265 replies to this topic

[WheezyGod]

If an Envis cost around $1000 and a PVS-14 was around $1500 do you think we’d see NV recommended more often amongst a larger base of astronomers on CN? The obvious answer is yes but to what extent?

If NV astronomers represent 0.01% of those on CN, do we think the lower cost alone would bring us up to 5%? 10% Or would NV still mostly be a niche piece of equipment in astronomy?

[slavicek]

Alex, I'd say No it would not became a mainstream. Obviously more people would buy it but not to "mainstream" level. It's a niche. My 2c.

[Usquebae]

I have wondered something similar.  My question is more along the lines of "why, if the cost is no major issue, would a stargazer not try NV?"  It seems there are many people on CN who own thousands of dollars worth of redundant, or otherwise rarely used, gear.  If you've got enough money and interest to own 3 Obsessions, or five Taks, or 100 oculars, why not try a NV device?  Whatever the answers are to that, the fact so that many avid gearhead stargazers don't give NV a chance indicates cost is not the only major deterrent.

 

Though I'm inclined to agree with Slavicek, I do wonder.... An easily accessible, ready-to-use 1k device might put NV within reach of beginners.  When I started out, I spent a lot of time on the Beginners forum, and reading Ed Ting's website.  I ended up with an 8" dob package that cost me $600 for the scope and 3 oculars, plus a $150 bino.  Within a few months I had a bunch of additional EPs, some filters, and a little refractor with tripod and mount.  I might reasonably have been pointed straight to the little refractor and a 1k NV device (if the latter existed). 

 

Maybe part of the stigma against NV is that all newbs are all put on the "pure glass" path, and thus they come to think of that method as "real" stargazing.  If people new to the hobby could be recruited straight into NV, the stigma against it might wash away sooner than later.  But I'm just speculating about a hypothesis....

[bobhen]

Good question.

 

Most people that we might label as serious deep sky observers have never looked through a modern image intensifier. Intensifiers are just not as prevalent as are say Ethos eyepieces. It is much easier to drop $800 - $900 on an Ethos eyepiece because everyone has experience with eyepieces, has probably looked though an Ethos before buying one or has at least looked through some kind of wide field eyepiece.

 

But because observers don't have experience with intensifiers, it takes a much bigger leap to purchase a $4,000 intensifier without ever looking though one. And I think the same might be true even at the $1,000 – $1,500 level. Maybe more would give it a try if the price were lower but until, or if, intensifiers get more prevalent in the community, trying one just takes more of a leap of faith than buying an expensive eyepiece.

 

Let me put it another way. If intensifiers were even half as prevalent in the community and at star parties as were TV Ethos eyepieces and intensifiers were priced in the $1,000 to 1500 price range, then yes, more would buy them.

 

In my case, my heavily light polluted sky conditions dictated that I take the leap without looking through one. I'm very glad that I took that leap. And it might be that deteriorating sky conditions might push more observers to do the same – regardless of previous experience or price.

 

Bob

[Jim4321]

IMO, NV would be at least as popular as EAA if it were in the same price range.  You might need to get the price of the most often-used filters down a bit as well.  The use of NV can be pretty dang simple; I can pick up my Mod3c from the kitchen counter, step onto the semi-dark back deck, twist a knob to turn it on, and look up... 

 

Jim H.

[chemisted]

If an Envis cost around $1000 and a PVS-14 was around $1500 do you think we’d see NV recommended more often amongst a larger base of astronomers on CN? The obvious answer is yes but to what extent?

If NV astronomers represent 0.01% of those on CN, do we think the lower cost alone would bring us up to 5%? 10% Or would NV still mostly be a niche piece of equipment in astronomy?

The answer to this question is a resounding no.  And I can prove it.  Last year I purchased my second NVD Micro from Ray for $1450.  Before selling it to me he offered it to one of his very experienced observing buddies who decided to pass on it.  I, in turn, tried to get the vastly experienced amateur astronomer who first got me into the hobby to buy it.  He had viewed through my device and knew what they could do.  He also said no to the offer claiming he wanted the original photons to hit his eyeball.  His environment?  Big city light pollution!

 

Both of these gentlemen have the resources to easily buy equipment three times that price.

