Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 7/27/2019 10:17:21 PM EDT
This is going to be based strictly off of image and image alone. What are your top 10 thermal scopes that give the best image and resolution?
Link Posted: 7/28/2019 6:27:42 AM EDT
Since you’re confining it to scopes, I’m assuming something that can be weapon-mounted.

1) BAE Oasys StalkIR UTMx
2) L3 PAS-13G (V2)
3) N-Vision Halo LR
4) IR Hunter MK III
5) BAE Oasys SkeetIR X
6) PAS-13C (V3)

For clip-ons, the BAE UTC-xii.
Link Posted: 7/28/2019 8:15:40 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheHorta:
Since you’re confining it to scopes, I’m assuming something that can be weapon-mounted.

1) BAE Oasys StalkIR UTMx
2) L3 PAS-13G (V2)
3) N-Vision Halo LR
4) IR Hunter MK III
5) BAE Oasys SkeetIR X
6) PAS-13C (V3)

For clip-ons, the BAE UTC-xii.
View Quote
That Halo LR looks interesting; especially since the two above it are 5-figure items.
Any idea where the Pulsar Trail XP50 640 would be in comparison?
Link Posted: 7/28/2019 8:22:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/28/2019 8:23:03 PM EDT by rlltd42]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NotUrLawyer:

That Halo LR looks interesting; especially since the two above it are 5-figure items.
Any idea where the Pulsar Trail XP50 640 would be in comparison?
View Quote
I've had 5 thermals (4 with a 640 core) including the XP50. I had an Armasight Zeus (not the pro) 640/75mm/3x that, as purely a scope, was better than the others. After the firmware update it had the best image of all the ones I've tried.

The 3x sucks as a scanner though so the XP50 is the best of both worlds for scanning & shooting of the ones I've had.
Link Posted: 7/28/2019 8:24:30 PM EDT
Never used the Pulsar, but they generally seem to compete well at a lower cost. I’d love to compare one directly to the Halo and PAS-G. I doubt I’ll buy one just to satisfy that curiosity, but would be happy to meet up to compare with someone who does.

Right now I’m in Newfoundland sea kayaking with humpbacks. When I get home next week I have a new toy to play with — a Schweet helmet-mounted fusion unit.
Link Posted: 7/28/2019 9:58:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/28/2019 10:01:10 PM EDT by Demphna2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By rlltd42:

I've had 5 thermals (4 with a 640 core) including the XP50. I had an Armasight Zeus (not the pro) 640/75mm/3x that, as purely a scope, was better than the others. After the firmware update it had the best image of all the ones I've tried.

The 3x sucks as a scanner though so the XP50 is the best of both worlds for scanning & shooting of the ones I've had.
View Quote
Now that's interesting. I always wondered about the Armasight Zeus. Random thought: The L3 seems to keep it's resolution pretty damn well after zooming in.
Link Posted: 7/29/2019 6:49:14 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheHorta:
Never used the Pulsar, but they generally seem to compete well at a lower cost. I’d love to compare one directly to the Halo and PAS-G. I doubt I’ll buy one just to satisfy that curiosity, but would be happy to meet up to compare with someone who does.

Right now I’m in Newfoundland sea kayaking with humpbacks. When I get home next week I have a new toy to play with — a Schweet helmet-mounted fusion unit.
View Quote
If you’ll put in the time to do comparisons of everything you listed, side by side with pictures, I’ll send you an xp50 to throw in the mix. Out of state for another 5 weeks though. So won’t be anytime soon
Link Posted: 7/29/2019 6:57:55 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Demphna2:
Now that's interesting. I always wondered about the Armasight Zeus. Random thought: The L3 seems to keep it's resolution pretty damn well after zooming in.
View Quote
With the digital zoom, resolution becomes a software issue. My understanding, and I’m repeating what I was told, is the process to keep res close to base, takes up a LOT of available space, and is a lengthy, expensive process. It also cuts way down on usable space that can be used for recording, color palate, ect . This was explained to me by an engineer, that designs computer software . He’s kind of a mad scientist that enjoys killing pigs . Make for interesting convo riding around at night. My normal running buddy is more of a fart joke, kind of guy ....

