User Panel
I own new production Omni 8 AVS-6 tubes. Mine are nicely matched but less than 1500 FOM and your echos probably crush them. I wouldn’t trade echos for filmed greens
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They are:
10160-c AVS6-G NSN5855-01-5034799 Exp Jan22 HamSandwich EDIT - I am dumb I thought you were talking to me. |
|
|
Quoted: I don’t even worry that hard, if I spent a fortune for a brand new unit then I would care. Used green mystery tubes I don’t worry about if they’re a good deal and work well. View Quote I only care to curb my curiosity. I love them no matter what their spec is as i can see in the fucking dark...and better than some friends lol. |
|
|
Quoted: How did you get spec sheets for them? I have a pair of ANVIS i would love to get some data on View Quote Really great question. I have no clue why they came with spec sheets but they did. I bought them as a set from a buddy and was very surprised to see they came with data sheets. And also surprised they came in below what we usually assume an Omni 8 would be. I’d post the sheets if I were allowed |
|
Quoted: Really great question. I have no clue why they came with spec sheets but they did. I bought them as a set from a buddy and was very surprised to see they came with data sheets. And also surprised they came in below what we usually assume an Omni 8 would be. I’d post the sheets if I were allowed View Quote You can post the info from the sheets, just not take a pic of them an put them up |
|
Your Echos will probably look better against what will likely be average spec spec gen 3. The gen 3 will be brighter but you’ll lose most of that brightness advantage with Anvis objectives (you’re trading for an Anvis goggle I believe?).
Echo’s typically have a great image (and your picture reflects they do) and the higher SNR makes a big difference. I would only consider it with the gen 3 had similar or higher SNR. |
|
Negative, they are PVS glass. That is what I am wondering.
I know may have a clearer image with the Echos, but what is the trade off point? Will I lose that much clarity for a small gain in low light performance? That is the question... |
|
Quoted: Negative, they are PVS glass. That is what I am wondering. I know may have a clearer image with the Echos, but what is the trade off point? Will I lose that much clarity for a small gain in low light performance? That is the question... View Quote Ah, got it. That depends on the gen 3 tubes but my experience comparing a 67 res /31 snr Echo against 64 res / 25.4 snr gen 3 filmed GP is that they were close to even in low low light. If you like WP better than GP, you may feel like you've taken a step backwards (Echo vs average spec gen 3) A big thing to consider is if the gen 3 tubes are noisy in low light, you won't be able to minimize it by lowering the gain. ETA: because they are 10160 format |
|
Quoted: Negative, they are PVS glass. That is what I am wondering. I know may have a clearer image with the Echos, but what is the trade off point? Will I lose that much clarity for a small gain in low light performance? That is the question... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Negative, they are PVS glass. That is what I am wondering. I know may have a clearer image with the Echos, but what is the trade off point? Will I lose that much clarity for a small gain in low light performance? That is the question... Quoted: Ah, got it. That depends on the gen 3 tubes but my experience comparing a 67 res /31 snr Echo against 64 res / 25.4 snr gen 3 filmed GP is that they were close to even in low low light. If you like WP better than GP, you may feel like you've taken a step backwards (Echo vs average spec gen 3) A big thing to consider is if the gen 3 tubes are noisy in low light, you won't be able to minimize it by lowering the gain. ETA: because they are 10160 format I would also like to point out that you will have higher sensitivity with the gen 3's. I've put my Echo with similar specs to yours up against friends' older gen 3 tubes (OMNI IV/V) with worse specs and while my image is far far nicer and cleaner, I also can't pick up some details in shadows while they can (they can see faint outlines and markings in the shadow of structures where I just see a dark shadow like a black hole). You can kind of see an example of what I mean at 1:20 of Will's video looking at the canister thing on the right where you can resolve more detail in the shadow with the Harris tube. They also seem to be able to resolve fine details from further away than I can with my Echo like reading small text on signs. At 1:09 of Will's video, you can kind of see what I mean where the text on the sign through the Echo is more blurry compared to the Harris tube even though the Echo's specs are generally better. Granted, this seems to be accentuated when there's not enough light out (typically no moon and only moderate starlight). To me, that's the biggest tradeoff where it's not just being able to see a little better in low light, it's being able to see things and details that you otherwise wouldn't be able to see vs having a very nice image when there's enough illumination. |
|
Silly question, but what is SNR control and what does Resolution control? Like do you ever get high res but low SNR?
