If the "mountain" can't go to Korey ... let's make it so that Korey can get closer to the "mountain" .... Translating the "hyperbole" .... if Sellmark doesn't give Korey a "demo" or a "forklift" to be tested .... Korey will be able to test it and compare it at least theoretically ... with the help of my little calculations ... Let's compare 3 devices in this order: Super Hogster vs Thermion 2 XP50 vs Thermion XG50, equal magnification set or native (3X) using only the technical data provided by the manufacturers. 1) Horizontal angular FOV recalculated at 3X magnification: 7.3 ° vs 8.3 ° vs 8.8 °. 2) Horizontal linear FOV at a distance of 100 yards: 12.7y vs 14.5y vs 15.4y. 3) Horizontal linear FOV at a distance of 150 yards: 19y vs 21.7y vs 23.1y. 4) Horizontal linear FOV at 200 yards: 25.3y vs 29y vs 30.8y. Finally we compare the Definition of the Image (ID measured in pixel / square yard) on the whole framed area at a distance of 100 yards (this value does not depend on the magnification, but only on the native FOV and the amount of pixels of the core): 847 vs 869 vs 1731. Now the horizontal linear image definition (HID measured in pixels / yard) 29.3 vs 29.5 vs 41.6. Finally ... the resolving power in inches / pixel (the lower the value, the greater the resolving power): 1.23 vs 1.22 vs 0.87. Unfortunately I'm not as good as Korey at writing all this in a tidy table .... but I can only give you my interpretative impression: SH and Thermion 2 XP50 substantially differ slightly and only in the field of view and versatility, (but Thermion costs 2K $ more ....). The noticeable difference at medium and long shooting distances is theoretically made by the Thermion XG50 which, at 3X, has the best FOV and double ID ... but also costs 6K $ .... And after all these numbers .. . let's go back to the initial concept ... the real difference is made by the test on the hunting fields ....
SH vs XP50 vs XG50
- Thread starter Ernest49
- Start date
Kirsch
Active member
Ernest, you are absolutely correct the difference is made in using it in an actual hunting environment. From everything I have heard from people who have used the XG, it has a good image. I haven't heard a lot of people claiming it rivals the Nvision and Trijicon image (which have a BAE core) but you do gain some of the Pulsar items such as recording and wifi. In theory, the XG should be ahead of all others due to the BAE sensor in the XG. However, many people I have talked to have said they feel the XG is on par with the newer XP lineup as far as image. On par may be OK, because as you have stated the XG with the 12 µm sensor, has a higher starting base magnification. I believe the XG will see improvements as Pulsar continues to work on the firmware around the XG sensor.
Besides the XG, I believe Pulsar is using Amorphous Silicon microbolometer sensors made by ULIS on most of their other units. This is one of the reasons Pulsar's image looks quite a bit different than many other brands typically using vanadium oxide (VOx) microbolometer arrays. I don't mean to turn this into a technical discussion, but there is a very big difference starting at the very origins of Pulsar thermals in comparison to many other brands.
However, the one thing is you are comparing 2 Pulsar 640 resolution products (at significantly higher price points) to a Bering Optics 384 resolution product. When Bering releases a 640 resolution offering, I believe it will make a better comparison. To even include a 384 resolution product in the same category is a testament to how good the Super Hogster and other Bering products are.
Pulsar is very good at the fit and polish of their products. Their products look very nice and have a lot of features and their marketing and professional touches show from documentation all the way through the product.
Bering Optics uses a VOX based sensor. Some of the Night Goggles customers who have purchased Bering products have told me they feel Bering's marketing and documentation could be improved. However, in practical usage, their image is very good, their prices are excellent, and they have proven to be very dependable. Both companies produce good products. I haven't answered your question because every situation will be different. It is like comparing two automobiles. There is only so much that can be gleaned by the specs. You have to get behind the wheel and try them. After this, it still comes down to every person's opinion on what they liked and didn't like.
