User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/5/2013 1:58:36 PM EDT
So the thermal bug has bitten me but the price for the FLIR rifle scopes @ > $10k are all out of my budget.
This leaves me looking for other options. My requirements are: OK for use up to 308 class rifle/recoil 336×256 pixel core (would like better but not going to happen at my price point) 30Hz or better Quality build - don't want a 'disposable' scope at this price so good warranty, company, reputation etc. Able to serve as a hand held monocular in a secondary role to a weapon sight. This will be a trade off on native magnification vs field of view. I would like a usable 6x for use as a rifle scope so I'm thinking 3x native and 2x digital with a 336×256 pixel core In my limited searching I found a number of what appear to be very similar scopes: Armasight Zeus 3 336-60 Thermal Imaging Rifles Scope 42 mm Lens 3X Magnification 336x256 (17µm) Core 60 Hz 
ATN ThOR-336-3X 3X (60Hz) 
Morovision TTWS -Tactical Thermal Weapons Sight 
There are a few other brands with a similar housing & price. For thermal in the $6k price range these are the options I found. Questions: They all look very similar in design and all claim to be USA manufacture. Are they all independent builds or are they just different versions by the same manufacturer? Quality differences between brands? All have a 1 year warranty except Armasight which comes with a 2 year warranty. Are any of these worth the $6k from a durability standpoint? (not Marine proof just hunting/field use) Did I miss any other make in this price/category? If I can get a good scope for what I'm looking for I will buy it, if the quality is not there yet at this price point I'll wait. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2013 4:37:50 PM EDT
[#1]
I would avoid atn and Gsci.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2013 4:45:37 PM EDT
[#2]
Optics planet has an 11% coupon code running now in case whatever you decide is available there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2013 6:01:32 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would avoid atn and Gsci. Why? Their customer service issues have been discussed at length here and I would assume the OP has read them. Now as far as product goes I have not read a single horror story about ATN's thermals to date. In fact almost every story I have read has been positive with regards to their thermal offerings and in particular to their THOR units. The only real complaints I have ever read about was regarding minor software issues/upgrades. There have been comments from customers who did not buy enough magnification but that is not an ATN issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2013 6:10:17 PM EDT
[#4]
I just bought a ThOR 320 3x that I'll be putting to the test this weekend
 Did they just start offering a 336 core? Why is the 336 core cheaper than the 320? It looks like the lens is different even though they are both 3x.
336 core 3x mag 60hz - $6,499 retail http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-weaponsight-thor-336-3x-60hz 320 core 3x mag 60 hz - $8,199 retail http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-weaponsight-thor-320-3x-60hz |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2013 11:28:20 PM EDT
[#5]
I own a ThOR. It brings the death.....and a smile to my face. No issues with over a year of biweekly usage.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2013 1:16:21 AM EDT
[#6]
I returned my Thor 320 1x and have a 3x waiting at the house for me. I can't wait to get back home next month to run some hunts on it. I have another 1x that will be going in for the switch also.
I ordered the LaRue LT270 as an upgrade for the questionable ARMS mount on them. Hey tkp, looking forward for you to update us on how you liked the 3x! Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just bought a ThOR 320 3x that I'll be putting to the test this weekend Did they just start offering a 336 core? Why is the 336 core cheaper than the 320? It looks like the lens is different even though they are both 3x.
336 core 3x mag 60hz - $6,499 retail http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-weaponsight-thor-336-3x-60hz 320 core 3x mag 60 hz - $8,199 retail http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-weaponsight-thor-320-3x-60hz |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2013 5:28:00 AM EDT
[#7]
Will do bigtek!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2013 8:23:11 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just bought a ThOR 320 3x that I'll be putting to the test this weekend Did they just start offering a 336 core? Why is the 336 core cheaper than the 320? It looks like the lens is different even though they are both 3x.
336 core 3x mag 60hz - $6,499 retail http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-weaponsight-thor-336-3x-60hz 320 core 3x mag 60 hz - $8,199 retail http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-weaponsight-thor-320-3x-60hz I was looking at this as well...I think the difference is the 336 core is a full size thor and the 320 is the thor mini. If you bring up the pages for both of them, every spec is pretty mush the same accept look at the weight, the 336 core one (cheaper one) weighs a lot more. This is just from my personal research though. Also the more expensive one has a 50mm lens vs the 30mm lens on the other Also just my 2 cents, I have heard lots of good things about the Thors, and I have an OTS-X that I have had for a week now and i love the it. It blows away the flir PS32 i had in every aspect. The more i use it the more i am loving it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2013 10:32:43 AM EDT
[#9]
You mean you guys don't follow up with night vision?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2013 11:28:22 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was looking at this as well...I think the difference is the 336 core is a full size thor and the 320 is the thor mini. If you bring up the pages for both of them, every spec is pretty mush the same accept look at the weight, the 336 core one (cheaper one) weighs a lot more. This is just from my personal research though.. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I just bought a ThOR 320 3x that I'll be putting to the test this weekend Did they just start offering a 336 core? Why is the 336 core cheaper than the 320? It looks like the lens is different even though they are both 3x.
336 core 3x mag 60hz - $6,499 retail http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-weaponsight-thor-336-3x-60hz 320 core 3x mag 60 hz - $8,199 retail http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-weaponsight-thor-320-3x-60hz I was looking at this as well...I think the difference is the 336 core is a full size thor and the 320 is the thor mini. If you bring up the pages for both of them, every spec is pretty mush the same accept look at the weight, the 336 core one (cheaper one) weighs a lot more. This is just from my personal research though.. I wish like hell they'd get the specs on the product's specific web page to match the specs listed on the same product's spec sheet. The 336 3X 60 Hz is listed with a LxWxH of 262X94X73mm on the web page and 203x69x73mm on the spec sheet. Evidently, it has a 30mm lens, while the 320 3x 60Hz has a 50mm lens. At least according to the specs posted on ATN's site and spec sheets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2013 1:20:34 PM EDT
[#11]
Thanks all for your input.
So far the only experience is with the ATN Thor scopes, mostly positive. The Armasight Zeus scopes look very interesting, 2 year warranty, remote switch, 42 mm lens at the $6k price point but it is a very new company. Some more questions Is there a visual difference between 30 & 60Hz? Not much difference in price between the two display rates. What are your suggestions & experience with the native magnification vs. ability to see and resolve targets? Is the native 3x lens useful when zoomed to 6x digitally, or 9x? I would like to see and target coyote/small deer at 200 yards or so with positive ID. No one has any idea if all of these similar looking scopes are really unique designs and not some variation of models made by one supplier? I was hoping some of our “expert” posters (Dino, cj7hawk, SkyPup) would give some advice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2013 3:53:22 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wish like hell they'd get the specs on the product's specific web page to match the specs listed on the same product's spec sheet. The 336 3X 60 Hz is listed with a LxWxH of 262X94X73mm on the web page and 203x69x73mm on the spec sheet. Evidently, it has a 30mm lens, while the 320 3x 60Hz has a 50mm lens. At least according to the specs posted on ATN's site and spec sheets. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just bought a ThOR 320 3x that I'll be putting to the test this weekend Did they just start offering a 336 core? Why is the 336 core cheaper than the 320? It looks like the lens is different even though they are both 3x.
336 core 3x mag 60hz - $6,499 retail http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-weaponsight-thor-336-3x-60hz 320 core 3x mag 60 hz - $8,199 retail http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-weaponsight-thor-320-3x-60hz I was looking at this as well...I think the difference is the 336 core is a full size thor and the 320 is the thor mini. If you bring up the pages for both of them, every spec is pretty mush the same accept look at the weight, the 336 core one (cheaper one) weighs a lot more. This is just from my personal research though.. I wish like hell they'd get the specs on the product's specific web page to match the specs listed on the same product's spec sheet. The 336 3X 60 Hz is listed with a LxWxH of 262X94X73mm on the web page and 203x69x73mm on the spec sheet. Evidently, it has a 30mm lens, while the 320 3x 60Hz has a 50mm lens. At least according to the specs posted on ATN's site and spec sheets. Ya I agree, you would think they would get that sorted out. Definitely confusing as hell the way it is now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2013 3:56:09 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks all for your input. So far the only experience is with the ATN Thor scopes, mostly positive. The Armasight Zeus scopes look very interesting, 2 year warranty, remote switch, 42 mm lens at the $6k price point but it is a very new company. Some more questions Is there a visual difference between 30 & 60Hz? Not much difference in price between the two display rates. What are your suggestions & experience with the native magnification vs. ability to see and resolve targets? Is the native 3x lens useful when zoomed to 6x digitally, or 9x? I would like to see and target coyote/small deer at 200 yards or so with positive ID. No one has any idea if all of these similar looking scopes are really unique designs and not some variation of models made by one supplier? I was hoping some of our “expert” posters (Dino, cj7hawk, SkyPup) would give some advice. the 30 vs 60 hz, the difference will be noticeable when viewing moving target at longer ranges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2013 4:28:19 PM EDT
[#14]
I have the ATN ThOR 640 2.5X and love it. Some issues with reboot on recoil that have supposedly been fixed, still need to send it in for the fix but it happens so rarely that I'm procrastinating.
I used a 320 2X for some time before I got the 640 and it was a good deal too. Half the cost but half the resolution. A 320 2X is generally good enough, a 640 is just holy cow awesome. That Zeus looks interesting though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2013 4:38:48 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have the ATN ThOR 640 2.5X and love it. Some issues with reboot on recoil that have supposedly been fixed, still need to send it in for the fix but it happens so rarely that I'm procrastinating. I used a 320 2X for some time before I got the 640 and it was a good deal too. Half the cost but half the resolution. A 320 2X is generally good enough, a 640 is just holy cow awesome. That Zeus looks interesting though. How is the field of view @ 2.5x for scanning a field? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2013 5:11:32 PM EDT
[#16]
A 50mm lens with a 320 core is going to be awesome out to 250+ yards, a 640 core with a 50mm lens will be awesome almost double that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2013 5:19:53 PM EDT
[#17]
For me the 2.5x is just right. Every so often I get get a charge/run through situation with hogs and it is a bit difficult to deal with at 2.5x, but in general it isn't so bad. I rarely use the digital zoom, shots out to 100 yards don't really need it. Scanning a broad field is easy peasy with any thermal, targets stand out so drastically that you can scan fairly quickly. Detection range is what really matters, I can spot deer sized animals out to 900 yards, they are just specs at that range but they are glowing specs that stand out pretty well.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2013 6:33:29 PM EDT
[#18]
Remember 320x240 is not 1/2 the resolution of 640x480.
It's 1/4 the resolution at 1/2 the cost. When you cut 1/2 of the vertical resolution and 1/2 of the horizontal resolution you get 1/4 total pixels. Look at the 160x120 compared to the 640 makes you wonder how it produces a useable image, ( older mx-1 thermals used this resolution and worked I used one for a short time) 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2013 6:39:19 PM EDT
[#19]
Whoa whoa whoa.
It's 1/4 the amount of pixels, but half the resolution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2013 7:09:50 PM EDT
[#20]
My 320 core FLIR T-50 (50mm lens) works almost as good as both the 640 core T-60 (60mm lens) and T-70 (35mm lens) do out to 200 yards with the same ACOG 4X TA02 on all three of them, after that the 640 core is better, but 95% of all my shots are less than 200 yards. Using an Eotech and 3X magnifier, all three are pretty similar out to that distance too.
The 640 cores can take higher magnifications before pixelation becomes a problem though. The T-75 with the 100mm lens really should really come on its own with higher magnifications and longer ranges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2013 7:47:24 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whoa whoa whoa. It's 1/4 the amount of pixels, but half the resolution. OK 
The size of video when using the international standard H.261 is 352 x 288 for the Common Image Format (CIF) format and 176 x 144 for the (Quarter CIF) Based on what you are saying QIF would be half image format ? But its not, it's called quarter image format because it's 1/4 the resolution or pixels. 640x480 commonly called VGA 320x240 commonly called QVGA yes Quarter VGA not 1/2 VGA I know if you divide by 2 its appears as half the resolution, but not called that. I guess I am just old school 
It's marketing calling it 1/2 resolution to make it seem much closer to the higher resolution, when its actually 1/4 here is Wiki Link display resolutions are listed 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2013 1:39:45 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just bought a ThOR 320 3x that I'll be putting to the test this weekend Did they just start offering a 336 core? Why is the 336 core cheaper than the 320? It looks like the lens is different even though they are both 3x.
336 core 3x mag 60hz - $6,499 retail http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-weaponsight-thor-336-3x-60hz 320 core 3x mag 60 hz - $8,199 retail http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-weaponsight-thor-320-3x-60hz You are absolutely correct. We are using a different Fir sensor which allows us to get better magnification with smaller diameter germanium lens. You would be surprised how expensive these germanium lens are. I personally would recommend the Thor 336 3x. If you have any questions or want a special deal contact me. Thank you |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2013 1:40:22 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I returned my Thor 320 1x and have a 3x waiting at the house for me. I can't wait to get back home next month to run some hunts on it. I have another 1x that will be going in for the switch also. I ordered the LaRue LT270 as an upgrade for the questionable ARMS mount on them. Hey tkp, looking forward for you to update us on how you liked the 3x! Quote HistoryQuoted:
I returned my Thor 320 1x and have a 3x waiting at the house for me. I can't wait to get back home next month to run some hunts on it. I have another 1x that will be going in for the switch also. I ordered the LaRue LT270 as an upgrade for the questionable ARMS mount on them. Hey tkp, looking forward for you to update us on how you liked the 3x! Quoted:
I just bought a ThOR 320 3x that I'll be putting to the test this weekend Did they just start offering a 336 core? Why is the 336 core cheaper than the 320? It looks like the lens is different even though they are both 3x.
336 core 3x mag 60hz - $6,499 retail http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-weaponsight-thor-336-3x-60hz 320 core 3x mag 60 hz - $8,199 retail http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-weaponsight-thor-320-3x-60hz Do you have the RMA #, I can look into it and get it out to you sooner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2013 1:42:06 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was looking at this as well...I think the difference is the 336 core is a full size thor and the 320 is the thor mini. If you bring up the pages for both of them, every spec is pretty mush the same accept look at the weight, the 336 core one (cheaper one) weighs a lot more. This is just from my personal research though. Also the more expensive one has a 50mm lens vs the 30mm lens on the other Thank you and yes the weight information is incorrect. I apologize for the inconvenience. We are updating our entire site so please be patient and all this info would be updated shortly. Also just my 2 cents, I have heard lots of good things about the Thors, and I have an OTS-X that I have had for a week now and i love the it. It blows away the flir PS32 i had in every aspect. The more i use it the more i am loving it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I just bought a ThOR 320 3x that I'll be putting to the test this weekend Did they just start offering a 336 core? Why is the 336 core cheaper than the 320? It looks like the lens is different even though they are both 3x.
336 core 3x mag 60hz - $6,499 retail http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-weaponsight-thor-336-3x-60hz 320 core 3x mag 60 hz - $8,199 retail http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-weaponsight-thor-320-3x-60hz I was looking at this as well...I think the difference is the 336 core is a full size thor and the 320 is the thor mini. If you bring up the pages for both of them, every spec is pretty mush the same accept look at the weight, the 336 core one (cheaper one) weighs a lot more. This is just from my personal research though. Also the more expensive one has a 50mm lens vs the 30mm lens on the other Thank you and yes the weight information is incorrect. I apologize for the inconvenience. We are updating our entire site so please be patient and all this info would be updated shortly. Also just my 2 cents, I have heard lots of good things about the Thors, and I have an OTS-X that I have had for a week now and i love the it. It blows away the flir PS32 i had in every aspect. The more i use it the more i am loving it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2013 1:45:16 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks all for your input. So far the only experience is with the ATN Thor scopes, mostly positive. The Armasight Zeus scopes look very interesting, 2 year warranty, remote switch, 42 mm lens at the $6k price point but it is a very new company. Some more questions Is there a visual difference between 30 & 60Hz? Not much difference in price between the two display rates. What are your suggestions & experience with the native magnification vs. ability to see and resolve targets? Is the native 3x lens useful when zoomed to 6x digitally, or 9x? I would like to see and target coyote/small deer at 200 yards or so with positive ID. No one has any idea if all of these similar looking scopes are really unique designs and not some variation of models made by one supplier? I was hoping some of our “expert” posters (Dino, cj7hawk, SkyPup) would give some advice. With all my experience the only time you would notice a big difference between 30 and 60hz is if you are in a helicopter or in a car going more than 20+ mph. 30hz is still plenty smooth. If you use our INVC tool, where you can see the distance chart. Thor 336 with a 3x magnification would offer you excellent detection range at 200 yards. I think ThermalOutfitters has great images showing deer at different ranges. thank you! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2013 1:46:10 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have the ATN ThOR 640 2.5X and love it. Some issues with reboot on recoil that have supposedly been fixed, still need to send it in for the fix but it happens so rarely that I'm procrastinating. I used a 320 2X for some time before I got the 640 and it was a good deal too. Half the cost but half the resolution. A 320 2X is generally good enough, a 640 is just holy cow awesome. That Zeus looks interesting though. Cy, please see if you can find some time to send it back. I think we have the issued zeroed in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2013 1:47:22 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Remember 320x240 is not 1/2 the resolution of 640x480. It's 1/4 the resolution at 1/2 the cost. When you cut 1/2 of the vertical resolution and 1/2 of the horizontal resolution you get 1/4 total pixels. Look at the 160x120 compared to the 640 makes you wonder how it produces a useable image, ( older mx-1 thermals used this resolution and worked I used one for a short time) http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jac22/books/mm/book/img35.gif excellent info. thank you |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2013 1:54:20 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wish like hell they'd get the specs on the product's specific web page to match the specs listed on the same product's spec sheet. The 336 3X 60 Hz is listed with a LxWxH of 262X94X73mm on the web page and 203x69x73mm on the spec sheet. Evidently, it has a 30mm lens, while the 320 3x 60Hz has a 50mm lens. At least according to the specs posted on ATN's site and spec sheets. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just bought a ThOR 320 3x that I'll be putting to the test this weekend Did they just start offering a 336 core? Why is the 336 core cheaper than the 320? It looks like the lens is different even though they are both 3x.
336 core 3x mag 60hz - $6,499 retail http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-weaponsight-thor-336-3x-60hz 320 core 3x mag 60 hz - $8,199 retail http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-weaponsight-thor-320-3x-60hz I was looking at this as well...I think the difference is the 336 core is a full size thor and the 320 is the thor mini. If you bring up the pages for both of them, every spec is pretty mush the same accept look at the weight, the 336 core one (cheaper one) weighs a lot more. This is just from my personal research though.. I wish like hell they'd get the specs on the product's specific web page to match the specs listed on the same product's spec sheet. The 336 3X 60 Hz is listed with a LxWxH of 262X94X73mm on the web page and 203x69x73mm on the spec sheet. Evidently, it has a 30mm lens, while the 320 3x 60Hz has a 50mm lens. At least according to the specs posted on ATN's site and spec sheets. The 336 and the 3X have the same core from my understanding. The reason it's called the 336 3X is because they already had a 320 3X so it would have been confusing. Probably the reason the specs are off is because the 3X with a 25 micron pitch has a 50mm lens and the 3X with a 17 micron pitch has a 30mm lens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2013 1:55:40 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 336 and the 3X have the same core from my understanding. The reason it's called the 336 3X is because they already had a 320 3X so it would have been confusing. Probably the reason the specs are off is because the 3X with a 25 micron pitch has a 50mm lens and the 3X with a 17 micron pitch has a 30mm lens. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just bought a ThOR 320 3x that I'll be putting to the test this weekend Did they just start offering a 336 core? Why is the 336 core cheaper than the 320? It looks like the lens is different even though they are both 3x.
336 core 3x mag 60hz - $6,499 retail http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-weaponsight-thor-336-3x-60hz 320 core 3x mag 60 hz - $8,199 retail http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-weaponsight-thor-320-3x-60hz I was looking at this as well...I think the difference is the 336 core is a full size thor and the 320 is the thor mini. If you bring up the pages for both of them, every spec is pretty mush the same accept look at the weight, the 336 core one (cheaper one) weighs a lot more. This is just from my personal research though.. I wish like hell they'd get the specs on the product's specific web page to match the specs listed on the same product's spec sheet. The 336 3X 60 Hz is listed with a LxWxH of 262X94X73mm on the web page and 203x69x73mm on the spec sheet. Evidently, it has a 30mm lens, while the 320 3x 60Hz has a 50mm lens. At least according to the specs posted on ATN's site and spec sheets. The 336 and the 3X have the same core from my understanding. The reason it's called the 336 3X is because they already had a 320 3X so it would have been confusing. Probably the reason the specs are off is because the 3X with a 25 micron pitch has a 50mm lens and the 3X with a 17 micron pitch has a 30mm lens. precisely.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2013 3:55:41 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
precisely. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just bought a ThOR 320 3x that I'll be putting to the test this weekend Did they just start offering a 336 core? Why is the 336 core cheaper than the 320? It looks like the lens is different even though they are both 3x.
336 core 3x mag 60hz - $6,499 retail http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-weaponsight-thor-336-3x-60hz 320 core 3x mag 60 hz - $8,199 retail http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-weaponsight-thor-320-3x-60hz I was looking at this as well...I think the difference is the 336 core is a full size thor and the 320 is the thor mini. If you bring up the pages for both of them, every spec is pretty mush the same accept look at the weight, the 336 core one (cheaper one) weighs a lot more. This is just from my personal research though.. I wish like hell they'd get the specs on the product's specific web page to match the specs listed on the same product's spec sheet. The 336 3X 60 Hz is listed with a LxWxH of 262X94X73mm on the web page and 203x69x73mm on the spec sheet. Evidently, it has a 30mm lens, while the 320 3x 60Hz has a 50mm lens. At least according to the specs posted on ATN's site and spec sheets. The 336 and the 3X have the same core from my understanding. The reason it's called the 336 3X is because they already had a 320 3X so it would have been confusing. Probably the reason the specs are off is because the 3X with a 25 micron pitch has a 50mm lens and the 3X with a 17 micron pitch has a 30mm lens. precisely. what is micron pitch, which is better 17 or 25? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2013 4:15:36 PM EDT
[#31]
the pixel pitch size 17 or 25 , the smaller the more can fit in the same space.
Like selling fruit by the pound the smaller the more you get per pound. Problem is units are sold by the number of pixels, so pixel pitch size is irrelevant to end user. For the MFG the smaller pitch size the smaller the foot print. Why does this matter, the mfg has to fill the footprint with an image. ie 30mm lens on the smaller pitch size will be like the 25 micron pitch size with a 50mm lens. Mfg can get the smaller lenses for less cash, the smaller detectors are probably less expensive as well, more can be produced from same amount of material. Same thing as the old ccd camera arrays, 1/2 inch sensor or 1/3 inch sensor, the signal to noise ratio is the most important aspect. same lens on each will result in a different magnification or FOV both terms result in the same thing happening. Less FOV more magnification. Here is a link explains some of this infrared glossary |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2013 4:42:15 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the pixel pitch size 17 or 25 , the smaller the more can fit in the same space. Like selling fruit by the pound the smaller the more you get per pound. Problem is units are sold by the number of pixels, so pixel pitch size is irrelevant to end user. For the MFG the smaller pitch size the smaller the foot print. Why does this matter, the mfg has to fill the footprint with an image. ie 30mm lens on the smaller pitch size will be like the 25 micron pitch size with a 50mm lens. Mfg can get the smaller lenses for less cash, the smaller detectors are probably less expensive as well, more can be produced from same amount of material. Same thing as the old ccd camera arrays, 1/2 inch sensor or 1/3 inch sensor, the signal to noise ratio is the most important aspect. same lens on each will result in a different magnification or FOV both terms result in the same thing happening. Less FOV more magnification. Here is a link explains some of this infrared glossary Nice, thank you!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2013 11:51:29 AM EDT
[#33]
Also, the smaller the pitch, the better your Depth of Field is, this dictates how much of the scene can be in focus at any one time. With the smaller pitch and a given lens size, you will have to fiddle with the focus ring less than with a larger pitch.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2013 12:50:30 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Also, the smaller the pitch, the better your Depth of Field is, this dictates how much of the scene can be in focus at any one time. With the smaller pitch and a given lens size, you will have to fiddle with the focus ring less than with a larger pitch. Didn't think about that cuz the flir units I have have no adjustable focus 
But a unit that has to be focused this would be a plus! Keep in mind this assumes that each has the same FOV ie different focal length lenses ie 30mm for small sensor and 50mm for larger one. If same lens used on both larger and smaller sensor the larger sensor has more DOF. This explains the DOF in depth pun intended 
DOF in depth Been using cameras and lenses over 25yrs. Same game different wavelength called thermal and glass isn't your friend. I am working on a setup to use the flir and have a left center and right view displayed on the same sensor using ps24. Too lazy to make a pan tilt servo setup. May have to have a tilt setup anyway but will give it a shot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2013 1:14:41 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't think about that cuz the flir units I have have no adjustable focus
But a unit that has to be focused this would be a plus! Keep in mind this assumes that each has the same FOV ie different focal length lenses ie 30mm for small sensor and 50mm for larger one. If same lens used on both larger and smaller sensor the larger sensor has more DOF. This explains the DOF in depth pun intended
DOF in depth Been using cameras and lenses over 25yrs. Same game different wavelength called thermal and glass isn't your friend. I am working on a setup to use the flir and have a left center and right view displayed on the same sensor using ps24. Too lazy to make a pan tilt servo setup. May have to have a tilt setup anyway but will give it a shot. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Also, the smaller the pitch, the better your Depth of Field is, this dictates how much of the scene can be in focus at any one time. With the smaller pitch and a given lens size, you will have to fiddle with the focus ring less than with a larger pitch. Didn't think about that cuz the flir units I have have no adjustable focus
But a unit that has to be focused this would be a plus! Keep in mind this assumes that each has the same FOV ie different focal length lenses ie 30mm for small sensor and 50mm for larger one. If same lens used on both larger and smaller sensor the larger sensor has more DOF. This explains the DOF in depth pun intended
DOF in depth Been using cameras and lenses over 25yrs. Same game different wavelength called thermal and glass isn't your friend. I am working on a setup to use the flir and have a left center and right view displayed on the same sensor using ps24. Too lazy to make a pan tilt servo setup. May have to have a tilt setup anyway but will give it a shot. What difference would you expect to see looking in the viewfinder of 336x256 (17µm) Core with a 30 vs 42 mm lens? This is the difference between the Thor and Zeus scopes I posted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2013 1:23:26 PM EDT
[#36]
edit (Very) slightly larger picture with the 42mm lens.
A 320x240 thermal with 4.5x or higher magnification will out perform a 640x480 1x unit comparing the same region of interest on both. Example looking at a rabbit at 400yds, a 6x 320 unit will be better looking then a 640x480 at 1x Look at this page, pay attention to the green that is the range to make out what your looking at. Detection ranges Notice how some 320 units out perform the 640 units with lower magnification. Also notice how how much you have to spend to follow the green yardage as well. The higher the green the higher the green you have to spend to get it
For ID NV is way way cheaper, for shooting 320 unit 2x will out perform open sights during the day, and you can do this on a pitch black night as well. PVS 14 with a 4.5x lens and IR light I can see rabbits 350yds away and ID. The >15K $$ thermals are not as clear as NV for ID purposes so I decided I was not going to go that direction money wise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2013 2:29:44 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What difference would you expect to see looking in the viewfinder of 336x256 (17µm) Core with a 30 vs 42 mm lens? This is the difference between the Thor and Zeus scopes I posted. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Also, the smaller the pitch, the better your Depth of Field is, this dictates how much of the scene can be in focus at any one time. With the smaller pitch and a given lens size, you will have to fiddle with the focus ring less than with a larger pitch. Didn't think about that cuz the flir units I have have no adjustable focus
But a unit that has to be focused this would be a plus! Keep in mind this assumes that each has the same FOV ie different focal length lenses ie 30mm for small sensor and 50mm for larger one. If same lens used on both larger and smaller sensor the larger sensor has more DOF. This explains the DOF in depth pun intended
DOF in depth Been using cameras and lenses over 25yrs. Same game different wavelength called thermal and glass isn't your friend. I am working on a setup to use the flir and have a left center and right view displayed on the same sensor using ps24. Too lazy to make a pan tilt servo setup. May have to have a tilt setup anyway but will give it a shot. What difference would you expect to see looking in the viewfinder of 336x256 (17µm) Core with a 30 vs 42 mm lens? This is the difference between the Thor and Zeus scopes I posted. More information through a 42mm lens. Depending on the screen resolution and size it could go either way for detection range. It's going to be very close to the same image(in theory) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2013 7:35:13 PM EDT
[#38]
50Calbeast, do you anticipate any upcoming ability to capture still images on your thermal scopes?
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2013 9:57:02 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: More information through a 42mm lens. Depending on the screen resolution and size it could go either way for detection range. It's going to be very close to the same image(in theory) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Also, the smaller the pitch, the better your Depth of Field is, this dictates how much of the scene can be in focus at any one time. With the smaller pitch and a given lens size, you will have to fiddle with the focus ring less than with a larger pitch. Didn't think about that cuz the flir units I have have no adjustable focus But a unit that has to be focused this would be a plus! Keep in mind this assumes that each has the same FOV ie different focal length lenses ie 30mm for small sensor and 50mm for larger one. If same lens used on both larger and smaller sensor the larger sensor has more DOF. This explains the DOF in depth pun intended DOF in depth Been using cameras and lenses over 25yrs. Same game different wavelength called thermal and glass isn't your friend. I am working on a setup to use the flir and have a left center and right view displayed on the same sensor using ps24. Too lazy to make a pan tilt servo setup. May have to have a tilt setup anyway but will give it a shot. What difference would you expect to see looking in the viewfinder of 336x256 (17µm) Core with a 30 vs 42 mm lens? This is the difference between the Thor and Zeus scopes I posted. More information through a 42mm lens. Depending on the screen resolution and size it could go either way for detection range. It's going to be very close to the same image(in theory) Assuming that the speed of the lenses is roughly the same, and the same detector ( 17 uM ) 42mm lens will offer 1.4x more magnification than a 30mm lens. So detection range, etc, increased by a factor of 1.4 FOV ( Horizontal ) - 30mm = 21.6 42mm = 15.5 Regards David |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2013 11:44:14 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
50Calbeast, do you anticipate any upcoming ability to capture still images on your thermal scopes? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile We actually just added this feature to our ThORs. I think it has been implemented in the production cycle now, i can double check. You can now capture up to 100 images on a 336 resolution and 33 with a 640 resolution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2013 12:44:01 AM EDT
[#41]
When will the wifi adapter for the Thor be released? It was at the last Shot Show and was told it was going to be out this summer, then the end of this year...
I just got a Thor 320 3x straight from you about 2 weeks ago. I'm not stateside to see if it had the still images option, but will be next month. What are the odds that it has that option if I got it at my address almost 2 weeks ago? Quote HistoryQuoted:
We actually just added this feature to our ThORs. I think it has been implemented in the production cycle now, i can double check. You can now capture up to 100 images on a 336 resolution and 33 with a 640 resolution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
50Calbeast, do you anticipate any upcoming ability to capture still images on your thermal scopes? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile We actually just added this feature to our ThORs. I think it has been implemented in the production cycle now, i can double check. You can now capture up to 100 images on a 336 resolution and 33 with a 640 resolution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2013 1:08:54 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When will the wifi adapter for the Thor be released? It was at the last Shot Show and was told it was going to be out this summer, then the end of this year... I just got a Thor 320 3x straight from you about 2 weeks ago. I'm not stateside to see if it had the still images option, but will be next month. What are the odds that it has that option if I got it at my address almost 2 weeks ago? Quote HistoryQuoted:
When will the wifi adapter for the Thor be released? It was at the last Shot Show and was told it was going to be out this summer, then the end of this year... I just got a Thor 320 3x straight from you about 2 weeks ago. I'm not stateside to see if it had the still images option, but will be next month. What are the odds that it has that option if I got it at my address almost 2 weeks ago? Quoted:
Quoted:
50Calbeast, do you anticipate any upcoming ability to capture still images on your thermal scopes? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile We actually just added this feature to our ThORs. I think it has been implemented in the production cycle now, i can double check. You can now capture up to 100 images on a 336 resolution and 33 with a 640 resolution. Actually we trashed that idea but are coming with something much much better.. I am so excited about what we have coming out but unfortunately I am not at a liberty of sharing that information at the moment. We had designed a wifi adapter and it was more of an add on system. We have something better coming out which I am sure you would be more happy with. I hope you are coming to Shot Show this year. As for the image capture. I want to double check with my engineers and see whether it is currently in the production cycle or will be shortly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2013 3:34:50 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Assuming that the speed of the lenses is roughly the same, and the same detector ( 17 uM ) 42mm lens will offer 1.4x more magnification than a 30mm lens. So detection range, etc, increased by a factor of 1.4 FOV ( Horizontal ) - 30mm = 21.6 42mm = 15.5 Regards David Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Also, the smaller the pitch, the better your Depth of Field is, this dictates how much of the scene can be in focus at any one time. With the smaller pitch and a given lens size, you will have to fiddle with the focus ring less than with a larger pitch. Didn't think about that cuz the flir units I have have no adjustable focus
But a unit that has to be focused this would be a plus! Keep in mind this assumes that each has the same FOV ie different focal length lenses ie 30mm for small sensor and 50mm for larger one. If same lens used on both larger and smaller sensor the larger sensor has more DOF. This explains the DOF in depth pun intended
DOF in depth Been using cameras and lenses over 25yrs. Same game different wavelength called thermal and glass isn't your friend. I am working on a setup to use the flir and have a left center and right view displayed on the same sensor using ps24. Too lazy to make a pan tilt servo setup. May have to have a tilt setup anyway but will give it a shot. What difference would you expect to see looking in the viewfinder of 336x256 (17µm) Core with a 30 vs 42 mm lens? This is the difference between the Thor and Zeus scopes I posted. More information through a 42mm lens. Depending on the screen resolution and size it could go either way for detection range. It's going to be very close to the same image(in theory) Assuming that the speed of the lenses is roughly the same, and the same detector ( 17 uM ) 42mm lens will offer 1.4x more magnification than a 30mm lens. So detection range, etc, increased by a factor of 1.4 FOV ( Horizontal ) - 30mm = 21.6 42mm = 15.5 Regards David The Zeus has a smaller FoV compared to the Thor. I assume this corresponds to a higher magnification on the Zeus vs. Thor despite both stating a 3x optical magnification? From the Zeus specs: OPTICAL DATA: Field of View: - ang. X degrees: 7.8 - ang. Y degrees: 5.9 Objective Focal Length: 42 mm From the Thor specs: Field of View (H x V) 9°x 7° Lens 30 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2013 3:57:04 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually we trashed that idea but are coming with something much much better.. I am so excited about what we have coming out but unfortunately I am not at a liberty of sharing that information at the moment. We had designed a wifi adapter and it was more of an add on system. We have something better coming out which I am sure you would be more happy with. I hope you are coming to Shot Show this year. As for the image capture. I want to double check with my engineers and see whether it is currently in the production cycle or will be shortly. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When will the wifi adapter for the Thor be released? It was at the last Shot Show and was told it was going to be out this summer, then the end of this year... I just got a Thor 320 3x straight from you about 2 weeks ago. I'm not stateside to see if it had the still images option, but will be next month. What are the odds that it has that option if I got it at my address almost 2 weeks ago? Quoted:
Quoted:
50Calbeast, do you anticipate any upcoming ability to capture still images on your thermal scopes? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile We actually just added this feature to our ThORs. I think it has been implemented in the production cycle now, i can double check. You can now capture up to 100 images on a 336 resolution and 33 with a 640 resolution. Actually we trashed that idea but are coming with something much much better.. I am so excited about what we have coming out but unfortunately I am not at a liberty of sharing that information at the moment. We had designed a wifi adapter and it was more of an add on system. We have something better coming out which I am sure you would be more happy with. I hope you are coming to Shot Show this year. As for the image capture. I want to double check with my engineers and see whether it is currently in the production cycle or will be shortly. Sachel, So what I am hearing is to wait for news coming out at Shot before I decide on making a purchase? That is OK since I'm not in a hurry to spend $6k only to regret missing some nice improvements. As of now I'm trying to decide between the Thor & Zeus. The Zeus has what looks like a nice remote switch that allows the unit to run in standby mode and turn on to full view when needed. It also has a two year warranty. The Thor has an established track record with several owners posting here giving it high marks. Zeus is too new for a proven track record. Both are very similar in street price so making a choice is not so clear cut. I have been reading the thread started by cj7hawk on ATN and appreciate the effort being made to improve your company. I also hope that any comments made in this thread stay in the bounds of the CoC should more than one vendor chose to comment on these thermal scopes. Please feel free to IM me. Rich V |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2013 6:17:05 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Zeus has a smaller FoV compared to the Thor. I assume this corresponds to a higher magnification on the Zeus vs. Thor despite both stating a 3x optical magnification? From the Zeus specs: OPTICAL DATA: Field of View: - ang. X degrees: 7.8 - ang. Y degrees: 5.9 Objective Focal Length: 42 mm From the Thor specs: Field of View (H x V) 9°x 7° Lens 30 Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: More information through a 42mm lens. Depending on the screen resolution and size it could go either way for detection range. It's going to be very close to the same image(in theory) Assuming that the speed of the lenses is roughly the same, and the same detector ( 17 uM ) 42mm lens will offer 1.4x more magnification than a 30mm lens. So detection range, etc, increased by a factor of 1.4 FOV ( Horizontal ) - 30mm = 21.6 42mm = 15.5 Regards David The Zeus has a smaller FoV compared to the Thor. I assume this corresponds to a higher magnification on the Zeus vs. Thor despite both stating a 3x optical magnification? From the Zeus specs: OPTICAL DATA: Field of View: - ang. X degrees: 7.8 - ang. Y degrees: 5.9 Objective Focal Length: 42 mm From the Thor specs: Field of View (H x V) 9°x 7° Lens 30 Ahh, woops, my maths was out - forgot to halve the original width of the array. That should be 10.9 degrees - 30mm. 7.8 degrees - 42mm. The maths, BTW, is the pitch in micron, divide by 1000 and multiply by the array size ( pixels ) - Then halve this, and divide by the focal length in mm. Then find the arctan of the resultant number and multiply by two. This will provide the FOV for any array of known pitch and resolution. Regards David |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
