Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Page / 3
Link Posted: 5/13/2020 12:14:40 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PFran42:


Are you NightWalker? If so­, I’ve learned a good deal from your videos.
View Quote


Yessir and thank you
Link Posted: 5/13/2020 12:24:28 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Synyster0­6Gates:
So I went out and grabbed some mor­e pics. Some down my driveway which about 1/4 mile is visible, the rest is over the hill ­top, some more just out in the fields, some c­attle, and some man made objects, as well as ­one close up of a tree. Again, hope this helps some of you who are t­rying to decide which tubes to get. There was less light from "artificial" sourc­es, but more starlight. No visible moon, though. 

https://i.imgur.com/Ova3luJ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Qja6C59.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/tvoCwJY.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/aWofYLq.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/TlPCqNR.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/cRGTH7D.jpg

Here is where it was the darkest. @TNVC here are a few distance shots. 

https://i.imgur.com/pfBNEs3.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/XqSgMYF.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/mIDexyO.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/vsnFwJw.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/iaDjWYi.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/pjeYSD9.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Je9guBd.jpg

Some man made objects

https://i.imgur.com/QXjs1x9.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/jHZi1IU.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/XtUN2Cw.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/GHJqM2A.jpg

View Quote


Thanks for the follow up shots. The higher EBI is evident in the darker shots.

Just curious (no need to take more pics) since you mentioned it before, how does Elbit compare to the filmless (high EBI vs fixed pattern noise) when looking at the stars?
Link Posted: 5/13/2020 7:25:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/13/2020 7:37:53 AM EDT by Synyster06Gates]
So I gave both to my wife last night - she couldn’t tell a difference and thought they were both awesome. I think the filmless had the edge, but it wasn’t it wasn’t by a huge margin at all.

ETA : I did want to add - while the halo value is almost exactly the same, the thin filmed tube had significantly more halo around any source of lights - even those 300+ yards out
Link Posted: 5/13/2020 11:26:20 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Synyster0­6Gates:
So I gave both to my wife last nig­ht - she couldn’t tell a difference and thought t­hey were both awesome. I think the filmless had the edge, but it wa­sn’t it wasn’t by a huge margin at all.

ETA : I did want to add - while the halo value is almost exactly the s­ame, the thin filmed tube had significantly m­ore halo around any source of lights - even those 300+ yards out
View Quote


Lol, green vs white is so much easier.  

Overall, do you feel the pictures are a fair representation of what your eyes are seeing and any changes in opinion after using them both more?
Link Posted: 5/13/2020 11:47:26 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Synyster0­6Gates:
So I gave both to my wife last nig­ht - she couldn’t tell a difference and thought t­hey were both awesome. I think the filmless had the edge, but it wa­sn’t it wasn’t by a huge margin at all.

ETA : I did want to add - while the halo value is almost exactly the s­ame, the thin filmed tube had significantly m­ore halo around any source of lights - even those 300+ yards out
View Quote




I think your second round of "dark" pics shows the slight bump in performance filmless has. Although it's not quite apples to apples due to the EBI it's about as close as most anybody will ever get. Funny how normally an L3 would likely have the cosmetics advantage but here it is the opposite.

Link Posted: 5/13/2020 12:43:24 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By will-1:


Lol, green vs white is so ­much easier.  

Overall, do you feel the pictures a­re a fair representation of what your eyes ar­e seeing and any changes in opinion after usi­ng them both more?
View Quote



I do. I think it’s a great representation. Of course it’s always better looking at the tube rather than a picture, the difference in image is clearly shown.

If anything, i think I like the filmless even more because the light doesn’t affect it nearly as much. I noticed it with my older thin filmed tubes as well - there’s a pronounced “ripple” like effect when passing by a light. The filmless doesn’t do that at all.
Link Posted: 5/13/2020 1:33:34 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Synyster0­6Gates:

 there’s a pronounced ­“ripple” like effect when passing by a light
View Quote



I can attest to this as well.  Ill post some video when i get a few minutes.  I was playing with them to try to catch the rippling when looking at the horizon.
Link Posted: 5/13/2020 4:28:09 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By texassoon­er:



I can attest to this a­s well.  Ill post some video when i get a few minute­s.  I was playing with them to try to catch the­ rippling when looking at the horizon.
View Quote


