Who Is Really Driving Metal Detector Technology These Days?

[Ringmoney]

3 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

It is even worse when you consider that the First Texas and White's offerings are all over ten years old.

If you actually look at the entire Minelab range, apart from the GPZ7000 with ZVT, every other model is based on tech older than ten years. Multi frequency and MPS came out in the 90's and DVT around 2000. Is it fair to say other companies are just rehashing old tech when Minelab have being doing the very same, apart from ZVT that is? Lol the CTX is based on 25 year old tech.

[Steve Herschbach]

Ha, ha... well, the thing is I just posted an opinion from a particular perspective. Things can be looked at about any way a person chooses and we usually do!

I can just flip it on its head and say that in order to be successful in metal metal detecting few people genuinely need anything more than a decent single frequency VLF.

[Roughwater]

15 hours ago, gambler said:

Well. I am.

I kinda agree with Gambler.  Buyers in part drive the technology.  If we don't buy what they put out there it goes away eventually, if not sooner.  I have to think too that one thing driving it is the fact of diminishing gold.  Like has been said, every nugget we remove from the ground can't be replaced.  We are quickly removing the shallower gold.  So we want either deeper seeking detectors or detectors that can find the smaller gold deeper or ideally both.  The Z is the latest answer to the need.  So for now, Minelab seems to be the only company effectively filling that need with newer technology even if it be for a hefty price.