Hello,

I was wondering if someone with a Digisight N550 could run a side by side comparison with Gen2 and Gen3 NVGs.

The catch is to provide side by side pictures and have different lighting tests.

I know some have done tests with the IR on, but this would be a test with NO IR at all. I have reviewed all I could find on this scope and could not find a comparison that answered all my questions with Hi Rez pictures.

Conditions would be as follows. No fog/haze or Rain very little devices do good in these conditions anyway.

Quarter Moon test Clear Skies Targets 50yds, 100yds, 150yards, 200yds Man Size cardboard targets
Starlight Clear night NO Moon  Targets 50yds, 100yds, 150yards, 200yds Man Size cardboard targets

I think these 2 tests would provide how well Pulsar compares to Gen2 and Gen3 systems without the hype or IR. IMO all NVGs do great in halfmoon on up so its not really a good test, IR is even worse as its an artificial light source. The Claim is Pulsar does as good as a Gen2+ and I want to see the results with photos. It may very well do this and being a day/night scope is an advantage already. I think I am not alone on wanting to see Clarity, Grain, Brightness when compared to other units using the above conditions. No IR and Moonless night is the real test for me.

I would do the tests myself but I do not have Gen2 or the Pulsar.

Hope someone out there can do these tests as some of the others were good on Youtube, but video is too blurry HiRez pictures are needed.

Thanks

Hi, I feel some anger toward those digital units from you. lol

I read that review, but that unit used a digital Zoom and not a fixed 4x objective lens like the pulsar. Also the Rural looked ok but IMO may be too close to the city. I have seen the difference of using Gen3 in California Rural and Idaho Rural and its apple and oranges because of ambient city light miles away.

That review was pretty good, but again its not the Pulsar and the 4x lens which could make a difference on distance and clarity.

Lets hope someone can do an IR free test, which is what real night vision is known for. IR gives away a position and is too much like a flashlight being used, what’s the point.

I was thinking of getting a D740 because I have seen the difference a 4x and 6x can make on light gain, most never notice because they do not live in a true rural area and don't realize how lit up the major population centers are in the states with large populations. There are only a couple real advantages that I could tell on the pulsar compared to the standard NVS.

1. Weight, unless using a small NVS most are heavy close or equal to the PVS-4
2. Daytime use, NVS are for night use and would require two sets of optics for the weapon, the pulsar could be used in the day preventing zero issues.
3. B/W image is probably better than Green imo, but that would be a personal choice. I noticed looking at the pictures that the B/W doesn't blend an object as much in the background, unless dealing with bloom, which is a different flaw.
4. Cost. lol

From a different perspective ... the gurus on this forum (Dino1130, cj7hawk) and the commercial vendors (Vic, Clasky) don't have any issues with regard to digital night vision other than the value received versus the price paid. Bennybone has done the most valuable leading (bleeding?)   edge efforts that I have seen to date. They might be back a few pages but they should still be online.





Digital is coming along and is likely to develop into some very interesting capabilities. I think the price point for Gen1 capabilities is going to come down in the near to mid term and strand the N550 on the high ground.





The really cool digital capabilities that equal or surpass Gen 3 - I expect will cost about what an ITT NEPVS-14 does ... or more. At that value point (capabilities/cost), I'd be amazed if TNVC isn't as eager as anybody to be selling it.





Based on what Bennybone has been doing and some experimenting I've been doing with IR lights, if you go the N550 route you can end up spending the difference between the Pulsar and a Gen 2 unit on getting enough illumination to put the N550 on equal footing with the Gen 2.









 

Hate digital? Actually I really like Digital :) I am in the process of reviewing the current state-of-the-art digitals that just came out under $200... Which is about where I feel they should be so I'm really happy to be playing with it. Quite a good scope, but we're still talking Gen1 levels of gain and still in need of copious quantities of active IR.

Interesting, It seems allot of false marketing is going on here then. I figured the pictures from the reviews were probably tainted in some way. But there was  so many posts comparing it to gen2 that it made one start to think.

D-740 looks like a nice unit but Standard Tube scares me. lol But then who wants to pay a huge price at the same time. Have you noticed any serious difference in gain from the 740 and 760 models? F-stop has to be more on the 760 which would cause less gain.

I live in one of the BEST areas to test NVG's there is absolutely NO ambient light where I am at. So if I test cloudy or starlight its just like being overseas. I found Gen2+ are DARK in my area with starlight much less cloudy. Gen 3 72lp OmniV is Dark on a cloudy moonless night in my area but you can still see, but not its darker. Thermal is the best, but still needs to be 1280x1024 to be useful imo, then there is the shutter pause. lol

I was thinking the Pulsar could be a good hunting scope, but now I am not so sure for the cost vs performance. You can get a simple Gen1 for $500 thats a good scope if using IR. Personally I feel gen1 is a joke, but I can understand people using it for cost reasons. But for them to buy a digital for that price doesn't make sense if it doesn't perform as a gen2. They can get a Gen2 PVS on Ebay quite often for $1200-1500 which is what the Pulsar range is, and that unit has nice optics.