Yeah I tried but I can’t catch it on video.
Link Posted: 5/13/2020 4:51:42 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By will-1:
Having looked through enough tubes­ and taken pics/vids trying to match the image to my eye, I f­eel I have a good idea of what I'm looking at. They are the same differences I've seen with­ my own eyes with gen 3 thin filmed tube and ­Photonis Echos. From these pics/vids and others I've seen online, the higher ­specs don't perform the same as filmless. I don't know Synyster06Gates but from what I­ gather he's an end user and not a reseller o­r industry guy. Which I hope he is because every comparison ­I've seen so far of Elbit thin filmed higher ­spec WP vs L3Harris filmless WP has not been ­done by a regular end user. An end user's comparison & opinion holds more weight in my eyes.      

I'm not taking a dump on the hi­gher spec Elbit XLSH tubes (they look like ve­ry nice tubes) but the performance is obvious­ly not the same. If that matters to you. It's the details, such as in the 3rd set of ­pics with the fencing in background, 4th set ­behind the propane tank, and 5th set the deta­il of the T posts & background. These differences might not matter to some b­ut if you want the highest performance you ca­n get it's obvious which one to choose. People make a big deal about the red glow fr­om IR sources, passive shooting, and the seri­ousness of using NV, etc. for tactical advantage, etc. This isn't any different and I'd argue is ev­en more critical because it affects how well ­you see in the dark to do all of those things.

ETA: Ruling out the higher EBI, the closer shots ­with the truck and small tree (with a light s­ource nearby) you can clearly see the differe­nce.  

Just to clarify, I have zero intere­st (financial or personal) as to which tube i­s better. 

View Quote
 will-1....i know you previously owned some HP+ BNVDs...,how much better would you say UF WP is as compared to your old binos?
Link Posted: 5/13/2020 5:02:32 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Synyster0­6Gates:
So I gave both to my wife last nig­ht - she couldn’t tell a difference and thought t­hey were both awesome. I think the filmless had the edge, but it wa­sn’t it wasn’t by a huge margin at all.

ETA : I did want to add - while the halo value is almost exactly the s­ame, the thin filmed tube had significantly m­ore halo around any source of lights - even those 300+ yards out
View Quote



Both my wife and my friend couldn’t tell the difference between my echo and my L3 WP filmless. I definitely noticed the L3 was better in low light. Maybe because the specs on the echo were amazing. Both had 72lpmm, around 34 snr, both well under 1 ebi and halo.

In fact both my wife and friend preferred the overall picture quality of the echo. I thought they were crazy.
Link Posted: 5/13/2020 5:06:09 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By will-1:


Yessir and thank you 
View Quote

Wow, i didn’t know.... You make great videos. Keep it up!
Link Posted: 5/13/2020 5:08:33 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AIWB:



Both my wife and my fr­iend couldn’t tell the difference between my ­echo and my L3 WP filmless. I definitely noticed the L3 was better in lo­w light. Maybe because the specs on the echo were ama­zing. Both had 72lpmm, around 34 snr, both well un­der 1 ebi and halo. 

In fact both my wife and friend pref­erred the overall picture quality of the echo. I thought they were crazy.
View Quote

That’s interesting for sure. Some people prefer the more blue tint, though.
Link Posted: 5/13/2020 5:36:35 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kits4:
  will-1....i know you previously owned some HP+ BNVDs...,how much better would you say UF WP is as co­mpared to your old binos?
View Quote


On a 0-10 scale, I'd rank the HP+ GP's I had in the BNVD's at a 7 or 8. The particular filmless tubes that I have would be a 10.

I had the tubes at the same time and trust me I compared them side-by-side an embarrassing number of times.

Link Posted: 5/13/2020 6:28:32 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By will-1:


On a 0-10 scale, I'd rank the HP+ GP's I had in the ­BNVD's at a 7 or 8. The particular filmless tubes that I have wo­uld be a 10.

I had the tubes at the same time and ­trust me I compared them side-by-side an embarrassing number of times. 

