PharmerJon
New member
Originally Posted By: FowlWaterJon where are you at in NE. I'm up in ALbion
Not too far from you... Sent you a PM.
Not too far from you... Sent you a PM.
Photon XT 4.6x Night Vision Scope Review
- Thread starter 6mm06
- Start date
6mm06
Well-known member
Yesterday evening late I finally had a chance to go to the farm and test the Photon. I did a test about 30 minutes before sunset and then after dark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAlSGTmKvJ4&list=UU81nCZByzsnwkuHReRQNMwQ
I am once again back to being disappointed in the Photon. One of the main issues as I see it, is the lack of a good, clear, responsive focus, which may also relate to the somewhat grainy appearance. The focus on the objective end is too short in that by barely rotating it, the focus goes from fair to worse. When correcting the other way it is the same. It's difficult to nearly impossible to achieve what I consider a good focus. The target appears blurred, grainy and just not "smooth" in appearance. Another issue is light distribution, ie the light is not always evenly illuminated throughout the sight picture. Much of it depends on the distance as well as grass, weeds etc.
The light output at both the 60 yard and 127 yard range was good with the LLTL-001, but the target (coyote) looks blurred as mentioned. With the on-board IR I could make killing shots at the 60 yard site. I wouldn't attempt it at 127 yards. The Eagle Tac illuminator worked OK at 60 yards but had too much of a tight focus off to the side, causing a bright spot. The Eagle Tac was not so good at 127. The LLTL-001 remains the best so far.
The combination of 4.6x and blurriness translates into difficulty identifying the target at 127 yards. I could tell through the scope's ocular that the target was a dog-like animal, but I couldn't say well enough that it was a coyote and not my neighbor's shepherd, or a gray fox. Only the size of the animal might indicate it might not be a fox.
At this point, with my particular scope and tests, I basically view the Photon as a closer range scope. For distances under 100 yards and with a good illuminator, I think it will serve well enough, but I have to admit I was expecting better of the Photon.
6mm-06 -
Excellent job with your review, I'd say it was a very fair assessment of the 4.6 PhotonXT.
The scope is focus fussy and grainy, for those who are looking at buying the scope and reading your review can you elaborate on your use of the rear eyepiece focus. I'm sure you adjusted that as well to get the sharpest image of reticle and onscreen display but since it wasn't mentioned I thought I would gauge your input here.
ATB -
BB
Excellent job with your review, I'd say it was a very fair assessment of the 4.6 PhotonXT.
The scope is focus fussy and grainy, for those who are looking at buying the scope and reading your review can you elaborate on your use of the rear eyepiece focus. I'm sure you adjusted that as well to get the sharpest image of reticle and onscreen display but since it wasn't mentioned I thought I would gauge your input here.
ATB -
BB
PharmerJon
New member
Originally Posted By: Bennybone6mm-06 -
Excellent job with your review, I'd say it was a very fair assessment of the 4.6 PhotonXT.
The scope is focus fussy and grainy, for those who are looking at buying the scope and reading your review can you elaborate on your use of the rear eyepiece focus. I'm sure you adjusted that as well to get the sharpest image of reticle and onscreen display but since it wasn't mentioned I thought I would gauge your input here.
ATB -
BB
And what brightness setting was your display on (1-15)? Or maybe I missed it.
Excellent job with your review, I'd say it was a very fair assessment of the 4.6 PhotonXT.
The scope is focus fussy and grainy, for those who are looking at buying the scope and reading your review can you elaborate on your use of the rear eyepiece focus. I'm sure you adjusted that as well to get the sharpest image of reticle and onscreen display but since it wasn't mentioned I thought I would gauge your input here.
ATB -
BB
And what brightness setting was your display on (1-15)? Or maybe I missed it.
6mm06
Well-known member
Bennybone, I did focus the eyepiece too. Actually I did that first, then tried the objective focus. I checked the eyepiece from time to time, as well as the objective during the course of the tests, trying to get a proper focus. As I mentioned, the objective focus is critical and has a very short rotation travel before going in or out of focus.
PharmerJon, I did try the brightness settings to get what appeared to be the best view. I don't recall the exact number of the focus but I did adjust it. One thing I noticed in testing the brightness setting is that what I adjusted was not captured by the video recorder. I actually did a test to show how I could adjust brightness from darker to lighter, but when I played back the video it was not evident. Apparently the adjustment is for the user's eye only.
