Think going to be addicted to thermals

K

Krockus

New member
This is really cool..Going to order another one in very near future but looking for something with 640 to Zoom in for a clearer pic..This hogster is pretty sweet though but want more if anyone understands...What would be some of your choices with unlimited cash..Sure like those trijicons the way they project an image..Dan
 
All thermals will lose quality when digitally zoomed. This is the reason I tell many people if you need to shoot at near 3x mag or higher, don't buy a low mag scope and then use digital zoom because you sacrifice so much image quality.

You didn't say for a weapon's sight or not, but since you are looking for zoom, I will assume yes. The Pulsar XPs are an option but their base mags are so low to start with that you still loose a lot of image quality once you get into higher magnifications, so based on your request, I don't think they are what you are looking for.

Trijicon and Nvision are going to be your best options in the 50 and 60mm sizes if you want a high quality image at higher magnifications. HOwever, you can buy 2 Hogster 35s and a Hogster 25 for an NVision Halo LR and could almost make it a total of 4 for the MK III 60. They both better have a lot nicer image for 3 to 4 times the price.
 
The problem with higher magnification is you lose so much field of view this is where picture-in-picture is key and I can't imagine needing more than what the xp50 offers for clarity and zoom. You have the big field of you before and after you shoot and the pip to shoot with. I would really like to look through one of the hogster 35s just to see how the PIP is. I always stress to guys when calling at night field of view, field of view, field of view!!!
I can understand wanting more clarity with zoom to help with ID. I think everybody that hunts with thermal would like that but there's some give-and-take with that when you lose field of view.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: varminter .223The problem with higher magnification is you lose so much field of view this is where picture-in-picture is key and I can't imagine needing more than what the xp50 offers for clarity and zoom. You have the big field of you before and after you shoot and the pip to shoot with. I would really like to look through one of the hogster 35s just to see how the PIP is. I always stress to guys when calling at night field of view, field of view, field of view!!!
I can understand wanting more clarity with zoom to help with ID. I think everybody that hunts with thermal would like that but there's some give-and-take with that when you lose field of view.

Yes been reading up on that and getting a better understanding of how thermals have trade offs for field of view and then close up clarity.. Dan
 
Everybody has their own opinion on field of view. I agree when scanning wide field of view is good. I have a Hogster 35mm on one rifle & an Armasight Zeus 75mm on another. I have never had a problem finding a coyote in the Zeus on 6x, clarity is amazing. Would not trade the Zeus for anything I have seen.
 
I don't understand why you American night hunters never take Atn thermal riflescope into consideration. In truth you had already replied ... because they have a return rate for repairs under warranty of 18-20%. But here in Italy they are highly appreciated because the Canicom importer is very reliable, efficient, polite and correct and quick in repairs. Often replaces the device with a new one, if there are serious problems. The Atn Thor 4 have the RAV function that the Pulsar Thermion does not have. Vice versa they do not have the PIP function, which you Americans highly appreciated in Pulsars. The 640 series has a 4-generation dual core 640x480 pixel Obsidian sensor. The top of the range is Atn Thor 4 640 4-40X; 75 mm lens; minimum magnification 4X; FOV 8.3x6.2°. But very well-liked in Italy is also Atn Thor 4 640 2.5-25X; 50 mm lens; minimum magnification 2.5X; FOV 12.5x9.7°. Finally, they have an important feature that you may not know about. Germanium optics are interchangeable. This operation is easily done by the official Canicom importer
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Ernest49I don't understand why you American night hunters never take Atn thermal riflescope into consideration. In truth you had already replied ... because they have a return rate for repairs under warranty of 18-20%. But here in Italy they are highly appreciated because the Canicom importer is very reliable, efficient, polite and correct and quick in repairs. Often replaces the device with a new one, if there are serious problems. The Atn Thor 4 have the RAV function that the Pulsar Thermion does not have. Vice versa they do not have the PIP function, which you Americans highly appreciated in Pulsars. The 640 series has a 4-generation dual core 640x480 pixel Obsidian sensor. The top of the range is Atn Thor 4 640 4-40X; 75 mm lens; minimum magnification 4X; FOV 8.3x6.2°. But very well-liked in Italy is also Atn Thor 4 640 2.5-25X; 50 mm lens; minimum magnification 2.5X; FOV 12.5x9.7°. Finally, they have an important feature that you may not know about. Germanium optics are interchangeable. This operation is easily done by the official Canicom importer