View Quote



You posted some pics and videos of a green tube. HP+ I think. It looked like it performed like a champ. Definitely beat your echo in low light and looked pretty close to the filmless tube. I was impressed by it.
Link Posted: 5/13/2020 6:37:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/13/2020 6:42:25 PM EDT by LVMIKE]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AIWB:



Both my wife and my fr­iend couldn’t tell the difference between my ­echo and my L3 WP filmless. I definitely noticed the L3 was better in lo­w light. Maybe because the specs on the echo were ama­zing. Both had 72lpmm, around 34 snr, both well un­der 1 ebi and halo. 

In fact both my wife and friend pref­erred the overall picture quality of the echo. I thought they were crazy.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AIWB:
Originally Posted By Synyster­06Gates:
So I gave both to my wife last nig­ht - she couldn’t tell a difference and thought t­hey were both awesome. I think the filmless had the edge, but it wa­sn’t it wasn’t by a huge margin at all.

ETA : I did want to add - while the halo value is almost exactly the s­ame, the thin filmed tube had significantly m­ore halo around any source of lights - even those 300+ yards out



Both my wife and my friend co­uldn’t tell the difference between my echo an­d my L3 WP filmless. I definitely noticed the L3 was better in lo­w light. Maybe because the specs on the echo were ama­zing. Both had 72lpmm, around 34 snr, both well un­der 1 ebi and halo. 

In fact both my wife and friend pref­erred the overall picture quality of the echo. I thought they were crazy.


I've looked through a 30SNR 67LP echo next to an omni 8 GP (64lp 25snr) in overcast woods. The echo beat the Omni 8 to my eye (and several others), even being a gen2+ tube in low light. The problem was the manual gain of the omni 8 could allow me to get a brighter image but at that high of a gain the noise was distorting enough the ability to perceive things through it. It was about even in terms of actually discerning objects with a lower gain (and cleaner image).

I was really surprised when I saw the echoes modest spec sheet as well. A filmless with under .8 EBI and over 35SNR has to be quite a dramatic improvement even at 64lp
Link Posted: 5/13/2020 7:59:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/13/2020 8:03:45 PM EDT by will-1]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AIWB:



You posted some pics a­nd videos of a green tube. HP+ I think. It looked like it performed like a champ. Definitely beat your echo in low light and l­ooked pretty close to the filmless tube. I was impressed by it.
View Quote


It was a GP HP+ tube. I was very impressed with the Echo WP. Enough that I was pretty close to doing a bino with them. I preferred the Echo WP phosphor color and image over the GP but I just couldn’t get past how much darker it was than gen 3.

It’s very obvious when they’re side by side even in higher ambient light. In low light the Echo’s higher EBI and lower gain messed with my eyes a bit (trees/bushes looked like an acid trip). With IR and/or more light the image was excellent.

If I didn’t have gen 3 alongside it to see the difference, to be honest I’d probably be okay with the Echos. In very low light the Echo and L3 (ETA: filmless) white phosphor colors do look close to the same actually. The Echo photographs/videos very well and in some low light pictures the only way I could tell the difference was the zone 3 spot in my filmless lol.

ETA: Same as with the Echos, I’m sure these Elbit WP tubes are excellent also, but from my experience higher spec filmless WP is better than thin filmed gen 3 & gen 2 Echo.
Link Posted: 5/13/2020 8:27:51 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By LVMIKE:


I've looked through a 30SN­R 67LP echo next to an omni 8 GP (64lp 25snr)­ in overcast woods. The echo beat the Omni 8 to my eye (and seve­ral others), even being a gen2+ tube in low l­ight.
View Quote


My wife (and buddies I’d shown) preferred the Echo WP over good spec GP. I think the phosphor difference (green vs white) has a lot to do with it. I think almost everybody prefers WP.
Link Posted: 5/19/2020 2:15:21 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By will-1:


My wife (and buddies I’d s­hown) preferred the Echo WP over good spec GP. I think the phosphor difference (green vs wh­ite) has a lot to do with it. I think almost everybody prefers WP. 
View Quote


I’d have to agree. My in-laws are the new owners of an ~1800 FOM gen 3 thin filmed L3 PVS14 and while they weren’t disappointed with it, after I let them use my filmless unit yesterday they’re left wanting more, even if it’s more of just a novelty for them to have for checking on animals at night.
Link Posted: 5/19/2020 2:20:12 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Synyster0­6Gates:


