Thread: Thermals. Whats the point of no return.

Originally Posted by Sarvo

To say 5K buys a lot of Venison - yes true - but 40 -50 80K boats buy a a lot of fish fillets too :-)

True...But people buy a boat because they enjoy fishing at sea...so the boat is 100% necessary to do that. However you can still hunt, enjoy hunting and harvest deer without a thermal... :-) You can't fish out at sea without a boat!!

I really don't give a crap about the shoud I, could I, would I, or ethics that wasn't the question. The question was how much do you have to spend to get something that's worth while. Thanks for the answers guys.

Originally Posted by Dermastor

I really don't give a crap about the shoud I, could I, would I, or ethics that wasn't the question. The question was how much do you have to spend to get something that's worth while. Thanks for the answers guys.

Yes, I'd say about 5k will get you started with new entry level equipment that will give you a good result. 4-5k would get you a good used upper level unit too, with added features like a 38 or 50mm lens for better FOV.

Originally Posted by Mathias

Yes, I'd say about 5k will get you started with new entry level equipment that will give you a good result. 4-5k would get you a good used upper level unit too, with added features like a 38 or 50mm lens for better FOV.

The best FOV (field of view) I have had was from a XP28 - the worst from a 50mm
FOV with these comes down to the base/start magnification not the aperture at the end.

If you want a locator that will pick up a Deer out to 1000m - but not need to count the hairs on its neck - you can pay 2500 for a top condition XQ30 V Lite or 3500 for a used XQ Helion prob a 28 or 38
New - well I would not recommend the Axion Key as I had 2 and both had issues and the viewing set up was crap
The Axion XM30 - maybe an option - but I have not tried one
PM me if you want to know of a couple that I know are for sale from contacts I have

Originally Posted by mimms2

Bet he would have got 50 with NV.

These all shot and retrieved. He stopped hunting becasue he was getting so many.He used to be HB's top pig hunter.No fool.

You can use them for spotting Salmon in Rivers too.
*cough*
"allegedly"
*cough*

Originally Posted by Sarvo

The best FOV (field of view) I have had was from a XP28 - the worst from a 50mm
FOV with these comes down to the base/start magnification not the aperture at the end.

True, however if you needed to locate a wounded animal in thick scrub or were hunting in closed bush, the bigger aperture will allow you a better FOV at close range. Something to consider when purchasing, what type of hunting and terrain you will be using it on.

The bigger aperture doesnt give you more fov, theres a bunch of other stuff going on. You can see that when comparing the thermion xm and xp line if you want an example of fov and aperture size.

Anyways ive got a set of accolades to sell. Xq38 is the model. Bought brand new at start of year and has probably 3 hours or less use on them at the mo. I upgraded to the xp50 so the xq is just gathering dust.

Originally Posted by Mathias

True, however if you needed to locate a wounded animal in thick scrub or were hunting in closed bush, the bigger aperture will allow you a better FOV at close range. Something to consider when purchasing, what type of hunting and terrain you will be using it on.

Sorry Mathias - that is not correct - inside 50m the XQ50F for example starts on 4.1x - which is very strong and bugger all FOV (the XP50F is much better at 2.5x but at a price)
A XQ28F starts on 2.3x
A XP28F is the best as it starts on 1.4x

This might explain better than me

https://www.scottcountry.co.uk/news/...helion-models/

Originally Posted by Sarvo

Sorry Mathias - that is not correct - inside 50m the XQ50F for example starts on 4.1x - which is very strong and bugger all FOV (the XP50F is much better at 2.5x but at a price)
A XQ28F starts on 2.3x
A XP28F is the best as it starts on 1.4x

This might explain better than me

https://www.scottcountry.co.uk/news/...helion-models/

Sorry I was making reference to my own experience using an XP50 at 2.5x and the advice I got from a professional pest control worker that has both current Helion XP28 & XP50.