PharmerJon
New member
Thanks David.
I noticed the very fine focus adjustments as well.
Having never looked through any other Night Vision devices before, I'm blown away with how much you can see with almost no visible signature (slight red glow when IR is on). I guess I wasn't expecting 3rd gen quality, which I wouldn't know anything about other than what I've seen online.
For the $450 + shipping that I've got invested I will use it every chance I can and sleep easy knowing it costs much less than most of my daytime scopes!
-Jon
I noticed the very fine focus adjustments as well.
Having never looked through any other Night Vision devices before, I'm blown away with how much you can see with almost no visible signature (slight red glow when IR is on). I guess I wasn't expecting 3rd gen quality, which I wouldn't know anything about other than what I've seen online.
For the $450 + shipping that I've got invested I will use it every chance I can and sleep easy knowing it costs much less than most of my daytime scopes!
-Jon
6mm06
Well-known member
Yea, I agree fully. For the money the scope is pretty good - until you look through my home-made unit. Then you will see the difference.
It may sound as if I am bashing the Photon. I'm really trying to give a fair assessment. I am somewhat disappointed since I had higher expectations, and using the home-made unit for the last year has me accustomed to that. I figured the Photon would be at least as good or better. It's close but not quite as good but has the advantage over the home-made unit due to not having wires and a battery to deal with.
If Sightmark will review the scope's negatives and improve on them, they will have a good one. They need to address the clarity / grainy issue and the focus. Since they released this new model so quickly after the first ones were released, that leads me to think they are striving to improve it, and that's a very good thing.
Dustin, for now I will keep the scope but if I decide to let it go, I'll be in touch.
It may sound as if I am bashing the Photon. I'm really trying to give a fair assessment. I am somewhat disappointed since I had higher expectations, and using the home-made unit for the last year has me accustomed to that. I figured the Photon would be at least as good or better. It's close but not quite as good but has the advantage over the home-made unit due to not having wires and a battery to deal with.
If Sightmark will review the scope's negatives and improve on them, they will have a good one. They need to address the clarity / grainy issue and the focus. Since they released this new model so quickly after the first ones were released, that leads me to think they are striving to improve it, and that's a very good thing.
Dustin, for now I will keep the scope but if I decide to let it go, I'll be in touch.
David,
I believe that the graininess is something that is unavoidable in the digital NV scopes. It's definitely there in my Pulsar N750 although comparing the N750's graininess and the the Photon's graininess is likely impossible short of having both at the same time in the same conditions.
Although I find it annoying in my Pulsar, I find it to be completely acceptable for the price I paid for it and when I'm actually hunting I don't even notice it and consider the clarity to be pretty good.
Hopefully someone will be able to do a comparison of optical clarity between the two scopes at the same time and in the same conditions soon.
That would be very useful.
Thanks for the detailed review you've given us. I wish I'd had more time to chime in and help with comparisons to my Pulsar but deer season (in Georgia) interrupted my life like it does every year about this time and it won't be over until early March (in Florida).
One thing my night hunting buddy keeps commenting on is the great quality of the integrated infrared illuminator in my Pulsar. His N740's integrated light isn't nearly as good and although the coyotes and deer immediately stop and look directly at the light as soon as I turn it on, they don't run or seem to spook.
I'm about to go put up some feeders today on one of my leases so I'll sign off for now and go get ready with the cables, winches, etc. but hopefully can do some more posting soon.
Until then keep up the good work David. Your fair, unbiased and frank reviews are very useful and instructive and I think we all look forward to them.
$bob$
I believe that the graininess is something that is unavoidable in the digital NV scopes. It's definitely there in my Pulsar N750 although comparing the N750's graininess and the the Photon's graininess is likely impossible short of having both at the same time in the same conditions.
Although I find it annoying in my Pulsar, I find it to be completely acceptable for the price I paid for it and when I'm actually hunting I don't even notice it and consider the clarity to be pretty good.
Hopefully someone will be able to do a comparison of optical clarity between the two scopes at the same time and in the same conditions soon.
That would be very useful.
Thanks for the detailed review you've given us. I wish I'd had more time to chime in and help with comparisons to my Pulsar but deer season (in Georgia) interrupted my life like it does every year about this time and it won't be over until early March (in Florida).