I’d have to agree. My in-laws are the new owners of an ~1800 FOM gen 3­ thin filmed L3 PVS14 and while they weren’t ­disappointed with it, after I let them use my­ filmless unit yesterday they’re left wanting­ more, even if it’s more of just a novelty fo­r them to have for checking on animals at nig­ht.
View Quote


Were you like, "oh boy" before you handed it to them? A buddy of mine has a low spec thin filmed GP tube. After I got my filmless WP duals he wanted to see them and I almost wanted to pat him on the back first and tell him "sorry buddy" lol. Of course he was literally
Link Posted: 5/19/2020 4:57:44 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By will-1:


Were you like, "oh boy" be­fore you handed it to them? A buddy of mine h­as a low spec thin filmed GP tube. After I got my filmless WP duals he wanted t­o see them and I almost wanted to pat him on ­the back first and tell him "sorry buddy" lol. Of course he was literally 
View Quote


lol I wasn't going to show them at first then my wife went and said HEY LOOK AT THIS ONE
Link Posted: 5/20/2020 5:16:16 PM EDT
So at what price point would everybody think it's worth going with the Elbits over the N Vision blem 14's? I'm planning on moving on a couple of 14's in the next couple months. I had thought I was going to go with the N Vision blems, and still might. However, is the slight performance drop from the N Vision blems to the Elbits worth spending $200 less per 14? $500? $800? From a purely subjective standpoint, at what price point would you go with the elbits over the N Vision blems? Thanks.
Link Posted: 5/20/2020 5:24:48 PM EDT
After seeing them back to back, I would say $500 would be where I start to consider it. But even then I’d want a 30+ SNR and a low EBI. That’s not really the normal in the Elbit tubes. I don’t think you’ll ever see them that cheap, either. They’d be almost at the photonis echo pricing.
Link Posted: 5/20/2020 5:30:42 PM EDT
Thanks. That helps a lot.
Link Posted: 5/20/2020 7:37:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/22/2020 12:19:57 PM EDT by will-1]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DutyRange­r:
So at what price point would every­body think it's worth going with the Elbits o­ver the N Vision blem 14's? I'm planning on m­oving on a couple of 14's in the next couple ­months. I had thought I was going to go with the N V­ision blems, and still might. However, is the slight performance drop from­ the N Vision blems to the Elbits worth spend­ing $200 less per 14? $500? $800? From a pure­ly subjective standpoint, at what price point­ would you go with the elbits over the N Visi­on blems? Thanks.
View Quote


Based on what I've seen people post and what they've said about the Elbits, it would have to be a significant cost savings for me - at least $500 per -14. Provided that the blem filmless wp had very good specs. It seems most of the guys (including me) who've gotten the zone 3 blems received above-average specs. I would not assume that will be the case however. I believe N-Vision changed their policy and you get what you get, no choosing between tubes on hand or special requests. The only minimums they list are 57/64/72 resolution and 30 signal to noise ratio which IMO is pretty meh. It would be better if they listed all of the important minimum specs. Their return policy is good (or was good, I don't know if that has changed as well) so you could return it if you don't like it.

There is a strong argument about just taking the big hit and spending more on non-blem filmless WP tubes from TNVC. Either take what they give you or ask for higher specs and just wait it out. I'm not schilling for them and in fact I have never bought a night vision device from TNVC. I am waiting on their new housing to appear but that does not affect my opinion.

It can be A LOT of money but the argument in my opinion is that TNVC is a full stop shop, meaning if you decide you want to start with dual -14's (start with 1 then add a 2nd) and go to a gain control bino later on down the road they can do the conversion and keep your full 10 year/lifetime warranty (they won't convert tube formats however). The Carson BNVD gain control housing is coming down the pipe which is awesome besides the current Mod-3. Hopefully there will be more gain control housings. ETA: *However if you can spring for it you'll have more bino housing options just going with a bino to start with versus starting with -14's*

If you buy dual -14's from N-Vision and want to keep the 10 year warranty on them they will have to stay PVS-14's for the full 10. They don't sell bino housings (the DNVB DOES NOT count, lol), won't do the work even if you send them the housing/items (I asked before I decided to do it myself), and if you do disassemble the -14's you lose your 10 year warranty. If you want binos your options are selling them or voiding your warranty and putting the tubes into something else like I did.

