is just my opinion and opinions vary. These are in no particular order.

1.I like the ergo/feel when the display enclosure is mounted on the grip better than when its mounted on the "S" rod.

2. In auto-tune (AT) mode, I like the way the threshold comes in earlier in the sensitivity range with the Omega. It gives you a wider range of sensitivity settings where threshold is present. Note they both have excellent depth in AT.

3. Also in AT, for those times when I want to run a threshold for extended periods, I really like having the option to change the pitch of the threshold. The Omega has this feature, the Gamma does not. I use this all the time on long days of AT with the F-75 and T-2 which both have a MUCH wider range of adjustment I might add. It's just nice for audio fatigue and having options for which pitch your particular hearing "hears" things better for .

4. The Elliptical concentric of the Omega actually slices and dices (read separation) slightly better than the round concentric of the Gamma. I set up three targets on top of the ground each spaced 2" apart and tried to separate the good target out when it was on the end as well as in the middle. I could do it both directions (back and forth as well as up and back) with the Omega stock coil but only one way with the Gamma coil. Of course sweep speed was somewhat important and coil proximity was critical, but that's the way it shook out.

5. Knobs! :laugh: Now I can't complain at all about the Gamma controls and interface but I guess I just have that bit of "old school" fartsky in me that likes to reach that thumb up there and turn something. Really not important butjust a preference.

6. Omega sensitivity adjustment is in single digits all the way through it's range whereas the Gamma adjusts in 5 number increments until you get to 90 and then it goes into a single number adjustment. Again, probably not a big deal but I prefer to have the ability to adjust in single number increments all the way through the range.
 
I have noticed that the T2 is a little better in the iron than the F75.........But thats most likely by design..The F75 is a tad hotter and faster on the rersponses.
If you keep a close eye on the meter along with the little Silver squawk.you can hit the Silver next to iron with either machine.. Sure sounds like the Omega may have a heads up in the iron though..
 
And I'll be waiting and very interested in hearing your opinions also.
 
I know I have lots more to observe and learn with the Omega, Tom. Actually, I've never not been in control with the F-75 or T-2 ONCE I LEARNED THEM and there's a good reason they are the top of their respective brands. But I gotta admit there are days when I just want to feel like I'm getting great depth, speed, and separation almost as good as it gets without listening to much of anything other than potential good targets. Both of these detectors seem to do that really well (the best I've seen) but they can still be taken to that ragged edge and beyond if one wants to. Take care ya little putzmeister. :drinking:
 
and that's about your reference to the F-5 and how it compares to the Omega. I have not had an F-5 in my hands let alone put some serious time on it so I'd hate for someone to make an assumption on it due to lack of equally glowing reports on it. Being that they're similarly priced "cousins", I'm comfortable in assuming that they both hunt very similarly albeit with slightly different feature sets that the individual can sort through and pick the best fit for them. Mike Hillis did an excellent very detailed report on the differences of these two and his preference I believe was the F-5. I recently re-read it and if I had no experience with either detector, I would have chosen to get the Omega. Just another example of "different strokes" and why they're both available.
 
hows the Omega on pin pointing? what about bottle caps, does it get though them or do you dig a lot? I've been looking for a new lighter detector then my old spectrum. the omegas at the top of the list right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top