A
Anonymous
Guest
I have had the Explorer about a month now. That, IMHO, is not near long enough to make a thorough and complete evaluation of it. As far as that goes, I'm still learning my DFX. But as promised, I will share my observations of both machines so far.
What has to be the most poignant fact about using either one of these detectors is that if the person using it has studied the machine, researched his sites, used some deal of logic and paid attention to his machine, then that person will have nice finds with either one of these machines. Check out the post on the forums of the things that have been found and it is obvious.
When it comes to one machines performance over the other, there are a few pros and cons, but let me affirm from the beginning that both are great machines, and I would be comfortable hunting with either one of them.
If you are waiting for me to pick one over the other, then I would mildly go with the DFX right now. Keep in mind that I have only had the Explorer for one month, and I'm not as familiar with it as I am the DFX. Although I say the DFX, that does not mean conclusively that I think one is better than the other. In deed, I still feel that in some circumstances the DFX will find things that the Explorer might have missed, and vice versa. I have enjoyed the convenience of hunting for a while with one and then going to the other. When I have done this, there was no real drop off in the finds, or any added negatives or positives of major incidence.
One of the main reasons that I bought an Explorer was that I felt like it would help me learn more about metal detecting and thus become a better detectorist. I feel like that has been the case. Certainly the reverse could be said of the DFX. In other words, knowing how to use the DFX was a big help when trying to master the Explorer. One thing that comes to mind is Tone ID. If you are used to that with the DFX then it comes naturally when you use the Explorer.
But, I know what all of you are waiting for me to talk about, and I will delve into that momentarily. Let me just say though before I do that I mean to be polite, and that I hope your responses will also be. Not just toward me on this post, but to others who respond. This is not meant to degrade one machine, and the people who use them, over the other one. I mean for this to be informative as I can be at this point, and hopefully answer any lingering questions that others may have that I had when I bought the Explorer. The reverse might be true for Explorer owners considering buying a DFX.
1. Depth - I guess this is what everyone wants to know more than anything else. The Ex quickly gives the impression that it goes deeper. The reason I say that is because quite a few of the readings show greater depth. I'm not talking about things at 10+ inches, but most everything is around 4" or deeper. By contrast, the DFX seems to finds more things under the 4" readings. I found something with the EX that was around 8" and decided to see if the DFX would see it. I had been over that ground (in my yard) before with the DFX and didn't remember it being there. The DFX did see it that day however. In fact, I didn't find anything in the ground with one detector that the other one did not also detect. I don't have a test garden (yet), so I did not make that comparison.
My conclusion about the depth of these machines is that perhaps the EX with a 10.5" coil may go a very slight bit deeper than a DFX with a 9.5" coil. However, I feel like the DFX sees smaller things near the surface that the EX might not see. My opinion is that with the same size coils they would probably have equal depth. The DFX will soon have a 12" coil. I think there is also one for the EX. When those are available, then I think a test between those 2 coils would be more accurate than comparing the 9.5 with a 10.5.
2. Weight - This one point that DFX users make is a valid one. The DFX is so much easier to physically use. The EX is bottom heavy and is tiresome to swing. It might be because of the larger coil, but the advantage goes to the DFX on this one.
3. Ease of learning - I had heard horror stories about how difficult the Explorer is to learn. I didn't have any trouble learning the Explorer. I think the trouble might be for some that we are used to American computer menu's, and the DFX has a great menu system on it. The Explorer is not difficult at all if you read the manual, and the navigation around it's system is not difficult either, it is just different. It actually has fewer things to set than the DFX. Many users of the DFX had trouble getting used to the DFX when it came out. I didn't have any trouble learning it. But, again, I'm the type of guy who actually reads the manual, and understood both manuals without any problems. For me, both machines were easy to learn. Also, I might mention, that both manuals were helpful, and accurate.
4. Pinpointing - Minelab needs to do their homework on this one. Again, I'm still new to using the EX but the DFX has me spoiled when it comes to pinpointing. I also love VCO, and the EX doesn't have that. My life became so much simpler when I bought the Periscope. Used in combination with the DFX, my digging woes, and digging false targets pretty much vanished. With the Explorer, sometimes not even the Periscope can help. I mean you have to get in the general vicinity for the Periscope to work, and sometime the EX don't get you that close. Again, the EX needs major improvement in that area. By the way, I would not even attempt to hunt with the EX without the Periscope, or possibly with the X1 probe made for Minelabs by Sunray.