 

The conclusion:  NV astronomy will never replace or even come close to standard stargazing for the general amateur community.

[bobhen]

The answer to this question is a resounding no.  And I can prove it.  Last year I purchased my second NVD Micro from Ray for $1450.  Before selling it to me he offered it to one of his very experienced observing buddies who decided to pass on it.  I, in turn, tried to get the vastly experienced amateur astronomer who first got me into the hobby to buy it.  He had viewed through my device and knew what they could do.  He also said no to the offer claiming he wanted the original photons to hit his eyeball.  His environment?  Big city light pollution!

 

Both of these gentlemen have the resources to easily buy equipment three times that price.

 

The conclusion:  NV astronomy will never replace or even come close to standard stargazing for the general amateur community.

I hear the "original photons to hit eyeballs" argument a lot and mostly from older observers. Of course, that argument is ridiculous, photons never reach the brain. Only electro-chemical signals reach the brain.  Whether you are looking at a photograph of flowers or looking at real flowers, no photons reach the brain.

 

For older observers, changing old habits is more difficult. Or, as the saying goes, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Newer observers will be more open to technology, in whatever form.

 

NV might actually have more future competition from some form of inexpensive, real-time digital eyepiece. 

 

Bob

[slavicek]

I hear the "original photons to hit eyeballs" argument a lot and mostly from older observers. Of course, that argument is ridiculous, photons never reach the brain. Only electro-chemical signals reach the brain.  Whether you are looking at a photograph of flowers or looking at real flowers, no photons reach the brain.

 

The argument might be "ridiculous" but that's how people feel and that's what I based my NO argument on.

 

And we might never know because, one of these days, the real time inexpensive digital eyepiece will replace NV for good.

[cnoct]

Why must NV astronomy grow?
 
Why do NV astronomers so often push NV onto others?
 
I'm of the believe that if someone what it, they'll find it. 
 
Commercial sales will never lower the cost of this tech, it actually drives the cost higher. The price of NV is already stupid cheap because it's so heavily subsidized by tax payers, stupid cheap for what it does and in relation to how costly it would be if it weren't so heavily subsidized. 
 
There's a lot of CN members ****  off at the way NV users have gone around evangelizing the use of NV, I'm a heavy user of NV and I'm in their camp on this one.

[Deadlake]

I think more observers would try NV, however there is a chapter of observers who believe that an image intensifier is to put it simply cheating. You need a large dob and every Ethos EP produced and not a newt or C11 with an image intensifier to see more in thier opinion.

 

This chapter of observers have stated that averted vision and other techniques are not required when using NVD.

The point that visually you cannot see H-Alpha nebulae or Jupiter/Saturn’s methane clouds is dismissed with a wave of no relevance, usually with the confidence of being an admin on other sites.

 

A SkyVision 20” dob with tracking is pushing well over €20000, whereas as C11 with a NVD , filters reducer etc is less then €10000. Which scope would allow me to see more deep sky objects, maybe cost is not really the issue???

[Mazerski]

I was north of Flagstaff at a dark sky event in fall 2022... 5 or 6 scopes setup from 10" to 18". I had my Mod3 with adapters and asked all the scope owners to slide the Mod3 in their focuser: they all ignored me and I overheard one guy say who wants to look at a screen. 

 

Back in 2020 (I think) for comet Neowise, while looking with Mod3 and PVS7 some bystanders were interested and looked while others wouldn't even try it. 

[firemachine69]

NV is much harder to access in Canada, I will eventually get to it. However, my vision is on the decline, and glasses might be necessary next check-up, so I may end up going the EAA route. Actually, it's almost a given there will be an EAA setup as my girlfriend absolutely wants one in our future permanent observatory. 

Edited by firemachine69, 04 August 2023 - 01:26 PM.

[Jeff Morgan]

The answer to this question is a resounding no.  And I can prove it.  Last year I purchased my second NVD Micro from Ray for $1450.  Before selling it to me he offered it to one of his very experienced observing buddies who decided to pass on it.  I, in turn, tried to get the vastly experienced amateur astronomer who first got me into the hobby to buy it.  He had viewed through my device and knew what they could do.  He also said no to the offer claiming he wanted the original photons to hit his eyeball.  His environment?  Big city light pollution!