|
|
Quoted: Silly question, but what is SNR control and what does Resolution control? Like do you ever get high res but low SNR? View Quote The easiest answer IMO is - Resolution: How well you can make out different stuff that's close together. Signal to noise ratio: How well it forms an image against the "noise". A higher SNR tube gives a better/clearer image especially in low light ETA: didn't answer your last question. Modern tubes are almost all at least 64 lp/mm center resolution, so the resolution isn't a major factor for head mounted tubes. Signal to noise ratio is arguably the most important spec. From my experience, minor jumps aren't a major difference but something like 24-25 versus your tubes at 32.75 - 34.5 is very noticeable. |
|
Ah okay.
It seems like it may be mixed on the responses. I guess it just depends on what I am expecting to get out of the Gen 3. IMO, losing a little bit of clarity for a little bit brighter of an image would be a good trade off. The question is, how clear will the Gen3 image be! |
|
Quoted: Ah okay. It seems like it may be mixed on the responses. I guess it just depends on what I am expecting to get out of the Gen 3. IMO, losing a little bit of clarity for a little bit brighter of an image would be a good trade off. The question is, how clear will the Gen3 image be! View Quote You honestly could only answer that by doing a side by side comparison. CDN_Datawraith is absolutely right about photocathode sensitivity (and gain levels) having a big impact but how important it is to you or how it will affect your use/needs really depends on what you are expecting out of the tubes and where/how you are using them. The Echos will be more than fine if you have no issues using extra IR when needed and/or have decent ambient lighting. The main difference is a good gen 3 tube (and this even with high spec gen 3 vs lower spec gen 3 too) will let you see more in the dark before needing to turn on IR or needing to get closer to the object/whatever you need to identify. How big of an advantage/difference that is depends on the specific tubes and conditions. IMO, I'd wait for something with spec sheets to come along or do a special request order for specs, versus gambling on tubes with unknown specs. Unless you can try before you buy or have a return window if you don't like them. |
|
Here's a good read. It's not gen 2 vs gen 3 but rather high SNR vs low SNR. This was open source so should be good to go to post.
Effect of using high signal to noise aided visual acuity |
|
Resolution doesn’t matter that much, human eye can’t tell the difference between 64 or 72lp/mm. Resolution only comes in play if you put clip-on NVG in front of your scope.
|
|
Quoted: Here's a good read. It's not gen 2 vs gen 3 but rather high SNR vs low SNR. This was open source so should be good to go to post. Effect of using high signal to noise aided visual acuity View Quote Good article, thanks for the link. Reading it reminded me of something, one of the guys more familiar with night vision than I am up in Canada told me that Photonis generates their SNR differently than that of L3H or Elbit (more complex than just the EBI being measured in different units). Wonder if someone could comment and/or clarify that (as it might explain why my Echo with superior listed specs has more trouble resolving detail than an old toasty gen 3). |
|
Quoted: Good article, thanks for the link. Reading it reminded me of something, one of the guys more familiar with night vision than I am up in Canada told me that Photonis generates their SNR differently than that of L3H or Elbit (more complex than just the EBI being measured in different units). Wonder if someone could comment and/or clarify that (as it might explain why my Echo with superior listed specs has more trouble resolving detail than an old toasty gen 3). View Quote I believe it is EBI that Photonis lists differently, carry the decimal. 0.22 = 2.2 kinda thing. |
|
Quoted: I believe it is EBI that Photonis lists differently, carry the decimal. 0.22 = 2.2 kinda thing. View Quote Yes, they definitely do. They use microlux instead of phot as a unit for EBI measurement. However, SNR is a ratio, so it does not have units. Therefore, if they have different procedures or parameters to generate their SNR numbers compared to L3H and Elbit, it may not be an apples to apples comparison and that wouldn't be shown in the spec sheet. It's just a rumour I heard so I have no idea if this is true or not. |
|