Very interesting, I find them tempting but get scared hearing negatives. Not only about failures but then unfavorable customer service. A local retailer who has a good reputation said after many returns the business is not going to carry ATN anymore. They were transitioning to Pulsar which I thought was ironic as I was returning my 3rd Pulsar optic to Sellmark. I'm looking forward to visiting with him now that they have sold many Pulsars and see how that is working for them. Maybe they will be satisfied, maybe they will see ATN in a different light (no pun intended) lol. Only time will tell..
 
Last edited:
However, after all these considerations, I tend to be of the same opinion as Krockus and old cat: always 640x480 sensor until a 4K thermal sensor is designed. I am psychologically allergic to sensors with a definition lower than 640x480 or 640x512 pixels. With one exception (and here I am very much in agreement with Kirsch ...) the new Pulsar Trail 2 XQ50 LRF. Even if it has a sensor with only 384x288 pixels, it has an exceptional thermal sensitivity thanks to a NETD
 
I have to agree with old cat on FOV, and I think Kirsch has indicated as much in his past choice of thermal riflescope. I just don't see the issue unless you are hunting in areas where shots are 100 yds. and under. Unlike ordinary scopes or NV scopes, when using thermal you are most likely going from a thermal scanner to finding the target with the thermal riflescope. First you already know the direction to look and second the thermal makes the target just jump out at you so it is easy to pick it up.

My hunting partner is shooting the Thermion XP50 and while it is a nice scope with a good picture, he has yet to shoot a coyote with it on native mag of 2x. Every time he goes to 4x or even 8x for the shot which completely loses the advantage of the FOV and blurs the image as all digital zoom does. For some unknown reason he doesn't use the PIP on this scope, but it on his older Trail XQ50.

Bottom line, if you're going to zoom to shoot anyway, then I just don't see the advantage of the 640 core at 2x zoomed to 4x over a 384 core at 3.5x native. I'm shooting an old Apex XQ50, with 2.8x native and I don't believe the Thermion XP50 would allow me to kill one more coyote than I can kill with what I have. Here is just a short comparison video between the two scopes on a coyote kill.



And here is a video where my partner goes from 2x native to 4x digital for the shot. Still very good obviously but would it be better than a Thermion XQ50 at 3.5 native?



 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: DoubleUpBottom line, if you're going to zoom to shoot anyway, then I just don't see the advantage of the 640 core at 2x zoomed to 4x over a 384 core at 3.5x native. I'm shooting an old Apex XQ50, with 2.8x native and I don't believe the Thermion XP50 would allow me to kill one more coyote than I can kill with what I have. I couldn't agree more. This is what I tell people all the time. This is why I ask people looking for thermals, what are you hunting, what is your budget, what is your terrain, and what is your typical range of shots.

This topic is similar to the question people ask me all the time of why I am not using a Trijicon if their image is so great. Their image is fantastic as the BAE core is a great core. If people wish to spend 7-10K on a thermal, I am happy for them. But in the words of Double up, I don't believe that a Trijicon would have allowed me to kill one more coyote last year than what I did. The image would probably have been crisper at times. It comes down to WANT vs NEED, so it is great there are options.

Now if you are having accuracy issues, or positive id issues, or dependability issues, etc then my comments change. There is nothing worse than a thermal or any aiming device you can not depend on.

Double up, nice job on the comparison video. I could make a strong case for the image on your XQ50 actually showed more detail. It definitely did on the heat differences of the coyote. In fairness, it appears your hunting partner has his contrast settings too high.

Eventually even higher res thermals like 1280x960 thermals will be available. It doesn't mean they will be better. The images will probably be crisper and sharper but it doesn't mean people will kill more coyotes with them, especially if it changes the mag, fov, etc to something that doesn't work as well. Great discussion everyone.
 