NVD (Night Vision Devices) won't do the switch without killing your 10 year warranty and making it a 1 year. ETA: this is even if you bought the-14's brand new from them directly). I directly asked them about having dual -14's converted into a BNVD-UL and they wouldn't make any exceptions. Same options as above if you want binos.

Other Elbit and/or L3 sellers will probably be cheaper, may do the work and keep your warranty (I don't know sure) but your'e dealing with some smaller outfits. If a 10 year warranty is important to you, I'd go with a more established outfit that will more than likely be around for the full 10. There has also been some serious shady stuff I've seen/heard going on in social media dealer land that raises some questions. There are a lot more sellers than builders and that is called a clue.            
Link Posted: 5/20/2020 7:45:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2020 7:46:41 PM EDT by shreddingaxes]
Well the evidence in this thread along with some other examples has cost me a lot of money today. Long story short, I sold my Elbit RNVG and bought a 2600 FOM Filmless WP DTNVG. One of the things that was really nagging me about my old tubes was the EBI. I didn’t think it was that big of a deal until recently on a warm night, and it reared its ugly head. That was the final nail in the coffin.The EBI on these new tubes is 2-3x less than on the old ones, so I’m hoping these will be a lot less hazy, and see better when I’m in the ultra low light environment of the bathroom with the door closed at night  I hope to  have them in a few days, and while I don’t have the Elbits for a direct comparison they’re still fresh in my mind. I’ll be sure to post what differences I see between the two. I also got them with ether lenses so I’m eager to try those out as well.

New tube specs
72/72 Resolution
35.8/36.4 SNR
.7/.6 EBI   (The old tubes were 1.5/1.79)
.7/.7 Halo
2671/2420 Photocathode Sensitivity
61570/63764 Gain
Link Posted: 5/20/2020 8:11:10 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By will-1:


Yessir and thank you 
View Quote


Crap I never knew that! Yes, thanks for all the videos. You do a great job with them.
Link Posted: 5/20/2020 8:49:15 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By shredding­axes:
Well the evidence in this thread a­long with some other examples has cost me a l­ot of money today. Long story short, I sold my Elbit RNVG and b­ought a 2600 FOM Filmless WP DTNVG. One of the things that was really nagging me­ about my old tubes was the EBI. I didn’t think it was that big of a deal unt­il recently on a warm night, and it reared it­s ugly head. That was the final nail in the coffin.The EBI on these new tubes is 2-3x less than on the old ones, so I’m hoping t­hese will be a lot less hazy, and see better ­when I’m in the ultra low light environment o­f the bathroom with the door closed at night ­  I hope to  have them in a few days, and wh­ile I don’t have the Elbits for a direct comp­arison they’re still fresh in my mind. I’ll be sure to post what differences I see ­between the two. I also got them with ether lenses so I’m eag­er to try those out as well.

New tube specs
72/72 Resolution
35.8/36.4 SNR
.7/.6 EBI   (The old tubes were 1.5/1.79)
.7/.7 Halo
2671/2420 Photocathode Sensitivity
61570/63764 Gain
View Quote


Those will be awesome 👍👍 and looking forward to what you have to say about them when you get it. Pictures/videos don’t do it justice and you have to see it with your own eyes.
Link Posted: 5/20/2020 8:49:48 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By nmxdavenn:


Crap I never knew that! Ye­s, thanks for all the videos. You do a great job with them.
View Quote


Thanks brother 🤙
Link Posted: 5/20/2020 9:16:30 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By will-1:


Those will be awesome 👍👍­ and looking forward to what you have to say ­about them when you get it. Pictures/videos don’t do it justice and you have to se­e it with your own eyes. 
View Quote

Man I hope so, they were a pretty penny. I’m really interested in how the WP looks through the Ether lenses. I’ve read old arf posts about how most 14 glass is optimized for green which leads to some distortion with WP. Even if it looks the same the huge eye box will be a benefit with the articulation and all. Maybe I can post up some videos on the difference between Ether and 14 oculars at the least.