Sent from my SM-A530F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Mathias

Sorry I was making reference to my own experience using an XP50 at 2.5x and the advice I got from a professional pest control worker that has both current Helion XP28 & XP50.

Sent from my SM-A530F using Tapatalk

Yes but I have had both and FOV with XP28 is amazing diff to the XP50 - in close especially
ie: Possums up tree etc :-)

The XP50 though would be the ultimate over all if you have a good mix of terrain like farm etc
Myself however - I dont its all close in or looking down into crap regen

Xp28 has a fov of 39 meters at 100 meters.
Xp50 has a fov of 21.8 meters at 100 meters.
Xm50 has a fov of 7.7 meters at 100 meters (thermion)

Fov is something to be considered when buying thermal.

Originally Posted by Towely

Xp28 has a fov of 39 meters at 100 meters.
Xp50 has a fov of 21.8 meters at 100 meters.

Fov is something to be considered when buying thermal.

Yes - I wish I never sold my XP28 - I also think its not in production anymore

They will be used for pest destruction on private land. Wallabies, hares, rabbits and cats. There are a lot of options out there sort of hard to work through it all.

I am not familiar with thermals but I believe it works the same way as digital cameras. That I have plenty of experience.

Width FOV is basically the reverse of optical magnification (ignoring hardware digital magnification for a minute). The number in Pulsar's model name appears to be focal length, which is one of the two things that affect FOV. The bigger this number the longer the focal length and narrower FOV / larger magnification. Vice Vesa.

The second thing that affects FOV is sensor size. For a given focal length, the larger the sensor, the wider the FOV. Pulsar dont directly state the sensor size of their products but it gives you resolution and pixel pitch. So you can get a idea of how big the sensors are relative to each other. For example XP50 is 640x480 at 17um, same with XP38. Therefore, XP38, with shorter focal length, must have wider FOV but less optical magnification compared to XP50. XQ50F has 384x288 pix. @ 17 µm, the sensor has same pixel density but few pixels therefore it is way smaller. This must mean XQ50 has narrower FOV compared to XP50. But because it is the same focal length, it does not have better optical magnification. (And because it has the same pixel density it also doesnt have better hardware digital magnification either.)

Aperture size does not affect either FOV or magnification. Aperture affects how much light is let in. The larger the aperture the more light comes in, resulting in better image. However, aperture works in cohort with focal length. It is the ratio of focal length vs aperture that affects how much light is focused/projected onto the sensor. XP50, XQ50, XP38 all have F ratio at 1.2 so they should all pass on same amount of light to the sensor plane. It should be noted that XP38's aperture is indeed smaller at 38/1.2 = 32mm, vs XP/XQ50's 42mm. It should also be noted that XQ50 has a smaller sensor to receive light compared to XP50 even though their optics were able to deliver the same amount of light. XQ50s' sensor, being about 35% the size, only receives about 35% as much light as XP50.

There is yet another thing that gets added into the equation. The new XM line uses sensor with smaller pixel size - 12um. This increases hardware digital magnification by putting more pixels on the same given area of projected optical image. But because the sensors have even less overall pixels, there is a significant sacrifice of FOV. XM's 320x240 12u sensors is about 1/8 the size of XP50's 640x480 17u. You can imagine how much FOV is cropped off.

Ideally you want a sensor that is large physically and have small pixels, thus have high resolution. If they can make the XP50 sensor go from 17um to 12um, it would end up with about twice the resolution around 960x640. As to why we dont have something like that, my guess is that: 1. the fabrication technology for large high density thermal sensor is still expensive. 2. more pixels = more circuitry = more heat = worse image.

Maybe it is the security concerns involved with thermals, thermal tech development seems to have been limited to only a few small time players. It has been quite slow compared to other similar areas where expanding size and density has been the goal. For example CPU, GPU, bayer CMOS sensor, OLED, AMOLED, etc. Just compare the image quality from your phone today to what it was 5 years ago or 10 years ago. in comparison thermal scopes seem to be stagnating. they just change around different trade-offs.