I agree Kirsch, my hunting buddy was fairly new to his Thermion XP50 when that video was shot, and I agree his brightness level was too high. In the second video which he did about two weeks later, he still has it set too high in my opinion, but everyone is not looking for the same thing.
 
Originally Posted By: DoubleUpI have to agree with old cat on FOV, and I think Kirsch has indicated as much in his past choice of thermal riflescope. I just don't see the issue unless you are hunting in areas where shots are 100 yds. and under. Unlike ordinary scopes or NV scopes, when using thermal you are most likely going from a thermal scanner to finding the target with the thermal riflescope. First you already know the direction to look and second the thermal makes the target just jump out at you so it is easy to pick it up.

My hunting partner is shooting the Thermion XP50 and while it is a nice scope with a good picture, he has yet to shoot a coyote with it on native mag of 2x. Every time he goes to 4x or even 8x for the shot which completely loses the advantage of the FOV and blurs the image as all digital zoom does. For some unknown reason he doesn't use the PIP on this scope, but it on his older Trail XQ50.

Bottom line, if you're going to zoom to shoot anyway, then I just don't see the advantage of the 640 core at 2x zoomed to 4x over a 384 core at 3.5x native. I'm shooting an old Apex XQ50, with 2.8x native and I don't believe the Thermion XP50 would allow me to kill one more coyote than I can kill with what I have. Here is just a short comparison video between the two scopes on a coyote kill.



And here is a video where my partner goes from 2x native to 4x digital for the shot. Still very good obviously but would it be better than a Thermion XQ50 at 3.5 native?




Double up, I find it strange that your friends XP50 Thermion is not clear at 4x zoom...I have the Thermion XP50 and do not see any degradation in image at 4x...at 4.8x it seems to start getting just barely "fuzzy". I assume that your friend does know that you need to adjust the front end of the scope(as well as the ocular end for focus) just like the adjustable Objectives on normal riflescopes? This clears up the image. I have even ran mine to 8x before it really gets extremely pixalated, but can still see object well enough to kill it.
I have one video from my Thermion...it is on 3.4x and clear as a bell.
We have had some slip in on us undetected and also have hunted some tight cover where the lower base mag has been an attribute, so I look at it as the best of both worlds and the PIP makes it even better.
I will say it again...I have been blown away with the clarity of the Thermion at higher magnification. I shot my first coyote with the Thermion on 8x at 414 yards...while it was "very" pixelated, I could still make out coyote well enough to see its ears and such. The "adjustable objective " adjustment makes a lot of difference and should be adjusted periodically to meet the conditions. At least this is what I have found.
 
G Anderson, humidity is often the difference.

I also agree the pulsar XP series is more versatile because it can do close work as well as longer range work. If a person is not going to use a scanner, and use the scope for scanning, then I would say it’s almost an absolute requirement. However, I’ve said in lots of previous posts that I believe some type of non-gun thermal scanner is one of the most important things you can have for coyote hunting.

Keep in mind opinions are like personalities, everyone has one.
 
GA, yes he has had two Trail XQ50's previously and understands that the Objective and the Ocular can both be focused. Perhaps he got another "not as good" scope. I don't know. All I can do is show what his video shows. As stated he was just getting used to the new Thermion. A few months down the road may make a great difference. I never look through his scope because he has to adjust his ocular so much different than what my eyes see that I don't want to foul up his settings. Everybody is different that's for sure. My buddy with the Trail models always wanted his PIP at 10.8 which I thought was useless, but that's what he liked. On the Thermion he doesn't seem inclined to even use the PIP but rather just punch up the zoom for his shot.

I'm sure we will have more videos where we're both on the same coyote over the coming season, and that will be a good indicator of the progression of his adjustments on the Thermion. I'm not intending to knock the Thermion XP50. If it sounded like I was then my apology, but rather just to state that FOV with thermal isn't as important "to me" (within reason of course) and if someone is going to zoom to 4x with the Thermion XP they probably won't get any better picture than a Thermion XQ50 at 3.5x when they finally become available. Although we are on the extreme east coast, we don't hunt many places where we don't have several hundred yards of open space so that's one reason why FOV isn't as critical to me. Up in SW VA where 6mm06 has to hunt, FOV is everything because most of his shots are close range. There will be places like that all over the country especially in the East so for those hunters FOV is critical.
 