Quoted: Good article, thanks for the link. Reading it reminded me of something, one of the guys more familiar with night vision than I am up in Canada told me that Photonis generates their SNR differently than that of L3H or Elbit (more complex than just the EBI being measured in different units). Wonder if someone could comment and/or clarify that (as it might explain why my Echo with superior listed specs has more trouble resolving detail than an old toasty gen 3). View Quote I believe it is due to the photocathode sensitivity and gain, both of which would be higher in the Omni IV/V gen 3 compared to the Echo. The USA Echo sheets I've seen have gain as 7,000-10,000. Using the max of 10k (the highest Echo I've seen was 9,243) and Pi to convert it that's 31,400 versus the Omni IV/V requirement of 40,000-70,000 (the gain was likely at least 50k). I've never seen Photonis data sheets listing photocathode sensitivity so no idea what that is supposed to be. Some people can't tell a difference with sensitivity and I've read some legit experts say it is a meaningless spec but IMO based on my own observations I notice a substantial difference with a high sensitivity tube provided that all of the other specs are also good overall. ETA: I don't 100% if converting it with Pi is the correct method but I'm sure @cj7hawk can answer that |
|
Quoted: I believe it is due to the photocathode sensitivity and gain, both of which would be higher in the Omni IV/V gen 3 compared to the Echo. The USA Echo sheets I've seen have gain as 7,000-10,000. Using the max of 10k (the highest Echo I've seen was 9,243) and Pi to convert it that's 31,400 versus the Omni IV/V requirement of 40,000-70,000 (the gain was likely at least 50k). I've never seen Photonis data sheets listing photocathode sensitivity so no idea what that is supposed to be. Some people can't tell a difference with sensitivity and I've read some legit experts say it is a meaningless spec but IMO based on my own observations I notice a substantial difference with a high sensitivity tube provided that all of the other specs are also good overall. ETA: I don't 100% if converting it with Pi is the correct method but I'm sure @cj7hawk can answer that View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Good article, thanks for the link. Reading it reminded me of something, one of the guys more familiar with night vision than I am up in Canada told me that Photonis generates their SNR differently than that of L3H or Elbit (more complex than just the EBI being measured in different units). Wonder if someone could comment and/or clarify that (as it might explain why my Echo with superior listed specs has more trouble resolving detail than an old toasty gen 3). I believe it is due to the photocathode sensitivity and gain, both of which would be higher in the Omni IV/V gen 3 compared to the Echo. The USA Echo sheets I've seen have gain as 7,000-10,000. Using the max of 10k (the highest Echo I've seen was 9,243) and Pi to convert it that's 31,400 versus the Omni IV/V requirement of 40,000-70,000 (the gain was likely at least 50k). I've never seen Photonis data sheets listing photocathode sensitivity so no idea what that is supposed to be. Some people can't tell a difference with sensitivity and I've read some legit experts say it is a meaningless spec but IMO based on my own observations I notice a substantial difference with a high sensitivity tube provided that all of the other specs are also good overall. ETA: I don't 100% if converting it with Pi is the correct method but I'm sure @cj7hawk can answer that I believe I seen the pi conversion mentioned on Cloudynights as well. A lot of what's better or not can be trumped by your personal preference in many circumstances. I will say my Intens screen makes all the gen 3 tubes I've seen look dirty. High light or low light I can tell my Intens is darker which makes it very easy on the eyes but struggles sooner in dark areas. I'd prefer my gen 3s for anything serious but my example from Photonis is hard to beat for everything else. By no means would I feel under gunned with the Intens though. |
|
Quoted: I believe I seen the pi conversion mentioned on Cloudynights as well. A lot of what's better or not can be trumped by your personal preference in many circumstances. I will say my Intens screen makes all the gen 3 tubes I've seen look dirty. High light or low light I can tell my Intens is darker which makes it very easy on the eyes but struggles sooner in dark areas. I'd prefer my gen 3s for anything serious but my example from Photonis is hard to beat for everything else. By no means would I feel under gunned with the Intens though. View Quote Very true. Even from night to night it can change. I’ve had nights where the L3 filmed GP M890’s lose nothing to my unfilmed and other nights where I’m like “are these the same tubes!?” Lol |
|
|
Quoted: Very true. Even from night to night it can change. I’ve had nights where the L3 filmed GP M890’s lose nothing to my unfilmed and other nights where I’m like “are these the same tubes!?” Lol View Quote I took some nieces and nephews on a dark ride last night with the M890s after I'd been using the filmless the past week. Not bad at all but you're definitely right, filmless is where it's at |
|
Quoted: I took some nieces and nephews on a dark ride last night with the M890s after I'd been using the filmless the past week. Not bad at all but you're definitely right, filmless is where it's at View Quote I've been very impressed with the M890AVs I've had. I have a set in an AVS-6 and have zero complaints. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.