Armory Sponsor
Posted: 4/27/2012 11:15:24 AM EDT
|
I've been seeing a few different products pop up labeled as "Digital Night Vision" and while I grasp that these are CCD/CMOS based devices as opposed to the tubes used by most stuff, Im curious as to what the general opinions on these are. There was a hog hunting video posted that utilized one of these in GD, and I was surprised at how good the image quality was.
I know Pulsar makes some, and Elcan has had their digiatl hunter scope out for some time. How do these things fare compared to the PVS-14's everyone around here seems to prefer? |
|
Quoted:
I've been seeing a few different products pop up labeled as "Digital Night Vision" and while I grasp that these are CCD/CMOS based devices as opposed to the tubes used by most stuff, Im curious as to what the general opinions on these are. There was a hog hunting video posted that utilized one of these in GD, and I was surprised at how good the image quality was. I know Pulsar makes some, and Elcan has had their digiatl hunter scope out for some time. How do these things fare compared to the PVS-14's everyone around here seems to prefer? See HERE This is a good synopsis of what digital vs. a Gen 3 will do. While these rifle scopes you talk about will not have the white out effect, the rest is still relevant on how digi is compared to a modern day Gen 2 or Gen 3. 
Vic |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
They dont hold a candle to gen 3 stuff. Is it a clarity thing, or sensitivity? I know the tubes offer a much better....I think contrast range is the best description I have for it. The digital scopes have less resolution than standard night vision and they suffer in extremely low light conditions and an IR light will be necessary in order to use them at all. That said, with good moonlight they work surprisingly well and with no moon and a decent IR light you'll be able to see 150 yards or more but the frame rate still takes a little bit of a hit. We had several of the Pulsar N550's and for what they are they aren't bad scopes for the money. They're a million times better than any of the other low priced junk night vision you see at places like Bass Pro or Gander Mountain. They ain't gen 3 though either. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They dont hold a candle to gen 3 stuff. Is it a clarity thing, or sensitivity? I know the tubes offer a much better....I think contrast range is the best description I have for it. The digital scopes have less resolution than standard night vision and they suffer in extremely low light conditions and an IR light will be necessary in order to use them at all. That said, with good moonlight they work surprisingly well and with no moon and a decent IR light you'll be able to see 150 yards or more but the frame rate still takes a little bit of a hit. We had several of the Pulsar N550's and for what they are they aren't bad scopes for the money. They're a million times better than any of the other low priced junk night vision you see at places like Bass Pro or Gander Mountain. They ain't gen 3 though either. Good post Ponyboy. As I mentioned in the Supervision review way back when. I REALLY hope digital devices keep making strides, these have so much potential for the price point vs. I2 devices.
Vic |
|
The good news? Digital has already surpassed Gen 3 Omni VIII. The bad news? You can't get your hands on it, won't be able to get your hands on it for some time ( probably quite a few years if ever ) and there is nothing on the market worth getting. If your heart is set on digital, have a look at the X-gen. They are fairly indicative of high-end digital in general, and so suck pretty much, but they are about what digital should cost at the moment. My general rule is that Digital is OK for some uses, but if it costs more than $200, it's overpriced for the performance it delivers. To put that into perspective, that's against Gen2's costing $2000 and gen3's at current prices. Regards David
|
Armory Sponsor