New Pulsar Thermion version 2 (NETD<25mK)

Ernest49

Member
I am attaching the link of the Pulsar American website. As was to be expected, after the market launch of the PRO observation versions, Pulsar put the Thermion version 2 on sale. Thermion 2 XP50 (NETD
 
Last edited:
In Italy the selling price of the new Pulsar Thermion 2 XP50 will be the same as that of the Thermion XP50. I think that the same price will be maintained in the US too, which will be close to 5K.
I copy here what I read on Instagram:

"In addition to the NETD
 
Last edited:
Prices will be the same as the original Thermions. We are accepting orders for the new Thermion 2 now. Call us for a quote and estimated lead times. Thanks!

Originally Posted By: G AndersonErnest, any idea on what the price is going to be on this? What actual advantages will a person actually be able to "see" with the
 
Originally Posted By: NGI_TOMPrices will be the same as the original Thermions. We are accepting orders for the new Thermion 2 now. Call us for a quote and estimated lead times. Thanks!

Originally Posted By: G AndersonErnest, any idea on what the price is going to be on this? What actual advantages will a person actually be able to "see" with the
 
Tom doesn't check PM posts that often as he has me answer most of the questions. However, I don't have lead time information. As per his post, he said to call if you would like pricing and estimated lead times. 909-312-5424 X531
 
Today, while reading in detail the characteristics of the new Pulsar Thermion 2, I made a thought of an economic and technological nature. Here in Italy many night hunters are angry with Pulsar. Every year (sometimes even every 6 months) a novelty comes out. It seems to be in front of Apple's annual show, when it launches the new smartphone or tablet or computer on the market .... I'll give you an example: who bought the Helion 2 XP50 (which has a display with only 640x480 pixels and F50/1.2 lens) saw, with considerable disappointment, the subsequent launch of the Helion 2 XQ50 (which has a 1024x768 display and a brighter F50 / 1.0 lens). Pulsar may have noticed the technological-strategic error and launched the PRO version. In this way, it made them even more angry and disorientation is created towards new possible buyers ...
Returning to the Thermion 2 series ... I thought of those who do not have the economic possibility to buy the top Thermion 2 XP50. I have seen the great features of the Thermion 2 XQ38:
1) 384x288 sensor with NETD
 
Last edited:
I still can't find a comparative video between Thermion version 1 and Thermion 2 on the internet. Maybe you guys, who are better than me at searching the web, can find it and post it here.
 
I am also curious to see how much the new changes affect the image. I get lost when you guys discuss the netd and lense specs, so I’ll wait to see a comparison. I’m sure there will be one posted somewhere shortly.
 
.... in fact you are right. In the end, the comparison between the images counts more than the description of the technical innovations. That's why I asked to post a comparative video.
For example, when I personally tried the Pulsar Helion XP50 and the later Helion 2 XP50, I didn't see a big difference. Instead from the latest comparative video between Helion 2 XP50 and the brand new Helion 2 XP50 PRO, the difference is truly remarkable and surprising.
 
Last edited:
If there is any of you guys, who is passionate and expert in photography, can you teach me that an F50/1.0 lens makes a big difference compared to F50/1.2 ....
 
Ernest, I am not a photography guy. I have done enough research to believe I have a handle on how it works and how it relates to thermal tech.

50mm Objective size with f/1.0 lens = 50mm focal length
50mm Objective size with a f/1.2 lens = 60mm focal length
42mm Objective size with a f/1.2 lens = 50mm focal length

The first and third example have the same ending focal length. However the 3rd example needed a smaller objective size (less Germanium needed for a thermal scope) to get to the same amount of magnification.

Most companies list the focal length because this is what determines the FOV and the magnification in accordance with the micron and resolution parameters.

The higher (longer) the focal length value, the more base magnification and the smaller the FOV.

So, the basic answer to your question is the difference between a 1.0 lens and a 1.2 lens has a higher (longer) focal length (if their objective diameter is equal which translates in to less FOV and higher base magnification with all other parameters being equal.

Pulsar kind of writes their spec in an odd way, but I believe in writing it as F50/1.0 and a F50/1.2,they will both have a 50mm focal length. However, the 1.0 will have a 50mm objective and the 1.2 will have a 42mm objective.

To add to the confusion the new Thermion 2 XQ38 has a 35mm focal length and a f/1.0 rating. So, the 38 has nothing to do with 38mm as according to their specs it has a 35mm objective size and a 35mm focal length, but they call it an XQ38.
 
... in fact, the example number 3 corresponds to the Pulsar Thermion version 1 lens: focal length 50 mm; size f/1.2; diameter of the entrance pupil 42 mm. Instead, example number 1 corresponds to the new lens of the Thermion 2 XP50 and Thermion 2 XQ50: focal length 50 mm; size f/1.0; diameter of the entrance pupil 50 mm. Since the focal length is the same .... the difference in the diameter of the entrance pupil determines a theoretical larger surface through which the thermal - light signal enters. Doing a quick calculation, the surface increase is approximately 42%. This results in a significant increase in brightness and thermal information captured by the lens. In this article, there is a comparative still image between Thermion XP50 and Thermion 2 XP50. (Unfortunately with the smartphone I cannot translate it into English ...). The difference is truly remarkable and surprising.

https://www.all4shooters.com/it/caccia/o...isione-termica/

I have read that, with the same focal length of 50 mm, the lens with f / 1.0 is certainly brighter than f / 1.2, but it determines a smaller depth of field and a consequent greater difficulty in focusing on the target. In simple terms .... if you have 2 coyotes approaching, one far and one near, you may be able perfectly to focus on the closest one, but at the same time not see the farthest one well or vice versa.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top