To answer this question for myself, whether Gen 2 is as good as Gen 3, I went ahead and bought a PVS-14 with Gen 2 Photonis Echo White Phosphor.
I can say that these tubes with higher specs (mine is 67 lp/mm (Res) and 31.01 signal to noise ratio (SNR) work about as good as USA Gen 3. I say about as good because in very, very low light, Gen 3 has a slight advantage with a higher gain. Gen 3 in these conditions provides a slightly brighter image.
I believe that the Photonis Echo will work great for most recreational/hobbyist users. If the price is the same between a Gen 2 Echo and a Gen 3 Harris or L3, I'd recommend Gen 3 for the best all around performance low-to-high light. Where the Echo white phosphor has an advantage is as a lower priced WP option compared to the more expensive L3 or Harris thin filmed or filmless.
The cost savings I've seen that JRH Enterprises is offering for a set of binocular-goggles with Echo WP is $1-$2k less than with Gen 3 WP.
My past opinions of Gen 2 being inferior to Gen 3 were 90% wrong. I say 90% because it doesn't work as good in extreme low light as Gen 3 which probably only matters to hardcore users such as myself. I recommend if you're shopping for something with Photonis Echo tubes get as high of specs as possible minimum 64 lp/mm and over 30 SNR and you'll really like it.
So, the question to me then becomes, is a used Gen 3 OMNI IV equivalent or later still better than an Echo tube? The SNR and resolution will be lower, but the gain will still be much higher theoretically. And cost will be close if not a little lower.
Sorry mig_one my f'n notifications weren't going off!
I'd go with the higher res & snr Echo tubes over lower res/snr older Gen 3 tubes. One of the -14's I used to compare to the Echo was HP+ spec but much lower fom than the Echo. The Gen 3 was definitely brighter but image wise the Echo had just as much if not more clarity. In very low light the Echo was actually better because there was more scintillation with the HP+. Personally, I'd pick an Echo with a high FOM over a lower FOM Gen 3 with higher EBI. Lower being under 1600 and higher EBI being over 1.
Isn't the whole Gen2 < Gen3 talk also about quality over time? I remember seeing a video on YT where they compaired a Gen2 completely new against the same tube after ~2k hours (don't remember the exact amount of hours) on it and the brightness had gone down. Whilst the same with a Gen3 didn't seem to have any impact. Now i know that most people won't even use a tube past 200h but still.
Here in Europe we almost always get the options for second hand Gen3 with unknown amount of hours or get a new Gen2 (Photonis Echo) for about the same price. And then it's almost always to go on the sellers reputation and knowledge.
But as Nitewalker said that low light performance is key, especially if going into any building and wanting to use a Butler Creek with a infinite focus mod. Then a Gen3 is a must to be able to identify when killing the light throughput even more.
I asked several people including some big name vendors and they say that the Echo being an Intens fall out tube, still has to meet the required Mil-Spec 10,000 hour lifetime. So they should be good to go to last as long as Gen 3. They still don't work as good as Gen 3 in the dark dark but they are pretty damn close I'll have to say. I'm working on new videos comparing it to L3 filmless WP and the Harris HP+.
This is exact... compare l3 unifilmed with photonis milspec (no echo)
I have a good good itt pinnacle (fom 2000) and photonis military spec intens4g (fom2000).
egal....but photonis in low low low condition is more sensible.. but is not flagrante.. not more difference.. photonis have a very good tube too if your select the best tube...the itt is the best for the blooming... and more confortable in the city aera or full moon.. photonis is not good in many ligth because the noise is big and go in secure ...in full or 1/2 moon I go with my ITT and in the total black moon I go with my photonis4Gintens WP.
both are really good, but the most versatile remains the ITT
sorry for my english...
Interesting. I've not used an Intens yet. I've found the same thing between pinnacle and photonis with another pinnacle tube I sold. The pinnacle's noise was too much in the very dark so I had to turn the gain down. With the pinnacle's gain lowered, the photonis looked better. The pinnacles I still have in the video are very good. I sold the photonis so don't have it to compare anymore. No worries on the English!