One thing my night hunting buddy keeps commenting on is the great quality of the integrated infrared illuminator in my Pulsar. His N740's integrated light isn't nearly as good and although the coyotes and deer immediately stop and look directly at the light as soon as I turn it on, they don't run or seem to spook.
I'm about to go put up some feeders today on one of my leases so I'll sign off for now and go get ready with the cables, winches, etc. but hopefully can do some more posting soon.
Until then keep up the good work David. Your fair, unbiased and frank reviews are very useful and instructive and I think we all look forward to them.
$bob$
6mm06
Well-known member
Bob, you probably are right about the graininess with digital scopes. My experiences are limited to the Photon and my home-made unit with digital, and the Gen 1 scope. Maybe that's just part of using digital.
Do you plan to do a review of the Pulsar N750? That would be nice to see. As you say though, it would be better to have both scopes side-by-side and test in the same conditions.
Good luck with the deer hunting.
Below is Part 3 of my review, which compares the Photon against my home-made unit. When I did the test the home-made unit was quite a bit more clear since I was able to focus the lens better than the Photon. The YouTube video may not show just how much difference there was between the two, but I can tell you for sure it was evident to me at the time.
My home-made unit sits behind a Bushnell Banner 4-16 scope. I have the magnification set at 6x. The view is quite good considering the 6x setting vs the Photon's 4.6x. If I were to drop the Bushnell magnification to approximately 4.6x I think we would see an even better resolution, though maybe not substantially.
Link for larger view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnxiU5huJ04&feature=youtu.be
Though I have posted this previously, I will add it here again to show how well the home-made unit
can see at 60-75 yards. If Sightmark will correct a few issues and bring the same level of clarity to
their scope, they will have a truly great product.
Link for larger view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCnl34p1gyY&feature=youtu.be
So, to sum up my assessment, here are what I consider the Pros and Cons of each.
Photon Pros:
Light weight
Compact
On-board IR for close range shooting
Selectable reticles
Three-color option for reticles
X/Y Coordinates for easy return-to-zero
Low Profile to rifle bore
Attractive, daytime scope-like appearance
Photon Cons:
Short eye relief
On/off button combined with IR button
Poor focus adjustment
Grainy view
Light sensitive (too much)
Home-Made Pros:
Inexpensive
Easy to put together
Optional lens available - 3mm, 12mm, 16mm, 25mm
Good focus, relatively clear view
Unit can be quickly removed from daytime scope and reattached with little loss of zero
Home-Made Cons:
Unconventional in appearance
Fragile if carried out and about
Backlight into face from LCD screen
Requires external 12-volt power source
Wires running to power source
Lessens available space on butt stock for proper cheek rest
As with most things, there are Pros and Cons to consider and these two scopes
are no different. Each has its good points and each has negatives.
As several have mentioned previously, for the money the Photon is a very good buy.
It should serve a lot of hunters very well considering closer-range hunts. It is
easy to carry in the field and to put into use quickly. Hopefully Sightmark will
take into consideration the scope's negative points and will improve it with better
clarity, ie sharper image and less graininess. The focus adjustment should be improved.
Given those improvements, I think the Photon would be a real winner.
As to the home-made unit, it is probably considered more of a tinkering, do-it-yourself
project that gives some satisfaction of its own in just being able to do it. But also,
it is very impressive with the EJ-230 bullet camera. The little camera sees very well
and turns a day-time scope into a great little night-time hunter. I consider it a better
deal for bait site hunting for coyotes and hogs than carrying about in the field. There is a
trade-off with focus with this unit. Either the target focus is very sharp and clear and the
crosshair more faded, or the crosshair clear but the target more faded. I adjust somewhere
in the middle to take advantage of both.
Considering the clarity of the EJ-230 bullet camera, it would seem that Sightmark could use
at least as good a technology as that and incorporate it into their scope.
Hopefully we are just in the early stages of affordable digital night vision. As time goes
on, no doubt technology will improve. It can only get better so we have something to look
forward to.
I hope this review has been of some help. I have tried to be as objective as possible.
Perhaps I have been a bit too hard on the Photon, but I just called it as I saw it. That's
the way positive changes come about and hopefully we will See Sightmark address the
negatives and produce a better model. But, all-in-all it's not a bad scope. It can just use
some refinements.
