NiteSite night vision (opinions)

[Browning]

Hey guys, just looking for opinions or experiences that people have had with NiteSite (either NS200 or the Eagle)
Would be keen to give it a whirl..
I like the idea that you can swap it between rifles anytime without re-zeroing..
I don't expect Gen 3 or 4 standard but just being able to hit ferals in the dead of night would open a few more avenues.. Saw the effectiveness of night vision recently on pigs and was very impressed..
I've a 22-250 and a .308 both with swaro's on them..
Do better quality scopes result in a better/clearer result when using the NS??
Any advice appreciated..
Cheers

[Jack V]

I have never owned either but I do own other NV . The idea is good in some respects . It's basically a digital CCD camera with no infrared filter , affixed to the ocular lens housing . Feeding the image up to a screen with an infrared illuminator light on the target area. The scope gathers the IR light and the CCD camera allows you to see an IR image that you normally could not see through a normal day scope . Good part is you don't have to swap scopes . Weakness in the system is it's a very high sighting position which only lends it's self to stationary shots mainly but with some practice anything is possible. Also there could be a potential for some parallax error when fitting and then refitting the camera I'm not sure .
As far a quality of image goes a lot depends on the sensitivity of the CCD camera module used and the performance of the IR light . Also the frequency of the IR light needs to be right at the most sensitive frequency of the CCD camera . Some are , some are not , some use a higher frequency IR light to make it fully invisible to the human eye but it may not give the best performance to the camera and you generally can't get that info from the makers.
There is different types of NV and they work on different principles. However the good thing about CCD cameras is they don't get damaged by exposure to day light .
A better quality scope is going to gather more light even IR light so it's got to help but a lot would depend on how large the exit pupil of the scope is entering the CCD cameras lens . With a variable scope you may have to tweak the power to get the brightest image I'm not sure . I don't even know anyone that has an NS 200 or Eagle yet . I'm sure there is a few around though.

[Browning]

Some good advice there mate.. Appreciated.. It would nearly always be stationary shots and from what I've read, the benefits seem to outweigh the negatives... Hmmm, more food for thought

[Jack V]

You know if you open up a normal digital camera there is an infrared filter behind the lens system. Remove that filter and you have an IR CCD camera .
You could try attaching that to a scope and just adding an IR torch to the scope . If the camera body was a small compact one that fitted without binding the action or bolt the sighting position would be at the same level as the day scope. If you had an old but working camera it would be a good experiment to see if you can get it working . This video shows basically how to do it but different brand cameras will vary a bit . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frtQxryDTo8
How you would attach the lens housing to the scope I am not sure as most digital cameras have zoom lens .

[Hercl]

The NS200 is far too cumbersome IMO. And awkward.

All that bolt on stuff, just asking to knock it and snap something off.

Have you considered a dedicated scope like the Pulsar Digisight N750?

[Swarm]

The Yukon Photon is a cheaper option too, a bit less range but depends what you need.

[Jack V]

The setup is a bit bulky but a lot of other NV is also. The main appeal hear is it can be put on and taken off without disturbing the day scopes zero .

[Browning]

Yeah some good advice.. I imagine it's a bit bulky the nite site, but it's not for walking around.. Literally sitting up and watching pigs come in on grain etc

[brett1868]

The NiteSight is a interesting unit but has a few flaws that I can see, first up is you cannot shoulder the riffle in the usual way as the camera leaves zero eye relief. The top mounted LCD panel is too small in my opinion, making it difficult to spot detail. The scope needs to be set up on a fixed zoom and the camera focused to it (assumption) if using a scope that zooms using the entire eyepiece (Nightforce NXS) then even if the camera supports zoom you can't do it without also rotating the camera and it operates in the 850nm spectrum so not totally invisible. If you really want to use your regular scope then check out the Pulsar DFA75 which is a clip on unit and at $2350 is a fairly good option though an expensive one compared to the $999 for the NS-200. As a final thought I'm not sure I would like the amount of light from the LCD back into my eyes, not so good for human eyes trying to see in the dark.
http://pulsar-nv.com/products/digital-front-attachment/forward-dfa75/



I have one of the Pulsar N770A (below) scopes which I bought at the Sydney shot show last year, good unit but low on features for the cost. Good battery life on 2 x AA's and has the option for an external Lipo and video out. Good IR illuminator in the 915nm spectrum so invisible to everything allegedly.
http://pulsar-nv.com/products/digital-riflescopes/digisight-n770a/


Recently bought one of the ATN X-Sights, massive feature list including the ability to connect to your iPhone / iPad via WiFi for remote viewing / GEO Tagging, HD Recording and photos. Planning to give the driver my iPad so he can share in the action while spotlighting up bush next week. They are reasonably cheap but wait for the next firmware release as the current version seems buggy though their tech support is very responsive to queries. Battery life is crap when running Infrared / GPS / Recording at the same time, might get 30-40 mins maximum on a set of 4 Lithium AA's and there's no option for an external battery which is one of the downsides I've found so far. I have this one set up on the DTA SRS when shooting .308 as I'm not sure if it'll handle the recoil of .338 Lap. Holds zero very well and accurate enough for the giant bunnies out to 200m though it could do with a better IR illuminator. It operates in the 780nm spectrum which is apparently visible to some animals and may spook them.
http://www.atncorp.com/x-sight-night-vision-rifle-scope-5-18x
No picture as their website sux a$$, can't even download a manual for it either.