Besides the XG, I believe Pulsar is using Amorphous Silicon microbolometer sensors made by ULIS on most of their other units. This is one of the reasons Pulsar's image looks quite a bit different than many other brands typically using vanadium oxide (VOx) microbolometer arrays. I don't mean to turn this into a technical discussion, but there is a very big difference starting at the very origins of Pulsar thermals in comparison to many other brands.
However, the one thing is you are comparing 2 Pulsar 640 resolution products (at significantly higher price points) to a Bering Optics 384 resolution product. When Bering releases a 640 resolution offering, I believe it will make a better comparison. To even include a 384 resolution product in the same category is a testament to how good the Super Hogster and other Bering products are.
Pulsar is very good at the fit and polish of their products. Their products look very nice and have a lot of features and their marketing and professional touches show from documentation all the way through the product.
Bering Optics uses a VOX based sensor. Some of the Night Goggles customers who have purchased Bering products have told me they feel Bering's marketing and documentation could be improved. However, in practical usage, their image is very good, their prices are excellent, and they have proven to be very dependable. Both companies produce good products. I haven't answered your question because every situation will be different. It is like comparing two automobiles. There is only so much that can be gleaned by the specs. You have to get behind the wheel and try them. After this, it still comes down to every person's opinion on what they liked and didn't like.
varminter .223
Well-known member
The new nvision x35 has recording and wifi with 2.5 base mag and I believe a 12x9 degree fov. Oh man if it had pip. Im curious how easy it is to zoom back to base mag if the 1st shot was take while zoomed. It takes 18650 rechargeable batteries too. This unit really has my attention. I've heard nvision imagine is as good or better than trijicon.
If I were an American night hunter, I would have no doubts, I would buy the SH. Obviously if I could not give up a large FOV, then I would be forced to buy the Thermion 2 XP50. If instead I wanted a larger base magnification, combined with a still fairly large FOV .... then I would wait for the SY (Super Yoter) to come out. In any case, I would wait for an update before buying the Thermion XG50 ....
varminter .223
Well-known member
What is the super Yoter?
Kirsch
Active member
Originally Posted By: varminter .223What is the super Yoter? Bering doesn't shout new products from the roof top well ahead of their releases as they do like to under-promise and over-deliver. I have had in my possession a Bering Optics 640 12 µm thermal clip-on prototype that will most likely be called the Super Yoter. There are plans for a -C (clip on) and a -R (stand alone) unit just like in the Hogster series. I don't want to get into the specs, prices, etc because it is too early but it should be a Super Hogster with a 50mm lens, a little less mag, and a better image. Otherwise it will be the same features as the Super Hogster at a higher price point. That is about all I can say at this point. Keep an eye out for a 640 Hogster called the Yoter in a Summer 2021 time period.
varminter .223
Well-known member
Hmmmmmm.....interesting....
The sensors of the SH and XG50 are with vanadium oxide, while the sensor of the XP50 is with amorphous silicon. So theoretically the thermal image should have better thermal contrast in the SH and XG50. This is confirmed by Korey's beautiful videos. The thermal contrast with the SH is truly remarkable. But if we see the videos on youtube with the XG50, there doesn't seem to be such a great thermal contrast. Then it would have been useful to see some hunting videos with the XG50 in this forum.
To complete my calculations, I am writing the last quite significant specification (always only from a theoretical point of view). The resolving power x framed area measured in square inches / pixel. (Again, the lower the value, the better the resolving power).
SH 1.53 XP50 1.49 XG50 0.75
To complete my calculations, I am writing the last quite significant specification (always only from a theoretical point of view). The resolving power x framed area measured in square inches / pixel. (Again, the lower the value, the better the resolving power).
SH 1.53 XP50 1.49 XG50 0.75
Last edited:
I have looked through both the super hogster and the xg50 and I gotta say that the image is just as good if not better with the sh. However the field of view definitely seems to be better on the xg. I don’t own either of them so my time using them was limited but that’s just my initial observations. I don’t recall what the humidity was but for some reason all the Bering optics that I have looked through seem to have really good images in high humidity. Especially compared to the thermion xq38 that I had.