 

Both of these gentlemen have the resources to easily buy equipment three times that price.

 

The conclusion:  NV astronomy will never replace or even come close to standard stargazing for the general amateur community.

The same type of people living under the illusion that averted vision and dark adaptation is a “skill”. Probably a solid 30% base of the hobby.

 

But I would respectfully disagree with your conclusion based on the penetration of imaging into the hobby. It has the promise of being inexpensive but quickly morphs into something more expensive than NV.

 

If anything, the pure-visual-original-photon guys (no electronics) are on the fast path to extinction.

[Deadlake]

If anything, the pure-visual-original-photon guys (no electronics) are on the fast path to extinction.

Such is light pollution.

 

However this then asks the question, if I cannot use the MTF of a premium APO, then maybe NV is the the way when used with a cheaper mirrored scope.

[Sebastian_Sajaroff]

I can’t speak for the whole community, but I can tell for sure that $ is the only reason that prevents me from buying an NVD.
IMHO, 10000 Canadian dollars is too much, even if it’s petty cash for some fortunate people.

I’m willing to spend up to 1000$ on a hypothetical NV device. 10000$ ? No way !

That kind of money pays me a 60 days all-inclusive trip to heavenly places like Atacama or Namib desert.

Edited by Sebastian_Sajaroff, 04 August 2023 - 12:51 PM.

[rjacks]

I'm one of those visual observers who isn't interested in NV for myself. I have looked through a high quality 5" refractor fitted with NV and an 18" UC Obsession fitted with NV. I thought it was cool. I liked it. But I didn't find it as aesthetically and spiritually pleasing as the view through a naked eyepiece. That's all. If you like it, great. If I were restricted to my front yard, I would probably be more interested.  

[WheezyGod]

Thanks guys, all great discussion!

Here’s my take:

-I believe there are very few amateur astronomers who are aware of the possibility of using NV for astronomy. From what I’ve heard even EAA is unknown to most. My astronomy club (200-300members) has some awareness of EAA but had no idea about night vision; still waiting for me to show them.

-There are also many many amateur astronomers out there who are not on CN, most of which quit the hobby because it’s not as interesting as it is to us and/or they’re disappointed they’re not seeing Hubble pictures

-For those who are aware who aren’t already doing AP, most will see NV as too expensive

-Then there’s the visual purists who others have called out who are going extinct. It’s one thing to prefer the view of glass only because of the way NV looks which I can understand, but the ones who see NV as cheating will be a thing of the past. Astronomy doesn’t need to be an elitist challenge to find all the Messier objects without any aids, astronomy should be about having fun enjoying what can be seen

Considering all of the above, I think if NV was cheaper (maybe $1000/$1500 is still too much) then I do believe we’d see a lot more widespread usage. It wouldn’t happen overnight since word would need to spread but I think we’d see at least 10x the # of CN members buying NV if it was under $1k.

It’s those new to the hobby who are starting with a dob between 4-10in who are seeing the moon, then planets, then transitioning to DSOs where the opportunity would be since that’s where there would be a lot of turnover.

[WheezyGod]

I have wondered something similar. My question is more along the lines of "why, if the cost is no major issue, would a stargazer not try NV?" It seems there are many people on CN who own thousands of dollars worth of redundant, or otherwise rarely used, gear. If you've got enough money and interest to own 3 Obsessions, or five Taks, or 100 oculars, why not try a NV device? Whatever the answers are to that, the fact so that many avid gearhead stargazers don't give NV a chance indicates cost is not the only major deterrent.

Though I'm inclined to agree with Slavicek, I do wonder.... An easily accessible, ready-to-use 1k device might put NV within reach of beginners. When I started out, I spent a lot of time on the Beginners forum, and reading Ed Ting's website. I ended up with an 8" dob package that cost me $600 for the scope and 3 oculars, plus a $150 bino. Within a few months I had a bunch of additional EPs, some filters, and a little refractor with tripod and mount. I might reasonably have been pointed straight to the little refractor and a 1k NV device (if the latter existed).

Maybe part of the stigma against NV is that all newbs are all put on the "pure glass" path, and thus they come to think of that method as "real" stargazing. If people new to the hobby could be recruited straight into NV, the stigma against it might wash away sooner than later. But I'm just speculating about a hypothesis....