My field of view on my hogster 35 gives me a larger field of view then my red scanning light does..For us who used red scan lights I would say that a higher mag thermal would not be an issue really..I think my hogster35 makes a nice scanner and will do fine for rifle mount also. But still like to have a bit more power. Dan
 
Originally Posted By: KirschG Anderson, humidity is often the difference.

I also agree the pulsar XP series is more versatile because it can do close work as well as longer range work. If a person is not going to use a scanner, and use the scope for scanning, then I would say it’s almost an absolute requirement. However, I’ve said in lots of previous posts that I believe some type of non-gun thermal scanner is one of the most important things you can have for coyote hunting.

Keep in mind opinions are like personalities, everyone has one.

Yes, the humidity plays a big part in image. I have found that from one field to the next I may have to adjust my scope for the difference in conditions...some ground is plowed, some is bean stubble and some is corn stalks...all 3 have different temp/humidity conditions on the same night and change as the night goes on. I am constantly adjust my scope it seems for every new setup we do. I also run the image boost on my Thermion and believe it helps too.
 
Originally Posted By: DoubleUpGA, yes he has had two Trail XQ50's previously and understands that the Objective and the Ocular can both be focused. Perhaps he got another "not as good" scope. I don't know. All I can do is show what his video shows. As stated he was just getting used to the new Thermion. A few months down the road may make a great difference. I never look through his scope because he has to adjust his ocular so much different than what my eyes see that I don't want to foul up his settings. Everybody is different that's for sure. My buddy with the Trail models always wanted his PIP at 10.8 which I thought was useless, but that's what he liked. On the Thermion he doesn't seem inclined to even use the PIP but rather just punch up the zoom for his shot.

I'm sure we will have more videos where we're both on the same coyote over the coming season, and that will be a good indicator of the progression of his adjustments on the Thermion. I'm not intending to knock the Thermion XP50. If it sounded like I was then my apology, but rather just to state that FOV with thermal isn't as important "to me" (within reason of course) and if someone is going to zoom to 4x with the Thermion XP they probably won't get any better picture than a Thermion XQ50 at 3.5x when they finally become available. Although we are on the extreme east coast, we don't hunt many places where we don't have several hundred yards of open space so that's one reason why FOV isn't as critical to me. Up in SW VA where 6mm06 has to hunt, FOV is everything because most of his shots are close range. There will be places like that all over the country especially in the East so for those hunters FOV is critical.


Doubleup, no I did not take offense to anything...just wondered since the scope was new to your friend if he knew to adjust the "bell" end of the scope as well...the Trails have the dial on top for this adjustment but the thermion is just like a conventional rifle scope on the front adjustment...and it really takes a lot to turn it...mine is stiff as all heck. One other thing, I run my image boost all the time and this really helps the image quality as well.
 
Dozerxj's first xp 50 thermion had a lesser quality image. Shortly after he got it the screen ended up with a bunch of white pixels so at the end of season he sent it in. I've not looked through his replacement but he says it is way clearer.

I always shoot on 12.8x in the pip and can't stand to drop down in power. The big fov at base mag on the main screen allows me to keep track of everything. I can't image why anyone would not use the pip. We kill about 15 % of out coyotes running after one is killed or missed. Big fov at base mag really helps on those.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: DoubleUp Up in SW VA where 6mm06 has to hunt, FOV is everything because most of his shots are close range. There will be places like that all over the country especially in the East so for those hunters FOV is critical.
Yep, definitely. I have an Apex XQ38 that has a base 2.2x, and that is too much in many places here. That's why I have been considering the Hogster R25. Where a guy hunts (terrain) makes all the difference.
 
Couple questions for anyone in regards to this:

1. I was under the impression the XQ models did not have the new 40 whatever sensor. Am I mistaken?

2. With a Pulsar PIP mode the smaller screen with higher mag is still a "zoomed" image and not a higher base mag correct?

Thanks in advance to anyone for clearing it up for me.
 
Back
Top