Anyway I will still be interested in seeing a comparison done right and not in the backyard of come small town with so much like PAS-5 would look good.

Well, if you get hold of a pulsar, can you take some pics and write up a review ? :)

 

Hmm I am reluctant to post here but here it goes.

See its statements like that, without proof what are they worth? No one try picture of a starlight night no moon with no IR away from the populations centers have been done.

It has a digital out, and is about as easy as you can get for output video.

500 yrds cloudy with just stars no moon, Not even the company claims that.

I don't think the statement is trying to be misleading in any way - I think the intent behind the post is genuine. And I think the poster was trying to describe what he can see, but without knowing the circumstances, it's difficult to know how dark it was. Clouds reflect a lot of light and can make a huge difference if there's any lights nearby.














 

I am going out hunting again next Saturday night. If I can scramble a video recorder by then. I will take some videos for you out in the fields.

I'm not saying you had a nefarious motive at all. I am just saying that 500yds is a pretty bold claim. Now it may be true, but I found that most people over estimate distance. Really the comparison should not be with a GEN3 alone, but with the GEN2+.

I had a Gen2+ 36lp PVS-5 a while back, and out where I am at it was darker than one would think. The same unit tested in California but in a rural area was bright because there is that much ambient light due to the cities.

It falls in 3 areas for this pulsar, but without serious testing in a rural non IR test we will not know for sure the performance of the unit.

1. Pulsar is equal to a Gen2 unit
2. Pulsar is basically a Gen1 unit with a nice B/W screen
3. Pulsar is better than Gen1 but not as good as Gen2

Only one of the above can be correct, and right now with the current reviews, videos, pictures we do not have enough information beyond a shadow of doubt.

I do not expect it to perform equal to GEN3 units but in high ambient conditions it could come close. Whats seperates the men from the boys is Darker conditions with no Ambient light. Since Gen2+ doesn't perform well on Cloudy conditions, it would not be a fair test to expect the pulsar to do well either. But on Starlight, no clouds or moon, Gen2 works, though not as bright with gain it still can be used as proof in 80's when it was the best we had.

I think the main test would be Starlight only, Moonless, cloudless night with Gen2 compared with Pulsar. Best option would be the PVS-4 against it, since both would be 4x.

I would do this test in a heartbeat if I still had a Gen2 unit to test against the unit.

Original Poster,

You are rather forward about how you perceive the insight of the other members in a way that makes their advice seem out of place.  You afterall are the one in need of the information...

I have a Gen3 monocular and a Pulsar Digisight.  I have used them extensively together for 6 months, you can pull up the other thread titled Digital NV on this forum or you can go to youtube and look up my profile Bennybone1981 I have some videos on there that show use of the Pulsar without moonlight.

Bottlomline I agree with TNVC on the point that it isn't worth the time and effort to do a side by side comparison of Gen 2 or 3 and the Pulsar.

What you are asking others to do takes a wealth of patience, money, resources to accomplish - and at least to me it isn't worth the stroke if you will.

The Pulsar Digisight N550 with NO illumination and NO moonlight gives you a useable range of 50 yards MAX.  This of course requires initiating of the "sum light" feature of the scope which is signal processing and NOT illumination.  If you don't want to use that feature for some reason then the usuable range is reduced to about 20 feet.

If you decide that illumination is a varible you would like to introduce,well then, the disparity isn't as large between the Pulsar and Gen 2 but lets keep this thread focused on your original question.

BB

My hunting buddy owns the Pulsar 550 he just couldn't speed a few thousand on a good NV rifle scope at the time and had to scrape up extra cash just for the 550. For digital is fairly impressive with good moon light you don't need the IR. No moon very rural conditions it needs IR to make a usable image and is limited by the IR range as far as sight distance but its easy 75-100-yards max onboard IR with my Laser IR on the side it will blast out past  150 to 200 yards max in thats in the best conditions many nights it wouldn't even do that. We have found it to suck at close quaters up in the woods the fov is to small, the Mag is to high, IR over powers everything its not pretty we have wished the scope was a 3X power many times. What works best is in a fixed stand over looking a field/feeder for that it gets the job done pretty well for that task. If a guy had a good gen 2 or gen 3 for scanning the scope for just shooting it will do a fine job of placing rounds on target at 75 to 100 yards in the open. I would hate to be on the move and scan for game with the 550 like I do with NV or thermal just would be the best for that better suited like I stated above a fix ambush type setup would be best with this gear. Overall the first time I looked through the 550 I got the phone call  "its here" I ran right over we checked the unit at dusk looked pretty darn good to my eye after it was pitch dark we looked around a hay field  using IR once again I though hey this isn't too bad then we took out my M845 gen 2  scope turned it on and it blew the 550 away not even in the same ball park much clear,much brighter,much more use full for hunting and no IR needed. That said for a "sportsman" sitting in a blind or stand shooting hogs at night on a feeder 50-100 yards away the 550 will do that job just fine its just not as pretty image wise as a good geen 2/3 scope. Also on the batteeries its best to have two sets of rechargeables it does eat through them like candy and the 550 has way to many buttons its not easy to setup in the dark until you spend many hours using it to get the hang of everything.Overall like stated above its not worth the time doing alot of testing it is what it is.

