xDom wrote:I’m thinking about spending some coin on a night vision Monocular.
I’ve been doing some reading and I’ve been looking at some Yukon/Pulsar units for about $650.
What sort of quality would you expect for that?
I did some reading on earlier threads where posters were asking about NV scopes. The responses were along the lines of , if you’re not gonna spend megabucks then it’s only gonna be gimicky gear that’s of little use.
Is this the same with monoculars?
Note, I am stearing clear on the Aldi/EBay $150 specials!
niteowl wrote:I realize this is a really old thread, but don't get caught with entry level gear.
We run "workshops" for teaching people and Govt departments about the various types of "night vision" and the after a PP and discussion session we then show people the actual equipment.
Starting with basic stuff that is really only toys, which impresses people who have never used anything before. The comments are "Fantastic, this is great I can see things".
Then go to Gen 3 Mil spec, which blows them away. (Gen 2 is not worth the extra cost for the small increase in performance).
Great you think, then go to commercial grade thermal. The stunned comments can't really be printed here, it is FAR ahead of Mil Gen 3.
From there we go to Military thermal. I DO realize that Military thermal is way out of reach for more than a fortunate few, but it shows what can be achieved.
A few things need to be clarified here, one, digital has problems as it needs a truck load of IR to make it workable at more than a hundred meters especially when there is no moonlight, BUT nocturnal animals CAN see IR, even 940 nm covert IR. As well as the red light that is very visible to all, especially when the power level gets up with lower frequency IR illuminators. After a while animals get wary just like when you are using a spotlight, it works for a while. Gen 3 Image intensifying is better but still needs light of some kind, IR or visible AND a high contrast target even though the resolution is good.
There is also a lot of confusion, some people refer to IR night vision. IR night vision is thermal only, as it detects IR ONLY. You have all heard of FLIR, Forward Looking Infrared!
Image intensifying and digital will see various wave lengths of IR and visible light.
When we have concluded a workshop, the opinion is that people do not want entry level any more, and prefer to save and not waste precious money on poor equipment that seemed so good because they did not know what was available.
My apologies to all I have offended, but I / we have been through ALL the versions and types over time and believe I can give an unbiased view on them all.
As a contractor for over about 55 years, and "NV" user for 14, now use nothing but thermal, except at specific times, due to a special situation where I need to see through glass, I will use a Gen 3 monocular for observation only.
niteowl wrote:No you don't need to for just that, but most people don't want stay there once they have a taste of it. And no you don't need to go to 10K as you say but 2K will get you a toy.
It need to be pointed out that sooo many people get sucked in because they have not had a chance to see anything else and feel that first impression of actually seeing in the dark for the first time is stunning.
Sorry if you do not like newcomers to the forum that may know something??
niteowl wrote:The first line of my last post should explain what I am saying
TassieTiger wrote:niteowl wrote:The first line of my last post should explain what I am saying
After viewing a small range of thermals (upwards of $7k) and Several night vision monoculars and dedicated night scopes that ranged up to $3k, I settled on a $800 pard...I could afford the better equipment but I couldn’t justify the extra expense so - everything You’ve said is not only subjective but also based individual circumstance.
niteowl wrote:I realize this is a really old thread, but don't get caught with entry level gear.
We run "workshops" for teaching people and Govt departments about the various types of "night vision" and the after a PP and discussion session we then show people the actual equipment.
Starting with basic stuff that is really only toys, which impresses people who have never used anything before. The comments are "Fantastic, this is great I can see things".
Then go to Gen 3 Mil spec, which blows them away. (Gen 2 is not worth the extra cost for the small increase in performance).
Great you think, then go to commercial grade thermal. The stunned comments can't really be printed here, it is FAR ahead of Mil Gen 3.
From there we go to Military thermal. I DO realize that Military thermal is way out of reach for more than a fortunate few, but it shows what can be achieved.
A few things need to be clarified here, one, digital has problems as it needs a truck load of IR to make it workable at more than a hundred meters especially when there is no moonlight, BUT nocturnal animals CAN see IR, even 940 nm covert IR. As well as the red light that is very visible to all, especially when the power level gets up with lower frequency IR illuminators. After a while animals get wary just like when you are using a spotlight, it works for a while. Gen 3 Image intensifying is better but still needs light of some kind, IR or visible AND a high contrast target even though the resolution is good.
There is also a lot of confusion, some people refer to IR night vision. IR night vision is thermal only, as it detects IR ONLY. You have all heard of FLIR, Forward Looking Infrared!
Image intensifying and digital will see various wave lengths of IR and visible light.
When we have concluded a workshop, the opinion is that people do not want entry level any more, and prefer to save and not waste precious money on poor equipment that seemed so good because they did not know what was available.
My apologies to all I have offended, but I / we have been through ALL the versions and types over time and believe I can give an unbiased view on them all.
As a contractor for over about 55 years, and "NV" user for 14, now use nothing but thermal, except at specific times, due to a special situation where I need to see through glass, I will use a Gen 3 monocular for observation only.
xDom wrote:I’ve seen a second hand FLIR thermal on EBay. How do you go about using it on the field?