I didn’t initially read your entire post but yes you’ve said it quite well.

[Sebastian_Sajaroff]

I was an astronomy amateur for the last 40 years, however I learned the existence of NVD 6 months ago.
I must thank CN community for keeping us informed about all these new technologies.

Edited by Sebastian_Sajaroff, 04 August 2023 - 06:07 PM.

[ETXcetera]

I was purchasing an ED refractor from a gentleman that was losing his vision and selling most of his gear so he could get the Televue night vision system and continue his visual observing. It was the first time I ever heard of night vision astronomy. Kind of wish I didn't hear about it! It is such an amazing device and has allowed me to see things that I would never have been able to without many hours of imaging or EAAing.  I took a PVS-7 to my local clubs star party but waited until the end when only the "experienced" astronomers were still around. I put it in one of the members 12" goto dobs and we pointed to the Hercules cluster. There is not a better feeling for me than giving people a view of something they have never seen before. These are experienced observers having a reaction that really I have only seen when you're showing someone the rings of Saturn for the first time and they can't believe they can see the rings.

 

Sorry for making you read all that before giving my opinion on the question. In my opinion, people just don't know about Night Vision Astronomy. If I found out about it before doing astrophotography, I might never have bought all the things needed for that. A nice astrophotography setup is comparable in cost to NVDs. However, NV astronomy seems to be something you graduate into, and not something you start off with and that probably has a lot to do with cost. 

[WheezyGod]

I was purchasing an ED refractor from a gentleman that was losing his vision and selling most of his gear so he could get the Televue night vision system and continue his visual observing. It was the first time I ever heard of night vision astronomy. Kind of wish I didn't hear about it! It is such an amazing device and has allowed me to see things that I would never have been able to without many hours of imaging or EAAing. I took a PVS-7 to my local clubs star party but waited until the end when only the "experienced" astronomers were still around. I put it in one of the members 12" goto dobs and we pointed to the Hercules cluster. There is not a better feeling for me than giving people a view of something they have never seen before. These are experienced observers having a reaction that really I have only seen when you're showing someone the rings of Saturn for the first time and they can't believe they can see the rings.

Sorry for making you read all that before giving my opinion on the question. In my opinion, people just don't know about Night Vision Astronomy. If I found out about it before doing astrophotography, I might never have bought all the things needed for that. A nice astrophotography setup is comparable in cost to NVDs. However, NV astronomy seems to be something you graduate into, and not something you start off with and that probably has a lot to do with cost.

Really appreciate your example. I might bring it tomorrow after a meeting that I always skip. If it doesn’t work out I was planning to bring it to the next star party, but wait awhile like you did to bring it out. I’d be too paranoid about someone snatching it. Probably only show people in prime without bringing any other stuff and then bust out the TV67 setup when it gets down to 8 or less people.

[columbidae]

If astrophotography and EAA already do what NVD does but way better for the same or lower price, why would you take half measures?

[ETXcetera]

You would have to go into detail on what you mean by better, but should probably be a different topic which would be a great discussion! Hard to imagine something incredibly more sensitive than a cmos used in the same manner couldn’t provide better results especially with all the rage in lucky imaging for DSO.

[rfr66]

I was north of Flagstaff at a dark sky event in fall 2022... 5 or 6 scopes setup from 10" to 18". I had my Mod3 with adapters and asked all the scope owners to slide the Mod3 in their focuser: they all ignored me and I overheard one guy say who wants to look at a screen. 

 

Back in 2020 (I think) for comet Neowise, while looking with Mod3 and PVS7 some bystanders were interested and looked while others wouldn't even try it. 

I'd prefer not to look at a screen too but if the choice is between not seeing an object at all or looking at a screen then I'll look at a screen.

[Sebastian_Sajaroff]

If astrophotography and EAA already do what NVD does but way better for the same or lower price, why would you take half measures?

NVD lets you observe in real time like a traditional glass EP.
EAA is not real time, you have to wait from 5 to 30 minutes for the image to appear.
AP is delayed as well, you capture all the raw images and then you must process them.

Edited by Sebastian_Sajaroff, 05 August 2023 - 07:39 PM.