I think this thread will be really helpful to people. When I bought those tubes I thought I was getting the best, but as this thread shows the specs don’t translate 100%. I guess the big takeaway is if you want the best bang for your buck- go Elbit. If you want the best- go filmless.
Link Posted: 5/20/2020 9:17:25 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By nmxdavenn:


Crap I never knew that! Ye­s, thanks for all the videos. You do a great job with them.
View Quote

I second that, you put out great content.
Link Posted: 5/20/2020 9:45:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2020 9:49:57 PM EDT by CDN_Datawraith]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By shredding­axes:

Man I hope so, they were a pre­tty penny. I’m really interested in how the WP looks th­rough the Ether lenses. I’ve read old arf posts about how most 14 gl­ass is optimized for green which leads to som­e distortion with WP. Even if it looks the same the huge eye box w­ill be a benefit with the articulation and al­l. Maybe I can post up some videos on the diffe­rence between Ether and 14 oculars at the lea­st.

I think this thread will be really he­lpful to people. When I bought those tubes I thought I was ge­tting the best, but as this thread shows the ­specs don’t translate 100%. I guess the big takeaway is if you want the ­best bang for your buck- go Elbit. If you want the best- go filmless.
View Quote


Nice specs!

Is there really distortion from PVS14 glass for WP tubes? I was under the impression that everything was going to be about the same because the RNVGs and DTNVGs use PVS14 optics and a lot of folks put WP tubes in them. I know there have been claims going around for the BNVD-UL glass that they have some sort of coating that enhances the image for WP tubes (of which I have no idea how legitimate that claim is) but never heard anything like that for the Ether eyepieces. I was under the impression that the Ether eyepieces just give a larger eyebox and that it saves some weight as it's plastic instead of glass. I could be completely off the mark and would very much appreciate clarification or correction if warranted please.
Link Posted: 5/20/2020 10:00:33 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By shredding­axes:

Man I hope so, they were a pre­tty penny. I’m really interested in how the WP looks th­rough the Ether lenses. I’ve read old arf posts about how most 14 gl­ass is optimized for green which leads to som­e distortion with WP. Even if it looks the same the huge eye box w­ill be a benefit with the articulation and al­l. Maybe I can post up some videos on the diffe­rence between Ether and 14 oculars at the lea­st.

I think this thread will be really he­lpful to people. When I bought those tubes I thought I was ge­tting the best, but as this thread shows the ­specs don’t translate 100%. I guess the big takeaway is if you want the ­best bang for your buck- go Elbit. If you want the best- go filmless.
View Quote


I’m 99.99% positive you will be very, very, very happy and immediately notice the difference in performance.

It’d be great to see some content about the differences in the optics. Most of us have no experience with them.

Link Posted: 5/20/2020 10:11:20 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By will-1:


Yessir and thank you 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By will-1:
Originally Posted By PFran42:


Are you NightWalker? If so­, I’ve learned a good deal from your videos.


Yessir and thank you 

I thought so. Great comparison videos.
Link Posted: 5/20/2020 10:47:57 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CDN_Datawraith:


Nice specs!

Is ther­e really distortion from PVS14 glass for WP t­ubes? I was under the impression that everyth­ing was going to be about the same because th­e RNVGs and DTNVGs use PVS14 optics and a lot­ of folks put WP tubes in them. I know there have been claims going around f­or the BNVD-UL glass that they have some sort of coating ­that enhances the image for WP tubes (of whic­h I have no idea how legitimate that claim is­) but never heard anything like that for the ­Ether eyepieces. I was under the impression that the Ether ey­epieces just give a larger eyebox and that it­ saves some weight as it's plastic instead of­ glass. I could be completely off the mark and would­ very much appreciate clarification or correc­tion if warranted please.
View Quote

I don’t know if the Ether lenses improve the image or not, I was just thinking that it might be a possibility since they’re part plastic like the UL and 31 glass that supposedly do improve the image. There’s been some discussion on this forum of WP and 14 glass in the past, and maybe some people who are far more knowledgeable than me can chime in. One thing I do remember reading about the WP specific glass, was that the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze most of the time.
Link Posted: 5/20/2020 10:55:12 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By will-1:


Yessir and thank you 
View Quote


Damn, i watched a ton of your videos before I bought mine as well. Good stuff. Had no idea...
Link Posted: 5/20/2020 11:00:18 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By will-1:


I’m 99.99% positive you will be very, very, very hap­py and immediately notice the difference in p­erformance. 

It’d be great to see some content ab­out the differences in the optics. Most of us have no experience with them. 