Bladeracer in his post before mentioned the issue of looking at a bright screen then your eyes adjusting back when you look away from the device.
I’ve read other reports in the internet, people saying the same thing.
I guess ideally you need thermal monocular and a thermal scope! $$!
boingk wrote:You don't need to experiment with this phenomenon - you can see it yourself if you let your night vision develop sufficiently.
I've been in situations where even from a few hundred metres, and very clearly under 100m, you can see IR illuminators with your naked eye on a dark night. Its like a red glowing coal, or a dim red traffic light.
Now imagine youre an animal with highly developed night vsion, evolved over tens or hundreds or thousands of years so you can hunt prey or see predators at night.
That dim red glow becomes much more visible and eye catching... whats going for us is that they don't associate it with being shot at... yet!
- boingk
mchughcb wrote:Thanks i just wanted to know which animals and the ones I need to shoot. You only mentioned foxes so I assume you know that foxes can see a genuine 940nm IR and you base this on 940 nm game cameras?
Do you have any scientific papers that you reference when people question you about whether animals can see 940nm IR?
mchughcb wrote:Hmm, well that's interesting because as a non "pro" I have to keep coming back to your experience with a 940nm and digital NV experience on nocturnal animals that are under extreme hunting pressure. You say it is proved scientific or otherwise and I say could you please provide some scientific paper or a video at least where the wild dog was observed with and without the 940nm IR and you can see the second you turned it on they got spooked and hightailed it?
Feel free to post anything supporting your point of view.
I can show you three wild dogs that have been hunted for some time that I was able to video with 940nm that didn't hightail it and I was still filming them for 1 hour from a blind..
niteowl wrote:mchughcb wrote:Thanks i just wanted to know which animals and the ones I need to shoot. You only mentioned foxes so I assume you know that foxes can see a genuine 940nm IR and you base this on 940 nm game cameras?
Do you have any scientific papers that you reference when people question you about whether animals can see 940nm IR?
Foxes used as the most common nocturnal animal pursued by most, we have a feeling that dogs / wild dogs can also see this as well, but nothing definite, 940 or otherwise. This came about at a wild dog workshop for a group of doggers I was asked to do a presentation for, one dogger had suspicions only, that they could see the IR he was using.
No scientific stuff, just practical observations. Most of our contract work is for the Govt and we use equipment that is designed for high end use.
Not all cameras, we have had the mentioned responses with most models and also genuine high spec 940 nm. which has NO trace of a red light at all.
A slight deviation from the above. I spent an night session with a licenced pest controller who had a Gen 2 scope that he did not like the performance of (not surprised as Gen 2 is not worth the effort or money) and he was using a high powered IR with it. He went to a 100 m point to set up his "fox target" and when he turned to come back he uttered some coarse language when he saw the INTENSE red light. Nothing to do with IR, but just what was emitted from the illuminator. He had never actually looked back from the target direction and was not aware how bright it was!! (not 940 nm) When you use these things you have the effect of the visible light as well as the IR.
Like I have said 940 nm will get you by longer, but the IR has proved to be visible, scientific or otherwise.
I think somebody said that a fox would not associate the light with being "shot at", fine but unless they have been winged when using a spotlight they would not associated that either but they do get wary when an unnatural light hits them.
This is not intended to start arguments but to point out shortcomings of using "night vision" that requires a light of some kind. My whole thing is that thermal overcome all the problem.
It does not require the level of thermal that we use, any thermal that will provide good resolution and be reliable will do the job.
mchughcb wrote:Not sure why you seem to qualify everything with the "I don't want to start an argument" .I completely disagree with your statement about 940nm IR I have hunted with digital nightvision and thermal for almost a decade and whilst animals can definitely see the 790nm, 850nm they don't respond at all to a high quality 940nm. You have your experience using 4K digital night vision with a 940nm illuminator and I have mine. The hundreds of animals I've shot with the digital night vision none of them have ever been spooked by the 940nm torch, but they have been spooked by noise, scent or my outline.
niteowl wrote:Wild dogs, OK, no problem, as I said I "had a feeling" about dogs, I DID NOT say they could see IR of any wave length 940 or otherwise.
Dogs are not genuine nocturnal animals.
Lets not get into an argument, I was making some comments about IR and nocturnal animals and the effects based on some years of experience and observations, NOT scientific
niteowl wrote:One way of getting some info on this, is to get a genuine covert camera (some poorer ones still emit a low visible glow) that is genuinely silent and put it high in a tree looking down at a bait. Set it to take multiple shots or video.
A fox for instance, will approach the bait looking down at it in the first image and then all the others looking straight up at the camera.
niteowl wrote:Sorry if you do not like newcomers to the forum that may know something??
TassieTiger wrote:niteowl wrote:Sorry if you do not like newcomers to the forum that may know something??
mchughcb wrote:I agree Fionn. So here is test on a fox, from over 200m to 25m over an hour and with the wind in my face the fox is oblivious to my presence. Not even a little bit.
https://youtu.be/xwLM26FPCs4