I agree about The armasight 75. Image was always top notch. I have no idea what made it noticeably better than their others . I was told at one point, it had “special glass”. No idea if that was true. It was told to me by somebody trying to sell me one . Wished I had kept it.
Link Posted: 7/29/2019 9:32:38 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Tmm1270: ....
I agree about The armasight 75. Image was always top notch. I have no idea what made it noticeably better than their others . I was told at one point, it had "special glass". No idea if that was true. It was told to me by somebody trying to sell me one . Wished I had kept it.
View Quote
From what I have gathered, FLIR/Armasight has more of a focus on making heat signatures pop and Trijicon (BAE) has more of a focus on environmental detail. Could be the noticable difference? And I agree with Tmm1270: if we can get some comparison pictures of the units listed above, that would not only be useful, but completely badass.
Link Posted: 7/29/2019 10:06:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2019 11:37:39 AM EDT by Wildfowler]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Demphna2:
From what I have gathered, FLIR/Armasight has more of a focus on making heat signatures pop and Trijicon (BAE) has more of a focus on environmental detail. Could be the noticable difference? And I agree with Tmm1270: if we can get some comparison pictures of the units listed above, that would not only be useful, but completely badass.
View Quote
I have three different Flir thermals and two other brand thermals.

Flir breach, PTS233, and Vue640. The flir all do do the same thing. They all have a tendency to produce what I call a "false positive".

I prefer black hot or the new outdoor alert and it could be specific to that pallet?

I can be riding along and think I see something a good ways away, stop to get out to check it with my pulsar 640 or IRD mark 2 and it's not even there? Whatever Flir paints as hot doesn't even show up on the other systems.

It may have just been a tuft of grass or something else that's not an animal.

This is not a problem for me just an observation I've had and wondered about. Your post above seems relevant to my observation.

edit: I have the XP50 and an IRD mark 2 - 35mm.

I personally think that that of my two, the edge in clarity goes to the pulsar. Probably due to the fact that it has a front focus capability?

I have compared them side-by-side at the exact same time and felt like I could identify deer versus hogs a little farther with the pulsar.

Of everything I have looked through including the mark 3- 60 mm and LWTS clip on, I felt like the LWTS has the best overall image. But I have not compared those two side-by-side either?
Link Posted: 7/29/2019 11:17:46 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Demphna2: if we can get some comparison pictures of the units listed above, that would not only be useful, but completely badass.
View Quote
Unfortunately this will never telegraph well over the internet. Comparison pictures have as much or more to do with the recording device used to capture the image as with the quality of the image itself. Even if you used the exact same device to take each picture, you'd be photographing a video screen on the back of the scope, and there are too many variables in play for the comparison to be accurate. In-person comparisons are the only way to truly get a feel. If someone has all the scopes and is committed to giving an honest, unbiased report (and I think there are guys in here that can do that), this info would be quite helpful for the group.

I'm not the guy for that job. I have put my Trail XP50 up against TWSs costing twice as much, and I always walked away thankful for what I have, based on other, ancillary factors.
Link Posted: 7/29/2019 11:22:37 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/29/2019 1:38:19 PM EDT
The video posted in this thread had a bunch of different thermals. Not the super high end in this thread but the Halo looked good.
https://www.ar15.com/forums/armory/Is-anyone-thing-about-getting-the-new-Pulsar-Thermion-/18-501618/&page=1&anc=5154595#i5154184

Might as well repost the vid.
Link Posted: 7/29/2019 2:11:58 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ThisWildAdventure:
Unfortunately this will never telegraph well over the internet. Comparison pictures have as much or more to do with the recording device used to capture the image as with the quality of the image itself. Even if you used the exact same device to take each picture, you'd be photographing a video screen on the back of the scope, and there are too many variables in play for the comparison to be accurate. In-person comparisons are the only way to truly get a feel. If someone has all the scopes and is committed to giving an honest, unbiased report (and I think there are guys in here that can do that), this info would be quite helpful for the group.

I'm not the guy for that job. I have put my Trail XP50 up against TWSs costing twice as much, and I always walked away thankful for what I have, based on other, ancillary factors.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ThisWildAdventure:
Originally Posted By Demphna2: if we can get some comparison pictures of the units listed above, that would not only be useful, but completely badass.
Unfortunately this will never telegraph well over the internet. Comparison pictures have as much or more to do with the recording device used to capture the image as with the quality of the image itself. Even if you used the exact same device to take each picture, you'd be photographing a video screen on the back of the scope, and there are too many variables in play for the comparison to be accurate. In-person comparisons are the only way to truly get a feel. If someone has all the scopes and is committed to giving an honest, unbiased report (and I think there are guys in here that can do that), this info would be quite helpful for the group.