DoubleUp
Well-known member
I guess it's just my computer. I can't get anything you tube except a green screen.
UDPATE: Just needed to restart my computer.
Question--In previous videos of the Photon 3.5, it seemed like a doubler when attached made everything much clearer. Do you think that addition would help the 4.6?
UDPATE: Just needed to restart my computer.
Question--In previous videos of the Photon 3.5, it seemed like a doubler when attached made everything much clearer. Do you think that addition would help the 4.6?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: DoubleUp
Question--In previous videos of the Photon 3.5, it seemed like a doubler when attached made everything much clearer. Do you think that addition would help the 4.6?
Hi DoubleUp -
Addition of a doubler to the Photon is a mixed bag of goodness and loss, here is a field test I did with the first version of the Photon last year. NOTE: The video output resolution is the same in the first model and the PhotonXT so results should be very close to the 3.5x video scenes.
The shooter who opts to use a doubler should really consider the terrain they will be hunting in and setup for taking shots (static, elevated, mobile, low to the ground).
You take a hit on field of view - compare minute mark 2:20 to 6:40 however you gain clarity in focus - compare 3:38 to 7:45.
Other considerations is the added weight and length to the system, the added cost, and the users eyesight - we all vary somewhat here but it is hard to quantify to a unknown number of people whether the doubler setup allows for ID capabilities at 100 yards or 150 yards.
In my opinion the Photon in it's base configuration will probably suit the majority of shooting scenarios at it's cost bearing in mind it is the lowest cost commercial digital sight on the market.
The cost of the doubler and loss of field of view and requirement for a high power IR illuminator may only appeal to a small group of hunters whose environment would make the doubled setup a complimentary setup.
YMMV -
BB
Question--In previous videos of the Photon 3.5, it seemed like a doubler when attached made everything much clearer. Do you think that addition would help the 4.6?
Hi DoubleUp -
Addition of a doubler to the Photon is a mixed bag of goodness and loss, here is a field test I did with the first version of the Photon last year. NOTE: The video output resolution is the same in the first model and the PhotonXT so results should be very close to the 3.5x video scenes.
The shooter who opts to use a doubler should really consider the terrain they will be hunting in and setup for taking shots (static, elevated, mobile, low to the ground).
You take a hit on field of view - compare minute mark 2:20 to 6:40 however you gain clarity in focus - compare 3:38 to 7:45.
Other considerations is the added weight and length to the system, the added cost, and the users eyesight - we all vary somewhat here but it is hard to quantify to a unknown number of people whether the doubler setup allows for ID capabilities at 100 yards or 150 yards.
In my opinion the Photon in it's base configuration will probably suit the majority of shooting scenarios at it's cost bearing in mind it is the lowest cost commercial digital sight on the market.
The cost of the doubler and loss of field of view and requirement for a high power IR illuminator may only appeal to a small group of hunters whose environment would make the doubled setup a complimentary setup.
YMMV -
BB
6mm06
Well-known member
Originally Posted By: DoubleUpQuestion--In previous videos of the Photon 3.5, it seemed like a doubler when attached made everything much clearer. Do you think that addition would help the 4.6?
I don't know. You and I probably saw the same video test wherein the 3.5x Photon with the doubler was superior to the 5x version. A doubler would increase magnification to help see the target in larger form, but what it might do to the already poor focus/resolution I'm not sure. To my understanding about night vision scopes, the more a scope goes up in magnification, the more grainy and distorted the image becomes.
As you can tell from my recent video test (Part 3), the 6x on the home-made unit was not bad at 125 yards, but the 4.6x Photon appeared lacking. Normal thinking has it the other way around. The Photon should have been better than the 6x, but I think it comes down to the camera/sensors/lens etc and its ability to see clearly. I'm not an electronics guy, so I don't know what to call it. I just know that the 4.6x theoretically should have produced better results than the 6x.
The bullet camera I use (EJ-230) is a good one, plus I also use a 16mm lens that has an f-stop of 1.7. That translates into a better light-gathering lens and the 16mm behind a daytime 6x scope does quite well. If only Sighmark will come up with a clearer scope that has better focus and resolution, they will have a good one. Actually they have a good one now, relatively speaking, and definitely for the price tag. I just think there is room for improvement.
