If you could only have one...

[Default.mp3]

"I would argue it would misguide someone that would have been misguided from starting at the low end, anyway."

Then how is that even an argument if according to your logic both starting points are illogical? "Bad reason fallacy"

I'm not saying either starting points are illogical. I'm saying that if one starting point is going to trip up someone doing the research, then the other point will, too, because of the drastic differences between the high end and low end in terms of operation, capabilities, and features for night vision.

Starting at the top tier and working your way down offers a substantial frame of reference that highlights what the lower end lacks. Starting at the bottom and working your way up distorts this because the lower end capabilities are subconsciously referenced and then compared to the higher end. Logic is only as good as its starting point. Starting at the top teaches me what the full capabilities of a system are then I have a better understanding and full view as opposed to starting at the bottom with a 10% understanding of what a system can fully do. Thus, when we research something bias are reduced and better decisions can be ascertained when my starting point knowledge provides a clear vantage point.

The problem here is that the assumption that the lower end offers less capabilities. This is in many ways not true in the night vision world. Top end analog systems often are much less feature-rich than low end digital systems, due to the very different technologies at play. Things like recording, disturbed reticles, etc., are all fairly easy to find on low end digital night vision scopes, but high end tube-based clip-ons will have none of those features, and will also require a day optic to pair with. High end night vision in general will also pull things like headborne systems into play, which again have limited features compared to digital systems, while also necessitating a totally different mode of utilization. That's the problem I see with your approach; it would work just fine if comparing like against like (e.g., low end tube-based NODs vs. high end tube-based NODs), but that's not really what would be occurring given what suggestions folks have made (digital scopes vs. the tube-based systems that folks have thrown out). It would be like someone with no idea about watches researching high end mechanical watches, and thinking that they would be able to get useful information about an Apple Watch or G-Shock in such research.

I want to stress, the issue I see with your approach is specific to the situation at hand, where the high end and low end are extremely different to each other in very fundamental ways, enough so that I do not see much meaningful crossover between the two.

[Joelski]

Great point. Basically, in order to be well-informed, extensive, top-to-bottom research is necessary.

And while there is a sweet spot for every user, it will never fall into the bottom of the price range. That's just a cold, hard fact of that capability.

Unless your desire is to merely observe under less light conditions with a cheapie monocular, even the slightest bit of capability adds to the price.

This is a great example of the Japanese, and to a lesser extent, Korean industry makes inroads on quality at a price point. To this point, the Holosun stuff has been an aberrancy; and a lonely one. Same story with Consumer electronics and pro sound; You can buy a cheap, knockoff of a quality item, but you won't have the same one in a certain amount of time (usually short).