I'm not the guy for that job. I have put my Trail XP50 up against TWSs costing twice as much, and I always walked away thankful for what I have, based on other, ancillary factors.
I've been able to look through a few different ones now, and that Pulsar you have is fantastic IMO.
Link Posted: 7/29/2019 2:21:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2019 2:24:56 PM EDT by Demphna2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
edit: I have the XP50 and an IRD mark 2 - 35mm.

I personally think that that of my two, the edge in clarity goes to the pulsar. Probably due to the fact that it has a front focus capability?

I have compared them side-by-side at the exact same time and felt like I could identify deer versus hogs a little farther with the pulsar.

Of everything I have looked through including the mark 3- 60 mm and LWTS clip on, I felt like the LWTS has the best overall image. But I have not compared those two side-by-side either?
View Quote
So this would be another interesting point to touch on also. In regards to image quality, are there substantial differences in these units (top 6 from above) or are they more subtle?

For example, when I was shopping around, I heard the Trail XP50 was 90% of the image of what the Trijicon MKIII was (opinions vary). So with that premise, is the Halo LR or MKIII 90% of the image of what the LWTS is?
Link Posted: 7/29/2019 3:35:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/29/2019 4:58:24 PM EDT
It is really difficult to compare without more details. You can't just say I want to know what has the best image. Yes image clarity is important, but at what range?

For instance the Pulsar XP50 has a 17 micron core and a base mag of 1.6x and a FOV of 12.4 x 9.3. The Pulsar XP series is great for hunting where a wide field of view is critical. While the Nvision Halo LR for instance is a 12 micron core with base mag of 3x and FOV of 9 x 7. The Pulsar should look good because the mag is so low, but as soon as you digitally zoom the scope to get ID on an object further away, the picture loses quality very quickly.

This is why determine what it will be used for (species), in what type of terrain, and what your budget is, and a good dealer can recommend what would work well for most users.
Link Posted: 7/29/2019 6:06:36 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KoreyKirsch:
It is really difficult to compare without more details.
View Quote
Not to mention "at what humidity." For certain TWSs, humidity is kryptonite.
Link Posted: 7/29/2019 6:29:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2019 6:32:29 PM EDT by TheHorta]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ThisWildAdventure:

Not to mention "at what humidity." For certain TWSs, humidity is kryptonite.
View Quote
That’s an excellent point. Any reasonably comprehensive test should be performed under optimal conditions and then repeated under abysmal humidity and “witching hour” times where temperature differences between objects are at their lowest.

Even a cheap thermal can produce spectacular results when used within its ideal performance envelope. I remember being amazed by the ThermApp when it first became available, and then testing it just after a thunderstorm at 8:00pm shortly after the sun set. It was almost completely washed out, where the UTM and LWTS continued to be usable. Granted, that was some years ago, but I don’t think thermal tech has come far at all since then.
Link Posted: 7/29/2019 9:27:21 PM EDT
Valid points, but to simplify it, all conditions equal. It's very easy to get into the weeds with this kind of generic question, I know.
Link Posted: 8/4/2019 3:40:42 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KoreyKirsch:
It is really difficult to compare without more details. You can't just say I want to know what has the best image. Yes image clarity is important, but at what range?

For instance the Pulsar XP50 has a 17 micron core and a base mag of 1.6x and a FOV of 12.4 x 9.3. The Pulsar XP series is great for hunting where a wide field of view is critical. While the Nvision Halo LR for instance is a 12 micron core with base mag of 3x and FOV of 9 x 7. The Pulsar should look good because the mag is so low, but as soon as you digitally zoom the scope to get ID on an object further away, the picture loses quality very quickly.

This is why determine what it will be used for (species), in what type of terrain, and what your budget is, and a good dealer can recommend what would work well for most users.
View Quote
Anyone here have any time behind the Halo (non-LR)?
It still has the 640X480 & 12 micron sensor but a smaller (25mm) lens, which I assume would give it a wider field of view and make it better for hunting.
Does moving up to the 12 micron sensor improve the image quality over the 17 micron cores? Or does the benefit show up in other things like scope size and battery life?
Link Posted: 8/4/2019 4:06:39 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NotUrLawyer:

Anyone here have any time behind the Halo (non-LR)?
It still has the 640X480 & 12 micron sensor but a smaller (25mm) lens, which I assume would give it a wider field of view and make it better for hunting.
Does moving up to the 12 micron sensor improve the image quality over the 17 micron cores? Or does the benefit show up in other things like scope size and battery life?
View Quote
The only thing 12um does is allow greater range using smaller lenses, which keeps costs and overall size and weight down. It shouldn’t inherently provide a better image. In fact, the older UTMs used 17um and (I believe) 25um cores and image quality was exquisite. In fact, you could argue that smaller pixels are inherently a bad thing.
Link Posted: 8/4/2019 5:34:04 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheHorta:
The only thing 12um does is allow greater range using smaller lenses, which keeps costs and overall size and weight down. It shouldn’t inherently provide a better image. In fact, the older UTMs used 17um and (I believe) 25um cores and image quality was exquisite. In fact, you could argue that smaller pixels are inherently a bad thing.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheHorta:
Originally Posted By NotUrLawyer:

Anyone here have any time behind the Halo (non-LR)?
It still has the 640X480 & 12 micron sensor but a smaller (25mm) lens, which I assume would give it a wider field of view and make it better for hunting.
Does moving up to the 12 micron sensor improve the image quality over the 17 micron cores? Or does the benefit show up in other things like scope size and battery life?
The only thing 12um does is allow greater range using smaller lenses, which keeps costs and overall size and weight down. It shouldn’t inherently provide a better image. In fact, the older UTMs used 17um and (I believe) 25um cores and image quality was exquisite. In fact, you could argue that smaller pixels are inherently a bad thing.
You're going to have to explain that last sentence.
I assume pixel size, sensor size (pixel count) and the objective lens all need to be appropriately matched for the desired range and FOV. After that it's up to the processor to read the sensor and put an image on the display. Why did BAE shrink their pixels as opposed to making a bigger sensor with more 17 micron pixels? I assume someone there determined that smaller was better?
Link Posted: 8/4/2019 5:50:56 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NotUrLawyer:

You're going to have to explain that last sentence.
I assume pixel size, sensor size (pixel count) and the objective lens all need to be appropriately matched for the desired range and FOV. After that it's up to the processor to read the sensor and put an image on the display. Why did BAE shrink their pixels as opposed to making a bigger sensor with more 17 micron pixels? I assume someone there determined that smaller was better?
View Quote
Go check out lone Star boars latest video. Good explanation of this.
Link Posted: 8/4/2019 5:56:54 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NotUrLawyer:

You're going to have to explain that last sentence.
I assume pixel size, sensor size (pixel count) and the objective lens all need to be appropriately matched for the desired range and FOV. After that it's up to the processor to read the sensor and put an image on the display. Why did BAE shrink their pixels as opposed to making a bigger sensor with more 17 micron pixels? I assume someone there determined that smaller was better?
View Quote
Smaller pixel sites doesn’t mean a better image, it means less germanium and small device sizes resulting in cheaper prices. All things being equal (and they rarely are), larger pixels hold more photons and inherently offer more signal to noise.

Someone much smarter than me will be along to amplify or correct what I’m saying, but the drive to cram more pixel wells into the same area has nothing to do with making a better sensor as much as it does decreasing costs and device size.
Link Posted: 8/8/2019 11:43:19 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheHorta:

Smaller pixel sites doesn’t mean a better image, it means less germanium and small device sizes resulting in cheaper prices. All things being equal (and they rarely are), larger pixels hold more photons and inherently offer more signal to noise.

Someone much smarter than me will be along to amplify or correct what I’m saying, but the drive to cram more pixel wells into the same area has nothing to do with making a better sensor as much as it does decreasing costs and device size.
View Quote
I assume TWS work similar to DSLR cameras in this respect. Full frame (35mm sensor) cameras offer better low light performance due to the larger pixels vs cropped cameras with the same megapixel count. With that said the crop cameras provide more focal length with the same lenses due to the smaller sensor size. This why small compact cameras can offer a large zoom range with smaller lenses.

For instance when using a 100mm lens on a full frame FX Nikon camera you get 100 mm of focal length. With the same lens on Nikon DX camera you get a multiplication factor of 1.5 times the focal length due to the smaller sensor.

Now I am somewhat confused on how to figure the base magnification of a TWS device. I picked up on of the EMX MK2A-1 thermals and its rated at FOV 12x9 with a 30um sensor. I measured the objective and its around 50mm. How does one figure the magnification? Its not listed on the spec sheet.
Link Posted: 8/8/2019 12:49:45 PM EDT
Is the EMX 320 or 640? That makes quite a difference.
Link Posted: 8/8/2019 1:03:20 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheHorta:
Is the EMX 320 or 640? That makes quite a difference.
View Quote
320
Link Posted: 8/8/2019 8:41:15 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Demphna2:
Go check out lone Star boars latest video. Good explanation of this.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Demphna2:
Originally Posted By NotUrLawyer:

You're going to have to explain that last sentence.
I assume pixel size, sensor size (pixel count) and the objective lens all need to be appropriately matched for the desired range and FOV. After that it's up to the processor to read the sensor and put an image on the display. Why did BAE shrink their pixels as opposed to making a bigger sensor with more 17 micron pixels? I assume someone there determined that smaller was better?
Go check out lone Star boars latest video. Good explanation of this.
Thanks!
Link Posted: 8/9/2019 1:43:35 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NotUrLawyer:

Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m68JU8D4RDE
View Quote
Counted several errors, nothing severe and could be explainable by the guy doing a less than perfect job choosing his words. Glad someone explains that a larger pixel size collects more thermal energy and has the potential to deliver a cleaner lower noise image.
Link Posted: 8/9/2019 2:10:22 AM EDT
A bit of a hijack, but no one else seems to be updating the FPNI's list.
From the data I could find I think this is correct:

Pulsar XP50 50mm lens -- 17 micron -- magnification 1.6x with FOV: 12.4x9.3 / 21.8x16.3 (degrees / m @ 100 m)
Halo (non-LR) 25mm lens -- 12 micron -- magnification: 1.75x with FOV: 18 x 14 (degrees)

Am I interpreting these numbers correctly by saying the Halo has slightly more magnification AND a wider field of view than the XP50?
That doesn't make sense intuitively, but I think that's what the numbers say, right?

Without seeing them side-by-side I'm not sure if the theoretical gain is worth the actual $ step up, but it's keeping me from pulling the trigger on an XP50.
@N-VisionOptics
Link Posted: 8/9/2019 11:07:39 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NotUrLawyer:
A bit of a hijack, but no one else seems to be updating the FPNI's list.
From the data I could find I think this is correct:

Pulsar XP50 50mm lens -- 17 micron -- magnification 1.6x with FOV: 12.4x9.3 / 21.8x16.3 (degrees / m @ 100 m)
Halo (non-LR) 25mm lens -- 12 micron -- magnification: 1.75x with FOV: 18 x 14 (degrees)

Am I interpreting these numbers correctly by saying the Halo has slightly more magnification AND a wider field of view than the XP50?
That doesn't make sense intuitively, but I think that's what the numbers say, right?

Without seeing them side-by-side I'm not sure if the theoretical gain is worth the actual $ step up, but it's keeping me from pulling the trigger on an XP50.
@N-VisionOptics
View Quote
Page 2 of the XP50 manual seems to say the 12.4/9.3 FOV is correct *when the scope is at 8X.*

http://pulsarnv.com/pdf.php?src=http://www.pulsarnv.com/manuals/Trail%20manual.pdf
Link Posted: 8/9/2019 11:24:42 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ThisWildAdventure:
Page 2 of the XP50 manual seems to say the 12.4/9.3 FOV is correct *when the scope is at 8X.*

http://pulsarnv.com/pdf.php?src=http://www.pulsarnv.com/manuals/Trail%20manual.pdf
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ThisWildAdventure:
Originally Posted By NotUrLawyer:
A bit of a hijack, but no one else seems to be updating the FPNI's list.
From the data I could find I think this is correct:

Pulsar XP50 50mm lens -- 17 micron -- magnification 1.6x with FOV: 12.4x9.3 / 21.8x16.3 (degrees / m @ 100 m)
Halo (non-LR) 25mm lens -- 12 micron -- magnification: 1.75x with FOV: 18 x 14 (degrees)

Am I interpreting these numbers correctly by saying the Halo has slightly more magnification AND a wider field of view than the XP50?
That doesn't make sense intuitively, but I think that's what the numbers say, right?

Without seeing them side-by-side I'm not sure if the theoretical gain is worth the actual $ step up, but it's keeping me from pulling the trigger on an XP50.
@N-VisionOptics
Page 2 of the XP50 manual seems to say the 12.4/9.3 FOV is correct *when the scope is at 8X.*

http://pulsarnv.com/pdf.php?src=http://www.pulsarnv.com/manuals/Trail%20manual.pdf
The Pulsar web page and the manual aren't consistent. I'd read the manual as saying the FOV is 12.4 degrees at the widest 1.6x magnification 1x zoom, and 9.3 degrees at 8x zoom or 12.4x magnification.
The number I used above were from the Pulsar Trail page and I read them as horizontal x vertical (HxV) as indicated there. The manual doesn't appear to have vertical FOV data.
So much for trying to compare apples to apples.
Link Posted: 8/9/2019 12:08:45 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NotUrLawyer:
A bit of a hijack, but no one else seems to be updating the FPNI's list.
From the data I could find I think this is correct:

Pulsar XP50 50mm lens -- 17 micron -- magnification 1.6x with FOV: 12.4x9.3 / 21.8x16.3 (degrees / m @ 100 m)
Halo (non-LR) 25mm lens -- 12 micron -- magnification: 1.75x with FOV: 18 x 14 (degrees)

Am I interpreting these numbers correctly by saying the Halo has slightly more magnification AND a wider field of view than the XP50?
That doesn't make sense intuitively, but I think that's what the numbers say, right?

Without seeing them side-by-side I'm not sure if the theoretical gain is worth the actual $ step up, but it's keeping me from pulling the trigger on an XP50.
@N-VisionOptics
View Quote
12 micron scopes will have more base mag vs a 17 micron scope with everything else being equal. Lower focal lengths (combination of objective size and aperture) will have a wider FOV. So, the math does work out. One thing I will say is your specs said 50mm lens for the XP50. 50 is actually the focal length, so with a F1.2 lens, the objective is not quite 42mm. One thing bigger objectives tend to help with (besides gaining more mag) is to help in high humidity conditions.
Link Posted: 8/9/2019 12:28:18 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KoreyKirsch:
12 micron scopes will have more base mag vs a 17 micron scope with everything else being equal. Lower focal lengths (combination of objective size and aperture) will have a wider FOV. So, the math does work out. One thing I will say is your specs said 50mm lens for the XP50. 50 is actually the focal length, so with a F1.2 lens, the objective is not quite 42mm. One thing bigger objectives tend to help with (besides gaining more mag) is to help in high humidity conditions.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KoreyKirsch:
Originally Posted By NotUrLawyer:
A bit of a hijack, but no one else seems to be updating the FPNI's list.
From the data I could find I think this is correct:

Pulsar XP50 50mm lens -- 17 micron -- magnification 1.6x with FOV: 12.4x9.3 / 21.8x16.3 (degrees / m @ 100 m)
Halo (non-LR) 25mm lens -- 12 micron -- magnification: 1.75x with FOV: 18 x 14 (degrees)

Am I interpreting these numbers correctly by saying the Halo has slightly more magnification AND a wider field of view than the XP50?
That doesn't make sense intuitively, but I think that's what the numbers say, right?

Without seeing them side-by-side I'm not sure if the theoretical gain is worth the actual $ step up, but it's keeping me from pulling the trigger on an XP50.
@N-VisionOptics
12 micron scopes will have more base mag vs a 17 micron scope with everything else being equal. Lower focal lengths (combination of objective size and aperture) will have a wider FOV. So, the math does work out. One thing I will say is your specs said 50mm lens for the XP50. 50 is actually the focal length, so with a F1.2 lens, the objective is not quite 42mm. One thing bigger objectives tend to help with (besides gaining more mag) is to help in high humidity conditions.
I could be wrong on the absolute measurement (50 vs 42mm), but either way it's bigger than the Halo 25mm.
I'm in MN looking to primarily chase coyotes in the Fall & Winter so humidity isn't one of my main worries (I assume, never having used or owned thermal.) but that's an interesting data point for any potential Summer use. How much difference does it make? Is a 25mm going to be junk in the Summer or just a bit degraded in comparison with a larger objective?
Link Posted: 8/9/2019 1:39:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NotUrLawyer:

The Pulsar web page and the manual aren't consistent. I'd read the manual as saying the FOV is 12.4 degrees at the widest 1.6x magnification 1x zoom, and 9.3 degrees at 8x zoom or 12.4x magnification.
The number I used above were from the Pulsar Trail page and I read them as horizontal x vertical (HxV) as indicated there. The manual doesn't appear to have vertical FOV data.
So much for trying to compare apples to apples.
View Quote
Ok, so then the Trail XP50 has a larger FOV than the Halo. And it is also true that the Halo's horizontal FOV is wider.

12.4 x 21.8 = 270.32
14 x 18 = 252
Link Posted: 8/9/2019 4:49:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2019 4:51:10 PM EDT by KoreyKirsch]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NotUrLawyer:

I could be wrong on the absolute measurement (50 vs 42mm), but either way it's bigger than the Halo 25mm.
I'm in MN looking to primarily chase coyotes in the Fall & Winter so humidity isn't one of my main worries (I assume, never having used or owned thermal.) but that's an interesting data point for any potential Summer use. How much difference does it make? Is a 25mm going to be junk in the Summer or just a bit degraded in comparison with a larger objective?
View Quote
You will be surprised how high the humidity is at night in MN. It is actually higher at night than it is during the summer. I hunt ND and there are a lot of 90%+ humidity nights during the winter including nights with what I call Ice/Fog. Thermals in ND and MN will look better at night during the summer than during the winter on average. The one difference is when you get some snow on the ground, the animals do pop better because of the temp difference. However, as far as overall picture, the scope will look better on most Summer, Fall nights in comparison to Winter. I haven't run the Halo 25mm. Halo gets great reviews for their image, so I would be surprised if it wasn't useable on high humidity evenings but in general a bigger objective will help with humidity.

I can give you an example with 2 Flirs. I own a Flir PTS536 and it has a 50mm lens. My hunting partner has the Flir PTS233 and it has a 19mm lens. It is the exact same unit with the exception of the objective size. On high humidity nights (90%+), I could see coyotes just fine, and he couldn't even see the truck to get back to it. He did shoot some coyotes when the humidity would drop and it worked OK. He recently got it out during a Summer evening, and was shocked as the picture was fantastic. It was far better than any time he used it all winter. He has since sold the PTS233 because it is almost useless in higher humidity nights as we can't hunt coyotes at night until our deer season closes in ND.
Link Posted: 8/9/2019 4:59:48 PM EDT
I like my REAP IRMS 35-2 but my brother's Pulsar XP38 is no slouch.
Link Posted: 8/9/2019 5:07:19 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ThisWildAdventure:
Ok, so then the Trail XP50 has a larger FOV than the Halo. And it is also true that the Halo's horizontal FOV is wider.

12.4 x 21.8 = 270.32
14 x 18 = 252
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ThisWildAdventure:
Originally Posted By NotUrLawyer:

The Pulsar web page and the manual aren't consistent. I'd read the manual as saying the FOV is 12.4 degrees at the widest 1.6x magnification 1x zoom, and 9.3 degrees at 8x zoom or 12.4x magnification.
The number I used above were from the Pulsar Trail page and I read them as horizontal x vertical (HxV) as indicated there. The manual doesn't appear to have vertical FOV data.
So much for trying to compare apples to apples.
Ok, so then the Trail XP50 has a larger FOV than the Halo. And it is also true that the Halo's horizontal FOV is wider.

12.4 x 21.8 = 270.32
14 x 18 = 252
Your Pulsar math is wrong no matter which data set you're using.
Link Posted: 8/9/2019 5:13:09 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KoreyKirsch:
You will be surprised how high the humidity is at night in MN. It is actually higher at night than it is during the summer. I hunt ND and there are a lot of 90%+ humidity nights during the winter including nights with what I call Ice/Fog. Thermals in ND and MN will look better at night during the summer than during the winter on average. The one difference is when you get some snow on the ground, the animals do pop better because of the temp difference. However, as far as overall picture, the scope will look better on most Summer, Fall nights in comparison to Winter. I haven't run the Halo 25mm. Halo gets great reviews for their image, so I would be surprised if it wasn't useable on high humidity evenings but in general a bigger objective will help with humidity.

I can give you an example with 2 Flirs. I own a Flir PTS536 and it has a 50mm lens. My hunting partner has the Flir PTS233 and it has a 19mm lens. It is the exact same unit with the exception of the objective size. On high humidity nights (90%+), I could see coyotes just fine, and he couldn't even see the truck to get back to it. He did shoot some coyotes when the humidity would drop and it worked OK. He recently got it out during a Summer evening, and was shocked as the picture was fantastic. It was far better than any time he used it all winter. He has since sold the PTS233 because it is almost useless in higher humidity nights as we can't hunt coyotes at night until our deer season closes in ND.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KoreyKirsch:
Originally Posted By NotUrLawyer:

I could be wrong on the absolute measurement (50 vs 42mm), but either way it's bigger than the Halo 25mm.
I'm in MN looking to primarily chase coyotes in the Fall & Winter so humidity isn't one of my main worries (I assume, never having used or owned thermal.) but that's an interesting data point for any potential Summer use. How much difference does it make? Is a 25mm going to be junk in the Summer or just a bit degraded in comparison with a larger objective?
You will be surprised how high the humidity is at night in MN. It is actually higher at night than it is during the summer. I hunt ND and there are a lot of 90%+ humidity nights during the winter including nights with what I call Ice/Fog. Thermals in ND and MN will look better at night during the summer than during the winter on average. The one difference is when you get some snow on the ground, the animals do pop better because of the temp difference. However, as far as overall picture, the scope will look better on most Summer, Fall nights in comparison to Winter. I haven't run the Halo 25mm. Halo gets great reviews for their image, so I would be surprised if it wasn't useable on high humidity evenings but in general a bigger objective will help with humidity.

I can give you an example with 2 Flirs. I own a Flir PTS536 and it has a 50mm lens. My hunting partner has the Flir PTS233 and it has a 19mm lens. It is the exact same unit with the exception of the objective size. On high humidity nights (90%+), I could see coyotes just fine, and he couldn't even see the truck to get back to it. He did shoot some coyotes when the humidity would drop and it worked OK. He recently got it out during a Summer evening, and was shocked as the picture was fantastic. It was far better than any time he used it all winter. He has since sold the PTS233 because it is almost useless in higher humidity nights as we can't hunt coyotes at night until our deer season closes in ND.
Thank you for the informative post.
Link Posted: 8/9/2019 5:31:53 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NotUrLawyer:

Your Pulsar math is wrong no matter which data set you're using.
View Quote
Sorry, I'm outside my lane. Was just trying to help. Let us know if you figure it out.
Link Posted: 8/10/2019 11:10:14 PM EDT
I've only had a Pulsar Apex 38, Apex 50 and an IR Hunter MKIII.

The apex to me seems to be about 70-75% of the IR Hunter and the IR hunter was amazing. I will have another one some day. Had to sell it to fund some college tuition for son.

So my pick would be the Trijicon. I liked the 38 better than the 50 for the better field of view.
Link Posted: 8/11/2019 7:43:25 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/11/2019 9:23:34 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TNVC:
I vote the FLIR HISS-XLR #1 everything else listed is way behind IMHO, not even close.
View Quote
Mmmmm.... MWIR goodness.

Too bad it weighs 4-lbs.
Link Posted: 8/11/2019 12:07:19 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TNVC:
I vote the FLIR HISS-XLR #1 everything else listed is way behind IMHO, not even close.
View Quote
Care to give us your next 9 to sort out the also rans?
Link Posted: 8/11/2019 1:13:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/11/2019 10:50:48 PM EDT
Son of a bitch...
Link Posted: 8/12/2019 5:17:53 PM EDT
I had to look that one up. While the browsing the rest of the page they have two units who's range detection specification reads:

"Available upon request"

I guess that's some super top secret shit!!
Link Posted: 8/12/2019 7:16:42 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TNVC:
I vote the FLIR HISS-XLR #1 everything else listed is way behind IMHO, not even close.
View Quote
https://www.spygoodies.com/flir-thermosight-hiss-xlr/amp/
Link Posted: 8/12/2019 8:23:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2019 8:24:58 PM EDT by TNVC]
Link Posted: 8/12/2019 8:58:23 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TNVC:
After one uses a HISS, NOTHING compares with Triji, N-Vision, or anything else in the non cooled array dept. I would place the FLIR DUNS in 2nd place. I've used the HISS more than the DUNS, but the DUNS is a great hybrid fusion device. You can also dial up or down the amount of I^2 or thermal one engagement environment dictates.
View Quote
I’m too much of a puss to hump those behemoths around. Clip-ons are so 2010.
Top Top