Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

NV. PVS-7 vs. Mod 3.. Not what you think...

  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#26 SteveSMS

SteveSMS

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 29 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Jersey Shore USA

Posted 01 October 2016 - 11:38 PM

It attaches to the body. 

 

 

 

 

I have both a 200 2.8 lens and an 8X f2 catadioptric lens and I find the cat to be better but while a 200mm camera lens can be used with any C mount the cat is specific to a PVS-7.

I inow which cat lens you are referring to. Very nice. Thats a big lens too. How is the weight with the 8x?

 

 

It is at the upper limit of hand holdable for me but I normally use it on a light tripod with a gimbal style head.

 

Wow, that's one drool worthy lens, does it go on top of the regular lens of PVS-7 or it directly attaches to the PVS body?

 

It attaches to the body.



#27 cnoct

cnoct

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 752
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2010
  • Loc: Hawai'i

Posted 02 October 2016 - 02:20 AM

Very nice system Steve  :waytogo:


  • SteveSMS likes this

#28 SteveSMS

SteveSMS

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 29 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Jersey Shore USA

Posted 02 October 2016 - 08:56 AM

Very nice system Steve  :waytogo:

Thanks! You were 100% correct earlier this year when you advised me of the abilities of Gen 2+ tubes. I picked up an XR5 Onyx tube and although it excels at general low power stargazing narrowband Ha filters and or stretching the focal length causes it to fall behind the Gen 3 devices.



#29 PEterW

PEterW

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2006
  • Loc: SW London, UK

Posted 02 October 2016 - 01:15 PM

I see a tripod... like to see you handheld/bench press that one ;-))

Nice system!

Peter
  • SteveSMS likes this

#30 cnoct

cnoct

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 752
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2010
  • Loc: Hawai'i

Posted 05 October 2016 - 07:31 AM

 

Very nice system Steve  :waytogo:

Thanks! You were 100% correct earlier this year when you advised me of the abilities of Gen 2+ tubes. I picked up an XR5 Onyx tube and although it excels at general low power stargazing narrowband Ha filters and or stretching the focal length causes it to fall behind the Gen 3 devices.

 

 

But nothing beats first hand experience though, I like your style!

 

For general astronomy and even narrow band viewing, Gen 2 tubes have significant merit and should not be discounted. The same goes for Gen 1 tubes, particularly triple cascade tubes. I find great merit in all cathode types.

 

If ones sole interest is narrowband viewing, go with current state of the art Gen 3 cathode technology otherwise there are some spectacular views to be had with Gen 2 tubes such as those available from Photonis e.g. XD4, XR5 and INTENS 

 

Within the spectral bandwidth that Gen 3 cathodes are the most responsive, Gen 3 cathode technology remains unbeatable.

 

Though the XR5 cathode technology of your XR5 tube limits spectral response characteristics in the bandwidth that Gen 3 is most responsive, the XR5 has short and long wave limits that make the bandwidth a bit greater than Gen 3 but not as responsive in the bandwidth limits of Gen 3.

 

Ironically, more astronomical research projects used Gen 2 image intensifiers than those that have used Gen 3. 


Edited by cnoct, 05 October 2016 - 09:07 AM.

  • SteveSMS and QuintStiff like this

#31 SteveSMS

SteveSMS

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 29 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Jersey Shore USA

Posted 05 October 2016 - 09:04 AM

I picked up a 35nm Ha filter to use with the the XR5 tube and it does show objects like the North American nebula but our other PVS-7 fitted with a 12nm has much higher contrast and is obviously, like Cnoct states, the clear choice for narrowband. One particular thing that I have found interesting is that five out of five women that I have shown both PVS-7s preferred the green to the black and white phosphor in all situations including terrestrial. I like the B&W for general stargazing.



#32 outofsight

outofsight

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1418
  • Joined: 31 May 2015

Posted 05 October 2016 - 11:52 AM

I saw your earlier post that said your wife preferred the green, and now five out of five women. Very interesting. Women are more sensitive to color, "green is the color humans are most sensitive to", looks like the researchers got it right. 

 

The last time I compared images from a high class green tube to a comparable white phosphor, the green edged it out, but these were mostly terrestrial images and I would have needed to see more star (astro) images to get a better idea of how much difference there was.

 

That green tube probably would have been the smarter purchase, especially if it was significantly cheaper, but how can you possibly go wrong with any of this stuff. It's all fun, and illuminating.



#33 Jeff Morgan

Jeff Morgan

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11164
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2003
  • Loc: Prescott, AZ

Posted 05 October 2016 - 11:19 PM

One particular thing that I have found interesting is that five out of five women that I have shown both PVS-7s preferred the green to the black and white phosphor in all situations including terrestrial.

So you have discovered the elusive Chick Magnet.


  • Vondragonnoggin, charotarguy and outofsight like this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics