I've been looking through the collection and have decided to part with a number of guns that are just sitting idle. Even better, my better half has agreed to let me reinvest the proceeds in a thermal scope.





I've been reading through the archives to glean some feedback and think we could REALLY benefit if one of the most knowledgeable folks *cough* Skypup *cough* put together a post the mod would pin as a reference based on years of experience, technical knowledge, etc that collected in one place the choices regarding core size (640x480 vs 384x288), lens size (25 mm vs 50 mm vs 100 mm) as well as any tables with detection, recognition & id distances.





For the purposes of this thread, I am putting up four different thermal scopes from four different vendors and would appreciate any feedback anyone can provide.






If there is a particular favorite anyone has that I have not included, please feel free to speak up and give your $ 0.02



ETA: To be clear this is a poll of rifle scopes, if the specific models listed didn't make that clear. Title updated

 

Choosing an OLED over a LCD display is a no brainier for most people.

I've got a calculator that given the inputs of sensor size and FOV and range will give you an idea of what your target will look like pixel wise. It generally tracks with the published max detection ranges I've seen posted. Its just an excel spreadsheet but you can usually find the specs you need to plug in online. Then again most of the time they do post the max detection range.

Otherwise I'd say get the most sensor per buck and decent optical zoom. (this is for a scope right?)

No offense to Skypup, I want to be him when I grow up! You might want to approach UNV with this idea. They sell a very broad range of vendors products, and do rentals. I would imagine they  have gotten a bit of feedback on a very broad range of manufacturers products. And like the TNVC folks, they use the products they sell. I`m not affiliated with them in any way and have not purchased any item from them or any other ARF NV vendor (at least not yet! ).

Agree 100% with the OLED. Folks the say a LCD looks just as good must have poor eye sight. LOL

A LCD will get the job done and save you a lot of money, but don't expect to have the rich contrast to the image the OLED's have. I've owned around 15-20 thermal systems now plus used another half dozen at work and have seen a LCD yet that looked better than a OLED.

I mentioned Skypup because to the best of my recollection he had made a post or two along the way discussing various technical considerations. Rich from UNV is more than welcome to offer comments, insights, etc based on his knowledge. I hope Vic and/or Clasky from TNVC will participate as well.



I learned a long time ago the knowledge of a group of people exceeds the knowledge of any one person.



Four replies so far and not one has provided specific feedback or even participated in the poll.







 

Would you upload the Excel file and post a link to it?



Would you provide feedback on the mid-range thermal rifle scopes listed or any in that price range you have used?

While few would dispute an OLED is going to be nicer to look at than an LCD, the poll is in regard to thermal rifle scopes priced at ~ $ 3,500.



The bulk of those are not going to be LCD.

I think the Zeus is the only one with OLED on the list. An Apex XD50s is in the $3500 price range and has an OLED display also. I would look for a used MK2 for around $1500 more, if it was me.

I don't have a way of hosting anything, you can email me if you want it.

I haven't used any of the scopes on your list, so no comment. I mainly use viewers.

So in very basic terms and I'm trying to keep this low key since I don't know how technical people are...

Basically in terms of looking at specs, two important ones are:

FOV: i.e. how wide of a view you will have. The smaller the FOV the more "magnified" things will be. You can think of this as feet at 100 yards or whatever, it will have a vertical and horizontal component. It has some relation to overall lens size. Basically for long range, just like a rifle scope you want "zoom" but you have to have to balance that with trying to find a target in the first place. This and thermal lenses are VERY expensive, but optical zoom beats digital zoom hands down.

Detector size: This is how big your detector is, i.e. 320x200. If you multiply these two numbers it gives you the actual number of pixels you have to work with, it doesn't scale by double, a 640x480 detector is significantly larger than a 320x200 (more than 4x the pixels)

What you are looking for is how that field of view gets digitized. So realistically pixels per foot at 100yds, since FOV is an angular measure you can calculate that out at whatever range you want.

Detection criteria.

"Detection"
Generally speaking the "smallest" thing your imager will resolve is something that will look to be about 3-4 pixels (3.5x1), thats your "detection" range. In general this is only really true under ideal circumstances with a nice cool background for your target. Under really ideal circumstances it might be less, but its usually more. Once upon a time I literally saw a deer sized target that was one glowing bright pixel in my imager (verified with NV).

"Identification"
This is where you can sort of tell what something is, i.e. its a dude, its a deer, its super mario. Generally around 20-50 (13x5) pixels to vaguely figure out what something is. Again, this is a human, not this is bob way the hell out there.

"Recognition"
This is theoretically where you can tell "thats bob" ~200 (28x8)+ pixels. The more the better but thats about the minimum.

Obviously the bigger the target the better since that equals more pixels at a given distance.

So if you start doing the math you can see that something like a 160x100 unit like the X150 with a small FOV, will in effect give you the same practical resolution/detection as a Flir PS24 for example which has a detector of 240x120 (or something like that) but with a wider FOV. Or with two units with same size detector, the one with the smaller FOV will give you better "resolution" since its basically digitizing a smaller image. So its not always about detector size only, the lens system has alot to with it.

Other thoughts. I really like manual controls on the pulsar, I own an early X150 that has auto only calibration and settings and while easy to use (literally there is on/off and "brightness" and lens focus) it leaves alot to be desired when trying to fine tune images (since you basically can't).

Also, the bigger the output screen the better, the higher the output res the better (usually this is 2x the detector res, but not always) I also agree if its OLED it will look better than a LCD, but that wouldn't be a deal breaker for me.

I want to see the THOR HD with the latest firmware update and bug fixes, until that happens I am going to say its a crap-shoot on getting a good one. My second one seems to be a nice scope, first one had issues.

The Apex 50XD is what I will get next if ATN cannot get the bugs worked out of them.

IMO, 320 cores do not have enough PID range or resolution for the price compared to the APEX line or even the THOR HD line.

I've got an older HD38 and really like it.