5. Tone - I've heard people berate the EX Tone ID. I've found it to be quite pleasant in sound. Tone ID was something that I had a hard time getting used too on the DFX, but now I love using it. Again, I will have to give the advantage to the DFX. It is a very small advantage though, and probably not justified. I am able to tell by sound when I have, for instance, a quarter on the DFX. In time, I probably would be able to do the same with the EX. However, I do feel like the DFX is a little more accurate. But that opinion could change.
6. VDI - This is a difficult one to choose. I like the Smartscreen on the EX. I'm sure with more practice and experience that I would be more confident of the information that is on it. With the DFX I'm really good at deciding on what is a good target with the VDI numbers, and the signagraph. I like being able to look at iffy targets on the graph and seeing if there are two (or more) targets being scanned. With 191 numbers I am able to distinguish clearly what I'm looking at. For example a dime reads 78-81 and a quarter reads 83-84. On the Explorer, they both read 28. However, I would think that most EX users don't even look at VDIs. Instead they look at the Smartscreen. With the EX in fact, I seldom look at VDIs. Overall, the DFX just has more information available to you. I personally like that. However, I think an experienced EX user would be just as informed. No real advantage either way.
7. Construction - I have to go with the DFX on this one. I haven't had any problems with the EX housing cracking or anything like that. I have had a little trouble with the upper shaft sliding out of the housing. The small headphone jack is a nuisance and a little problematic. I bought the Sunray stand right away. This would not have been an added expense on the DFX. Not any thing devastating, but some minor concern. I have no major complaints about the EX and I think that most of the negative things I've seen posted about the construction of the EX are exaggerated. On the other hand, the DFX goes beyond the norm and I find that commendable. I like the all-metal construction, and the balance. You notice right out of the box that it is a very user-friendly design, and designed to last.
8. Discrimination - I'm amazed at both machines ability to find good targets in trash. I think they both get 5 stars for this one.
9. Speed - The EX has to be scanned painfully slow. This makes sense to me in a way, since it has to evaluate 28 frequencies. It is not altogether a bad thing. I think we could all become better at this hobby if we would slow down at times. On the other hand, the DFX has adjustable speed. Even on the slowest speed, the DFX can be swept along at a faster more comfortable speed. You can also cover more ground in a shorter amount of time and be reasonably sure that you covered the ground. If you plan to use them in competitions, then the EX is pretty much out of the question, where you will do fine with the DFX.
10. Intangibles - Although the DFX, at least in my evaluations so far, has a slight advantage, I don
What has to be the most poignant fact about using either one of these detectors is that if the person using it has studied the machine, researched his sites, used some deal of logic and paid attention to his machine, then that person will have nice finds with either one of these machines. Check out the post on the forums of the things that have been found and it is obvious.
When it comes to one machines performance over the other, there are a few pros and cons, but let me affirm from the beginning that both are great machines, and I would be comfortable hunting with either one of them.
If you are waiting for me to pick one over the other, then I would mildly go with the DFX right now. Keep in mind that I have only had the Explorer for one month, and I'm not as familiar with it as I am the DFX. Although I say the DFX, that does not mean conclusively that I think one is better than the other. In deed, I still feel that in some circumstances the DFX will find things that the Explorer might have missed, and vice versa. I have enjoyed the convenience of hunting for a while with one and then going to the other. When I have done this, there was no real drop off in the finds, or any added negatives or positives of major incidence.
One of the main reasons that I bought an Explorer was that I felt like it would help me learn more about metal detecting and thus become a better detectorist. I feel like that has been the case. Certainly the reverse could be said of the DFX. In other words, knowing how to use the DFX was a big help when trying to master the Explorer. One thing that comes to mind is Tone ID. If you are used to that with the DFX then it comes naturally when you use the Explorer.
But, I know what all of you are waiting for me to talk about, and I will delve into that momentarily. Let me just say though before I do that I mean to be polite, and that I hope your responses will also be. Not just toward me on this post, but to others who respond. This is not meant to degrade one machine, and the people who use them, over the other one. I mean for this to be informative as I can be at this point, and hopefully answer any lingering questions that others may have that I had when I bought the Explorer. The reverse might be true for Explorer owners considering buying a DFX.
1. Depth - I guess this is what everyone wants to know more than anything else. The Ex quickly gives the impression that it goes deeper. The reason I say that is because quite a few of the readings show greater depth. I'm not talking about things at 10+ inches, but most everything is around 4" or deeper. By contrast, the DFX seems to finds more things under the 4" readings. I found something with the EX that was around 8" and decided to see if the DFX would see it. I had been over that ground (in my yard) before with the DFX and didn't remember it being there. The DFX did see it that day however. In fact, I didn't find anything in the ground with one detector that the other one did not also detect. I don't have a test garden (yet), so I did not make that comparison.