I've had one of these on order since November last year and keep hearing it's two weeks away....will be a fully sik Tacticool piece of tech if or when it shows up which apparently now is in 7 days time and my cheque is in the mail....
http://pulsar-nv.com/products/thermal-imaging-sights-apex/apex-xd50/


Video is from the model under this but gives a good idea of its capabilities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxQgLKoMM_Q

Prices quoted are retail and range from $890 for the ATN, $2200 for the N770A (add $550 for Batt, DVR & extra IR), $2350 for the DFA75 and $6950 for the XD50 Thermal imager. Once ATN fix some bugs they should represent great value for money. I'm heading bush next week to test some new .416 projectiles so I'll throw the SRS in the boot and get some through the scope video of it in action. Will post link when done.

[Browning]

Wow.. Some great info there thanks Brett! How good is that thermal stuff!!
Now, how to spend 6k with out the missus knowing hahaha

[Hercl]

The main appeal hear is it can be put on and taken off without disturbing the day scopes zero .

I get that.

In any case I think it's just too cumbersome to use. IMO.

I guess that's a limitation of the technology though, not a flaw with this particular brand and product.

It's a shame the latest gen NV tech isn't more available to allow for some competitive pricing. The patent (or whatever legal framework and agreements it's under) is very limiting as I understand it. As it is you have to spend a fortune to get something that doesn't have various trade offs.

If more people had access and were developing we'd hopefully have better cheaper options by now.

[Title_II]

I know this is a few months old but I came in here looking for an NV thread.

Will digital CCD work for your application? Maybe. Digital CCD is the weakest form of NV. It is not real time, there is a delay based on processing and refresh rate. It might be a fraction of a second, but that can count. If it works for you for this application, great. Don't try using CCD to run through the woods at night because you do need REAL real time image or you will break your ass, a fraction of a second delay is unacceptable. Same with targeting moving game.

The "IR" we are talking about is not IR. IR is radiative heat transport. What we are talking about is "near IR." Long wave light that is just outside of human visible range. And, yes, it is commonly referred to as "IR" by NV companies in short hand. Just want to be clear what we are talking about. I am not familiar with these particular scopes and illuminators, but there is about a 98% chance that the illuminators are visible to humans. They are not generally monochromatic. They will be very dim in many cases, and humans may not notice them unless they are looking right at them, but 98% of them are visible. Of course they will also look like a spotlight at a concert to anyone else with NV. Fortunately, you are not hunting humans, so you worry about that less But I am a bit of a purist when it comes to NV. There are also animals that are more sensitive to near-IR and to UV (including insects) than humans. I don't think hogs fall into either category.

CCD will have limited range. When it is dark, they depend on the illuminator. As I said, I am a bit of a purist. I prefer Image Intensifiers (II). The range is unlimited, just that resolving a tiny image is limited by photosensativity of the photocathode x resolution ("figure of merit" according to US military and ITAR standards). And it can't give you away to any man, woman, child, or small mammal, none of which do I take s**t from

Thermal is also good and can sometimes reveal creatures that II might not as easily. But the range is usually shorter than II for uncooled detectors and you don't see things as well. Certainly not at the same price.

I really like II for this role. I don't generally hunt, but I use NV a lot and do shoot in the dark. I know a number of people that use NV for hunting and none of them ever used CCD. But if it works, go for it. For II, Gen II is fine in most cases unless you are going to be in the bush with a cloudy sky and no skyglow. Then you need Gen III. I don't think you guys have access to Gen III but I could be wrong. I know the Europeans make some insanely powerful Gen II.

With a riflescope, if you use II, get 25mm tubes instead of 18mm tubes. It makes the scope a tiny bit bigger and a tiny bit heavier but you get a 39% increase in light gathering and a 39% increase in resolution with a tube of the exact same specifications (including the same resolution specification).

[Xerox]

It is not real time, there is a delay based on processing and refresh rate. It might be a fraction of a second, but that can count. If it works for you for this application, great. Don't try using CCD to run through the woods at night...

So you can see the tree after you've run into it

[Title_II]

It's probably not that bad but most people need very timely visual cues to maintain coordination

[Yelp]

Just in general I've found any of these kind of delay things to be distracting because you can't stop focusing on it, not that it makes the thing unusable in itself.

1/4 second delay would make no difference on a grazing bunny.... except you can't stop distracting yourself by thinking about it.