You could be right the viewable range will depend on the conditions. Even on a no moon night sometimes you get sky glow form nearby town,houses, and so on which helps any NV scope out be digital or I2 it s hard to say unless you are standing there and know the area. With any good light yes you can see hunderds of yards no IR but if you are in a black out very night rural the range will be way way less. I hunt one area that has a oil well thats burning off gas 24/7 365 days a year its about 2 miles away in a very rural area no city lights around for miles it puts off enough light it always looks like a 1/4 moon is out when I hunt that area I love it best IR Illum out there

Nobody is personally attacking anyone, we are providing guidance based on our direct first-hand experience with the specific piece of equipment being discussed.

You can post as many emails as you like, your Pulsar and my Pulsar are exactly the same in terms of components / function / capability.  I am here to tell you that USEABLE range with no moon is less than 50 yards.  You have this thing mounted to a weapons system, it is critical that you be able to identify the target with 100% confidence.  This is the topic being discussed.

NOT how far you can actually see on a video screen...  That isn't useable.

I am 1000% pro-Pulsar just to be clear and a realist..............

BB

Hello,

I am sorry if you felt I was attacking, I did not mean it to come off sounding that way. I just know sometimes people can over estimate range and distance without having a marker or range finder. Example would be some X50xp videos out there, some claim to be 100-150 yards, well I have used and/or own Both the 100,150,200 and can tell by how the video looks the range, same with some of the FLIR PS24/32 models where someone claimed they were lookinh over 100 yards when it was more 25yds.

I have never used the Pulsar or any other Digital system like this, so my knowledge is limited. I do know Gen1,2,3 systems and Thermal in all conditions including snow, rain, forest, jungle, desert, urban, etc. Some of the video's and reviews were really good, Benny I liked your comparisons, but I felt some areas would naturally benefit the pulsar, which wouldn't compare to Gen2.

I feel some out there (present company excluded) claiming the system is equal to gen2 is an important statement and could cause one to buy the unit based on a false premise. I am getting conflicting reports, some claim its doing well and show pictures, other claim its basically gen1 junk. I just noticed that none of the reviews I found showed the unit in a real rural area without ambient city nearby, or used IR or moon.

Like what has been said, if one is happy with the unit, great. I am trying to find as much information on an expensive piece of equipment, and while not being 4k its still allot of money for Gen1 performance. The unit already has some flaws on handling heavy recoil for 30.06 on up and could possible fail, it also eats through batteries like a thermal unit, its housing is not classified fully waterproof based on their own internal specs released at this site. I would just like to know if the image and gain are among its weaknesses or not. I think many other potential buyers would feel the same way, I find there is actually very little except 2 well done reviews on the unit.

No offense was meant to anyone or their unit, no one is calling anyone a liar.

Benny likes his Pulsar and will defend her honor vigorously. He has done a great job showing what it can do and what it can't. He has been very straight forward with his review. And it pains me to say that because I am not a digi fan.

Yep, +1...

 

TNVC, I wanted to ask you a quick question. How do you like the new IR lasers IDS? I was thinking of getting one from your site but I am not sure if the .7mw is really enough. The pictures you show are good and 5mw is too much unless one is painting a target which is not needed for civilian use. 1mw would have been better imo, but I guess its not eye safe.

Are those unit built to the same specs as the LEO versions? I tried those Invisiblesight clones and they are not reliable imo to stake ones life on.

Sorry to get off topic. lol

Start a new thread as I doubt he will get it in this thread. To answer part of your question I know they tested extensively and .1 seemed best for the range of a pistol. They tested several different power levels and all agreed .1 worked best. As for LDI VS. Chinese clones like Invisiblelight ?? Not going to comment as it would not be tech forum friendly. I have a Chinese IR laser that is really good. The only one I ever got that was good. Most stink and I am lucky to find one that does not.

If you want to go more in depth start a separate thread.

Here is 450 yards WITH a top of the line 10 degree FOV IR Illuminator, you would not be able to replicate this without illumination - no way no how.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNGuj1Adz3Q

Benny nice video, but what was the purpose of it, to show how clear it is with available light? Today it seems everyone and their dog has NV of some sort, with a spotlight shining out, it would be a beacon.

Have you used this scope on a 30.06 with a 220gr? Curious of the recoil would be too much for the unit over time.