My conclusion about the depth of these machines is that perhaps the EX with a 10.5" coil may go a very slight bit deeper than a DFX with a 9.5" coil. However, I feel like the DFX sees smaller things near the surface that the EX might not see. My opinion is that with the same size coils they would probably have equal depth. The DFX will soon have a 12" coil. I think there is also one for the EX. When those are available, then I think a test between those 2 coils would be more accurate than comparing the 9.5 with a 10.5.
2. Weight - This one point that DFX users make is a valid one. The DFX is so much easier to physically use. The EX is bottom heavy and is tiresome to swing. It might be because of the larger coil, but the advantage goes to the DFX on this one.
3. Ease of learning - I had heard horror stories about how difficult the Explorer is to learn. I didn't have any trouble learning the Explorer. I think the trouble might be for some that we are used to American computer menu's, and the DFX has a great menu system on it. The Explorer is not difficult at all if you read the manual, and the navigation around it's system is not difficult either, it is just different. It actually has fewer things to set than the DFX. Many users of the DFX had trouble getting used to the DFX when it came out. I didn't have any trouble learning it. But, again, I'm the type of guy who actually reads the manual, and understood both manuals without any problems. For me, both machines were easy to learn. Also, I might mention, that both manuals were helpful, and accurate.
4. Pinpointing - Minelab needs to do their homework on this one. Again, I'm still new to using the EX but the DFX has me spoiled when it comes to pinpointing. I also love VCO, and the EX doesn't have that. My life became so much simpler when I bought the Periscope. Used in combination with the DFX, my digging woes, and digging false targets pretty much vanished. With the Explorer, sometimes not even the Periscope can help. I mean you have to get in the general vicinity for the Periscope to work, and sometime the EX don't get you that close. Again, the EX needs major improvement in that area. By the way, I would not even attempt to hunt with the EX without the Periscope, or possibly with the X1 probe made for Minelabs by Sunray.
5. Tone - I've heard people berate the EX Tone ID. I've found it to be quite pleasant in sound. Tone ID was something that I had a hard time getting used too on the DFX, but now I love using it. Again, I will have to give the advantage to the DFX. It is a very small advantage though, and probably not justified. I am able to tell by sound when I have, for instance, a quarter on the DFX. In time, I probably would be able to do the same with the EX. However, I do feel like the DFX is a little more accurate. But that opinion could change.
6. VDI - This is a difficult one to choose. I like the Smartscreen on the EX. I'm sure with more practice and experience that I would be more confident of the information that is on it. With the DFX I'm really good at deciding on what is a good target with the VDI numbers, and the signagraph. I like being able to look at iffy targets on the graph and seeing if there are two (or more) targets being scanned. With 191 numbers I am able to distinguish clearly what I'm looking at. For example a dime reads 78-81 and a quarter reads 83-84. On the Explorer, they both read 28. However, I would think that most EX users don't even look at VDIs. Instead they look at the Smartscreen. With the EX in fact, I seldom look at VDIs. Overall, the DFX just has more information available to you. I personally like that. However, I think an experienced EX user would be just as informed. No real advantage either way.
7. Construction - I have to go with the DFX on this one. I haven't had any problems with the EX housing cracking or anything like that. I have had a little trouble with the upper shaft sliding out of the housing. The small headphone jack is a nuisance and a little problematic. I bought the Sunray stand right away. This would not have been an added expense on the DFX. Not any thing devastating, but some minor concern. I have no major complaints about the EX and I think that most of the negative things I've seen posted about the construction of the EX are exaggerated. On the other hand, the DFX goes beyond the norm and I find that commendable. I like the all-metal construction, and the balance. You notice right out of the box that it is a very user-friendly design, and designed to last.
8. Discrimination - I'm amazed at both machines ability to find good targets in trash. I think they both get 5 stars for this one.
9. Speed - The EX has to be scanned painfully slow. This makes sense to me in a way, since it has to evaluate 28 frequencies. It is not altogether a bad thing. I think we could all become better at this hobby if we would slow down at times. On the other hand, the DFX has adjustable speed. Even on the slowest speed, the DFX can be swept along at a faster more comfortable speed. You can also cover more ground in a shorter amount of time and be reasonably sure that you covered the ground. If you plan to use them in competitions, then the EX is pretty much out of the question, where you will do fine with the DFX.
10. Intangibles - Although the DFX, at least in my evaluations so far, has a slight advantage, I don
">