UPDATE: Looks like Bennybone and I were responding at about the same time. His information is more technical than mine.
Originally Posted By: 6mm06
Bob, you probably are right about the graininess with digital scopes. My experiences are limited to the Photon and my home-made unit with digital, and the Gen 1 scope. Maybe that's just part of using digital.
Do you plan to do a review of the Pulsar N750? That would be nice to see. As you say though, it would be better to have both scopes side-by-side and test in the same conditions.
Good luck with the deer hunting.
David,
Thanks for the well wishes with the deer hunting. I'm not seeing many this season so far but some of the best bucks harvested on my GA lease were at this time of year in the past few seasons so I'm sitting in stands as much as I can.
I had a bit of a disaster yesterday. While climbing a ladder and trying to remove a cable for a feeder from a young pine tree, the ladder slipped to the side and I ended up with my hands and feet wrapped around the tree 19 feet off the ground and the ladder was sideways between me and the tree. I managed to slide down the tree fireman style until I was about 6ft above the ground and then the ladder got jammed and I couldn't go up or down and my hands and arms were getting tired.
I thought I was only about 3ft up but was 6ft from the ground in a fairly horizontal position with the ladder in my lap so to speak. I made a decision to let go and just drop flat on my back. It worked fairly well but the shock of hitting the ground on my left lower back was more than expected and now I'm sore and facing a long hard week at work.
So that's my excuse for not doing a review of my Pulsar... LOL
Anyway... Maybe when I start feeling like I might live through this again and once I can stop limping around all scraped and twisted up I'll give 'er a try.
I know... I know.... I'm too dang old to be climbing 19' ladders deep in the piney woods on skinny trees over an hour from a hospital and over a half hour from an ambulance at my not so tender age... But there you have it...
Adventure has always been my middle name... LOL
$bob$
Bob, you probably are right about the graininess with digital scopes. My experiences are limited to the Photon and my home-made unit with digital, and the Gen 1 scope. Maybe that's just part of using digital.
Do you plan to do a review of the Pulsar N750? That would be nice to see. As you say though, it would be better to have both scopes side-by-side and test in the same conditions.
Good luck with the deer hunting.
David,
Thanks for the well wishes with the deer hunting. I'm not seeing many this season so far but some of the best bucks harvested on my GA lease were at this time of year in the past few seasons so I'm sitting in stands as much as I can.
I had a bit of a disaster yesterday. While climbing a ladder and trying to remove a cable for a feeder from a young pine tree, the ladder slipped to the side and I ended up with my hands and feet wrapped around the tree 19 feet off the ground and the ladder was sideways between me and the tree. I managed to slide down the tree fireman style until I was about 6ft above the ground and then the ladder got jammed and I couldn't go up or down and my hands and arms were getting tired.
I thought I was only about 3ft up but was 6ft from the ground in a fairly horizontal position with the ladder in my lap so to speak. I made a decision to let go and just drop flat on my back. It worked fairly well but the shock of hitting the ground on my left lower back was more than expected and now I'm sore and facing a long hard week at work.
So that's my excuse for not doing a review of my Pulsar... LOL
Anyway... Maybe when I start feeling like I might live through this again and once I can stop limping around all scraped and twisted up I'll give 'er a try.
I know... I know.... I'm too dang old to be climbing 19' ladders deep in the piney woods on skinny trees over an hour from a hospital and over a half hour from an ambulance at my not so tender age... But there you have it...
Adventure has always been my middle name... LOL
$bob$
6mm06
Well-known member
Bob, it could have ended much worse. A little soreness is better than a broken neck.
A couple of days ago I was up on a step ladder and suddenly that thing got a mind of its own - decided to go right on me. Well, I ended up on my side and back. Even a 4'-5' fall is no fun. I'm still sore too, just didn't want to tell on myself like you did. LOL.
A few years ago, a buddy went bowhunting with me. He wasn't much of a bowhunter but wanted to try it. Anyway, he got up in the stand early one morning, and as the sun came up and got nice and warm he began to nod off. Well, he pitched right out of the tree. Good for him he had a safety belt. All I can say is I wish I were there with my video camera rolling. LOL.
Oh, and I know all about that age thing. I guess we both are getting a bit chronologically advanced - trying to be politically correct here.