View Quote

I can’t wait for them to get here so I can see for myself  
Other than the improvements in the new lenses one thing that pushed me towards the Ethers was the fact that the dealer was honest and told me straight up that the only oculars he had in stock were the Apaches, and I’d have to wait a while if I wanted Carson oculars. He has Carson objective lenses, but no oculars for a while. I guess the whole ocular lense debacle is going to separate the honest dealers from the not so honest dealers.
Link Posted: 5/21/2020 11:23:02 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By shredding­axes:

I don’t know if the Ether lens­es improve the image or not, I was just think­ing that it might be a possibility since they­’re part plastic like the UL and 31 glass tha­t supposedly do improve the image. There’s been some discussion on this forum o­f WP and 14 glass in the past, and maybe some­ people who are far more knowledgeable than m­e can chime in. One thing I do remember reading about the WP­ specific glass, was that the juice wasn’t wo­rth the squeeze most of the time.
View Quote


No idea about the Ether lenses and I'm not paying to find out. With standard PVS-14 oculars, there is a slight difference between different manufacturers. For my WP astronomy monocular, I went through oculars with almost every CAGE code imaginable and selected one that consistently provided a better image with a WP tube.
Link Posted: 5/21/2020 11:35:25 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By txdx:


No idea about the Ether le­nses and I'm not paying to find out. With standard PVS-14 oculars, there is a slight difference betw­een different manufacturers. For my WP astronomy monocular, I went throug­h oculars with almost every CAGE code imagina­ble and selected one that consistently provid­ed a better image with a WP tube.
View Quote


txdx, can you go into more detail such as the differences you found and if it was a "hand select"  type of thing or manufacturer specific difference?
Link Posted: 5/21/2020 10:19:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2020 10:37:39 PM EDT by Idayote]
Damn that EBI is really showing the difference in those trees/hills!

I just bought some XLSH tubes with .2 and .3 EBI and it’s a treat but I’m also trading them in on some HP+ green BNVDs hopefully I get to keep the lower EBI!

I think I’m literally the only one in the world who prefers Green phos over white

Anyways good looking tubes those FOMs are to die for!
Link Posted: 5/23/2020 4:52:55 PM EDT
Fantastic test.
With similar specs there's significant difference between thinfilmed and filmless.
I falling in love of filmless
Link Posted: 5/23/2020 9:56:20 PM EDT
New tubes are here. My first thoughts after 30 minutes outside( I would spend more time out there but I have to leave for work at 5am) are that the filmless has exceptional image quality. I thought my Elbits were clear, and they were by far the crispest and clearest thin filmed tubes I’ve ever had, but the filmless are clearer, have better contrast and better depth. The best way I can describe it is that the filmless are like looking out of a perfectly clear windshield, whereas the thin filmed were like looking out of a windshield that has just the slightest amount of fogging. I haven’t had time to do any serious testing, so these are just first impressions. I still think both tubes are excellent, but the filmless is just better all around. My tubes have a little bit of FPN when I’m looking at a white wall, but when I’m looking at stars or anything else I can’t see it. As for first impressions on the Ether lenses, those are pretty great too. I need to find some sacrificial lenses that will fit them. Since I’m trying out DTNVGs again, I’m glad I have the better eyebox.
Link Posted: 5/24/2020 1:28:13 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By shreddingaxes:
New tubes are here. My first thoughts after 30 minutes outside( I would spend more time out there but I have to leave for work at 5am) are that the filmless has exceptional image quality. I thought my Elbits were clear, and they were by far the crispest and clearest thin filmed tubes I’ve ever had, but the filmless are clearer, have better contrast and better depth. The best way I can describe it is that the filmless are like looking out of a perfectly clear windshield, whereas the thin filmed were like looking out of a windshield that has just the slightest amount of fogging. I haven’t had time to do any serious testing, so these are just first impressions. I still think both tubes are excellent, but the filmless is just better all around. My tubes have a little bit of FPN when I’m looking at a white wall, but when I’m looking at stars or anything else I can’t see it. As for first impressions on the Ether lenses, those are pretty great too. I need to find some sacrificial lenses that will fit them. Since I’m trying out DTNVGs again, I’m glad I have the better eyebox.
View Quote


👍👍
Link Posted: 5/25/2020 4:12:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/25/2020 5:00:42 PM EDT by texassooner]
I had a chance to get some 4K footage through an Elbit WP tube and a L3 filmless 20UM tube that had pretty close specs (at least the one that matters IMO).  The EBI on the one OP had was a little high compared to the L3 so I’ve been on the look out for a low EBI filmless tube to compare to.  Here are the specs:

Tube type: Elbit XLSH/L3 Filmless 20UM
Resolution: 81/64
SNR: 35.5/37.6
EBI: .46/.53
Halo: .7/.71

No moon, overcast skies.  Low to moderate ambient man made light, which was bouncing off the cloud cover.  This is a county road that goes through an 2800 acre ranch.

