DFX vs. minelab explorer xs/2

[dfxjedi]

I have been wondering which detector is a better all around detector,the Whites DFX or Minelab Explorer xs/2,give me your thoughts.here is part of an email from a dealer I asked this question to,you guys agree with what he says?

They are compariable and when tuned right the DFX is as deep in the general sense. And what I mean is getting the right combination of BASIC and PRO Options in concert with one another.

Even so:
* The Explorer will Target ID about 40% Deeper
* The Explorer has an enhanced Target Tone (Ferrous or Conductive) and Tone IDs much deeper without all the squeaks and squawks associated with the DFX.
* The Explorer can be swept much slower on average w/o tuning out the targets over 5"
* The Explorer can measure the Ferrous Content as Well as the Target Conductivity

[Rudy]

From what my buddies with Ex say, I would change

The Explorer can be swept much slower on average w/o tuning ...

to

The Explorer must be swept much slower on average w/o tuning ...

Everything else sounds about right.

[Detector]

I've had my DFX for about 8 months now and it's proved to be what I expected. I did my research on both the DFX and Exp II before making my choice. Both detectors fit my needs but there was a few things I didn't like about the Exp II. Construction, balance/weight and some misleading claims.

What I can say about the DFX is it is a great turn-on-and-go detector in my opinion. For the first 3 months I ran it with the factory programs and had great results. Most notable would be a buffalo nickle at 8" in a small area worked by many high-end detectors.

What I would like to see is someone with the Exp II to come to my favorite park for some real testing. I've seen claims that the Exp II detects to 14". I find this hard to believe except under ideal conditions but the claim makes it sound like thats the norm. I'm just not buying it.

Our local park has many coins at 12+". In fact there is a few locations one might call virgin territory below 12". After 3 major floods and the dust bowls of the 30's your looking at 12"-20" of soil covering any coin 80 year or older. I would welcome any Exp II owner to come prove me wrong. I guarantee the coins are there IF your detector can reach them.

Now what I don't care for about the DFX is it's pinpointing(all metal mode). It doesn't seem to have good depth while pinpointing. If the performance of the DFX was tested in all metal mode I can see why it would get a low score. I have a real problem pinpointing targets below 9". The sound is so weak. I get a booming sound on good targets at 9" in motion mode but when I go to pinpoint the target almost disappears.

[dewcon]

Dont be affraid to crank that DC up to 45 to find the deep targets. The explorer has the advantage in that its not as suseptable to EMI and deals with heavy minerazation better than our DFX. However, the depth and finds between these two still has a lot to do with who is using the machine.

[WThesing]

I can say that my Exp. II does very well with faster sweep speeds. At the end of a hunt when you have to hurry to get home, etc. I have had some good finds. Slower is the rule for thorough searching. At the beach I have found quarters down as deep as 18" and dimes deeper than 12". I don't know anyone personally that has a DFX for comparison - it is a good machine. I just wrote a review for the Explorer II on Carols other site www.metadetectorreviews.com.

[yotman1]

"...Exp II. Construction, balance/weight and some misleading claims."

I hear this usually from guys who have never tried to Explorer or if they have, who have never learned the machine. However, it is heavier, hasn't ever bothered me. The older machine had a balance problem - the Explorer S for example. Construction, no way, very well built. Now, there were issues when the "S" first came out at the connection on the box, but they were corrected. This is just as most companies when they discover issues on new lines of machines and then correct them, take the Fisher F-75 two years ago - problems corrected. The Explorer II with the slim-line coil - very well balanced. They are also much lighter now too.

By the way the Explorer II is a turn on and go machine. I used the factory setting for months, almost a year BEFORE every trying to change anything!!

Not sure what you are talking about concerning depth but there is not the slightest doubt that the Explorer II goes deeper than The DFX. I have buddies who use the DFX and I use the Explorer II. They would admit to a man that I dig deeper targets than they do - every time we are out, and I use an 8" coil and they use the standard 10" coil!!! However, they have become experts on their machines and find lots of great stuff.

There is no comparison for depth though!!

What misleading claims are you talking about???

Your statements sound like the typical Whites user who thinks nobody should own anything but a Whites machine. Heard it all before - just not true!

Tim

[Detector]

yotman1, as a former Explorer(SE) owner and current DFX owner I believe their is a little misleading info there.

As Rudy pointed out about the REQUIRED sweep speed. Saying the Explorer can be swept slower is misleading. The Explorer requires a slower sweep speed. Not that its such a bad thing except in competition hunts.

Also the statement about depth. Yes the Explorers do get slightly better depth on higher conductive targets. And the slightly depends on your ability with the DFX and ground conditions. The statement is a bit misleading because its based on the results from higher conductive targets. Bury a 14k small gold chain at 1" and do your best to get the Explorer to find it. The DFX can be adjusted to detect small gold much better. In this case the DFX has the better depth.

I think I'm safe to say the Garrett 2 box detector gets far more depth on big relics than either one of those detectors, and while it would be true to say it gets better depth, the statement would be misleading. If you're looking for a detector to hunt old hard hit sites for deep silver, then the Explorer would be the choice hands down, but since the question was about the better "all around" detector, I give the edge to the DFX.