Here’s a little picture comparison between the Aimpoint Micro H-1 and Bushnell TRS-25 micro red dots.
The first image depicts the difference in light transmission: cheaper TRS-25 filters a lot wider band of red, resulting in a very bluish image through the sight where the Micro H-1 appears almost natural.
The dot is actually projected on quite different focus range than the actual lens as you are meant to focus the dot on targets, not on the sight body. This appears as a problem only when taking pictures of the sight and dot..
With short DoF, the dots are formed by bokeh, as they are bright and “far away”.
To get a reasonable picture with a DSLR, I used maximum DoF (f/22) and focused about 20cm behind the sight bodies:
The dots are standing risers to match the height on the table and depict the different heights. With the default weaver mount on Aimpoint, the lens is around 3mm higher from the top of the rail, than the Bushnell with integrated rail-mount. Although the weaver base on Aimpoint is removable for lower profile mounting.
Why do you choose that type of micro and bushnell to get comparison?
Thank you.
I hear the fat asses all the time I would not take it into combat. LOL ya the only combat most will see is fighting over the day old doughnuts in Walmart. A fool and his money. 800 bucks for an aimpoint? LOL waste your money. I also will hear the Gov uses them so it must be good. Ya and those 2000 dollar hammers the gov buys are the best also. LMAO
Thank for the information, please visit
VisitUs
It’s really nice and meaningful. It’s really cool blog. Linking is very useful thing. you have really helped lots of people who visit this blog and provide them useful information. Thanks for sharing
What is the main difference in light transmission between the Aimpoint Micro H-1 and the Bushnell TRS-25, and how does this affect the color seen through each sight? visit us Universitas Telkom