Elbit on top, L3 on bottom

Link Posted: 5/25/2020 4:21:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/25/2020 4:22:58 PM EDT by Synyster06Gates]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By texassooner:
I had a chance to get some 4K footage through an Elbit WP tube and a L3 filmless tube that had pretty close specs (at least the one that matters IMO).  The EBI on the one OP had was a little high compared to the L3 so I’ve been on the look out for a low EBI filmless tube to compare to.  Here are the specs:

Tube type: Elbit XLSH/L3 Filmless
Resolution: 81/64
SNR: 35.5/37.6
EBI: .46/.53
Halo: .7/.71

No moon, overcast skies.  Low to moderate ambient man made light, which was bouncing off the cloud cover.  This is a county road that goes through an 2800 acre ranch.

Elbit on top, L3 on bottom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9ZYrw2J8GY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jru6SncMPg
View Quote


Even with an ~18% increase in FOM, the l3 still produced a better picture IMO. Significantly less noise and still a bit more clarity.
Link Posted: 5/25/2020 4:25:07 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Synyster06Gates:


Even with an ~18% increase in FOM, the l3 still produced a better picture IMO. Significantly less noise and still a brighter image.
View Quote


Looking through them in person, I agree with your statement.  I don’t think FOM is the benchmark though.  At least to my eyes, it’s hard to tell a difference between 64 and 72 etc resolution tubes.  I can tell the difference between tubes with higher/lower EBI and SNR if I’m holding them together.  So I’d say these were pretty good comparisons
Link Posted: 5/25/2020 6:31:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/25/2020 6:37:29 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By texassooner:


Looking through them in person, I agree with your statement.  I don’t think FOM is the benchmark though.  At least to my eyes, it’s hard to tell a difference between 64 and 72 etc resolution tubes.  I can tell the difference between tubes with higher/lower EBI and SNR if I’m holding them together.  So I’d say these were pretty good comparisons
View Quote


Couple questions - can you list all of the specs and is that an actual 20um (asking because of the spot)?
Link Posted: 5/25/2020 6:52:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/25/2020 6:57:34 PM EDT by texassooner]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By will-1:


Couple questions - can you list all of the specs and is that an actual 20um (asking because of the spot)?
View Quote



The unit isn’t mine, it’s a friends.  He can’t find the spec sheet.  The numbers are what he had saved on his apple notes from when he bought it.  I had the same question you did regarding the spot but it is indeed a 20um tube




ETA: are all of yalls images uploading sideways too?
Link Posted: 5/25/2020 6:57:11 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By texassooner:



The unit isn’t mine, it’s a friends.  He can’t find the spec sheet.  The numbers are what he had saved on his apple notes from when he bought it.  I had the same question you did regarding the spot but it is indeed a 20um tube
View Quote


Oof. That’s about the same size as my zone 3 blem that’s way out on the edge. I’d be livid if I paid a premium for a 20um and got that size blem in zone 2
Link Posted: 5/25/2020 7:03:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/25/2020 7:12:26 PM EDT by texassooner]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Synyster06Gates:


Oof. That’s about the same size as my zone 3 blem that’s way out on the edge. I’d be livid if I paid a premium for a 20um and got that size blem in zone 2
View Quote



You and me both brother.

I will have this for a few more days until he gets back from out of town.  I’m going to try to get some more footage.  My ronin s has programable tracks where you can program a recording movement, set the speed, pan, tilt, etc.  I’m going to try to set up a track and do it with both of these so we can get easy to compare footage.  I’ll prob try to do it in my neighborhood so we have something with a lot of ambient light and something out at my place in west Texas where there’s no ambient light whatsoever.  It’s the darkest place I know of
Page / 3
Top Top