Night vision equipment for mortals (1 Viewer)

[opisska]

What do you mean by no focus capability? The AGM 15-384 has manual focus according to specifications, so you are asking for automatic focus? That you definitely do NOT want.

 

[Bill Atwood]

Do you mean it has no focus ability at all? Or it just isn't as detailed as you'd like? I've only tested the AGM TM10-256, and I don't recall having any issues with focusing.

The AGM 15-384 has no focus adjusting ability vs the other AGM Taipans/Seekers and Sidewinders. Some YT channels mention it as a negative, but don't go into details.

I've noticed you discuss the importance of a wide FOV, but you seem to be moving to units with lower NETD and greater resolution. Seduced by the better image quality?

 

[Bill Atwood]

What do you mean by no focus capability? The AGM 15-384 has manual focus according to specifications, so you are asking for automatic focus? That you definitely do NOT want.

It doesn't have the focus ring that the larger objective models have.

 

[nmerc_photos]

The AGM 15-384 has no focus adjusting ability vs the other AGM Taipans/Seekers and Sidewinders. Some YT channels mention it as a negative, but don't go into details.

I've noticed you discuss the importance of a wide FOV, but you seem to be moving to units with lower NETD and greater resolution. Seduced by the better image quality?

Mainly I'm just getting lazy and want more convenience. When I traveled to Yellowstone/Tetons recently I had a variety of different camera and drone batteries, and carrying 2 Helion thermals with extra batteries and proprietary chargers was an annoyance. More weight, items to keep track of, and opportunity to lose or forget something.

I'm slowly (or maybe rapidly) moving so that all my gear is USB-C charging capable. One chord and done.

That being said, Pulsar is my favorite brand and I know what I get in terms of quality, so I'll take their widest FOV (XL50) over "risking" it with a lesser known brand.

IF (and it's a big if) the FOV of the XL50 is wide enough for me, then I think I will appreciate the 8 year newer tech in terms of lower NETD and greater resolution.

All else being equal, I stand by the idea that wide FOV is the most important when scanning for wildlife in terms of successfully detecting it, especially in tight quarters. But in my case, I don't use the thermal too much anyways, and am willing to give a little on effectiveness in order to gain simplicity.

 

[Bill Atwood]

Some additional models for the spec sheet:

Pulsar	Axion XG30 Compact	$2,200	30	1.2	2	14.6	9.2	12	640	480	640	480	40	1300
Pulsar	Axion XG35 Compact	$2,500	35	1.0	2.5	12.5	7.8	12	640	480	640	480	40	1750
PARD	TA62-25	$2,600	25	?	1.6	17.5	13.1	12	640	480	1024	768	25	1200
PixFra	ARC 613	£1,370	13	1.0	0.875	32.3	25.8	12	640	512	1440	1080	30	670

 

[wllmspd]

…. Beginning to look like I might need to “upgrade” to a 640 unit at some point…

Peter

 

[Peter.home]

All else being equal, I stand by the idea that wide FOV is the most important when scanning for wildlife in terms of successfully detecting it, especially in tight quarters.

I don't think it is that important. I tend to be looking at fairly static animals at night, prior to shining a torch on them to identify if necessary. fov is most useful in keeping a fast moving subject in the frame. If something is fast moving it would be lost between thermal and torch.

I hold my thermal in "portrait", and a zig zag of sweeps, maybe 4 scans max would cover an entire area including trees. I don't know how much the fov has improved since my model (axiom key), but I suspect it still needs multiple sweeps to cover the area. Plus a significant wider fov would mean I'd have to stop the sweep every time to look around the view, instead of a smooth quick sweep! If that makes sense.
It seems weird me writing this, but it's how I use mine, to detect only.

I think the distance it can detect animals could maybe be improved, but again, if you are detecting a small mammal at 500m you aren't going to be able to identify it anyway.

The one thing I do find frustrating is scanning treetops in a cold sky. And the whole tree is showing as hot. That needs to be improved somehow, maybe by manually tuning the calibration.

 

[nmerc_photos]

I don't think it is that important. I tend to be looking at fairly static animals at night, prior to shining a torch on them to identify if necessary. fov is most useful in keeping a fast moving subject in the frame. If something is fast moving it would be lost between thermal and torch.

I hold my thermal in "portrait", and a zig zag of sweeps, maybe 4 scans max would cover an entire area including trees. I don't know how much the fov has improved since my model (axiom key), but I suspect it still needs multiple sweeps to cover the area. Plus a significant wider fov would mean I'd have to stop the sweep every time to look around the view, instead of a smooth quick sweep! If that makes sense.
It seems weird me writing this, but it's how I use mine, to detect only.

I think the distance it can detect animals could maybe be improved, but again, if you are detecting a small mammal at 500m you aren't going to be able to identify it anyway.

The one thing I do find frustrating is scanning treetops in a cold sky. And the whole tree is showing as hot. That needs to be improved somehow, maybe by manually tuning the calibration.

I'm trying to understand what you're saying, and also make a comparison that will make sense for FOV lol. I am also generally looking for static subjects, not chasing moving ones.

Best way I can describe it is that a wide FOV allows you to cover more ground in less time, and see more at once.

If you put it in portrait and are having to zig zag and make 4 scans, a thermal with wider FOV could do it in 1-2 scans. Saves time, gives higher odds of locating subjects, and saves neck/body fatigue in general.

Sitting in front of your PC, close one of your eyes. That's a narrow FOV thermal. Then open that eye in addition to the other eye. That's a wide FOV thermal. Notice how much more of the world you can see in your periphery?

I don't understand what you mean by "a wider FOV would mean I'd have to stop the sweep every time to look around the view, instead of a smooth quick sweep".

in this first pic, we'll use the horizontal FOV for the (from best to worst) the Pulsar Helion XP28, Telos XL50, Telos XP50, and an Axion Key XM22 (is this the model you have?) see how much of an advantage the XP28 has?



and then here's a real world comparison between theTelos XP50 (left) and Helion XP28 (right)



whether you shoot portrait or landscape, static or moving subjects - the wide FOV should result in much better and quicker detection

 

[Peter.home]

What I mean is, if you look at your pic with the bright subject over to the right.
If you look at the centre of the pic at the trunk. You're aware of a bright object to the right, but you have to move your eye to look at it, to determine if it's an animal or streetlight whatever.
Similarly, the boxes with the field of views.. I stare at my key, narrow view , and pretty much everything I can see I can study, if there is a number written in the top left of the wider fov, I have to shift my gaze to see what it is.
This is my eyesight, others may have some extra width I don't know.

So if I'm just sweeping a landscape left to right, anything I find is identified within my focussed zone, and I move on.
If the fov was 4x times as much, I'm seeing more, but it doesn't necessarily help me if it is outside my focussed view.

Now there are numerous examples where a bigger field of view is a huge advantage, but not for me finding static animals, I don't think.

 

[nmerc_photos]

What I mean is, if you look at your pic with the bright subject over to the right.
If you look at the centre of the pic at the trunk. You're aware of a bright object to the right, but you have to move your eye to look at it, to determine if it's an animal or streetlight whatever.
Similarly, the boxes with the field of views.. I stare at my key, narrow view , and pretty much everything I can see I can study, if there is a number written in the top left of the wider fov, I have to shift my gaze to see what it is.
This is my eyesight, others may have some extra width I don't know.

So if I'm just sweeping a landscape left to right, anything I find is identified within my focussed zone, and I move on.
If the fov was 4x times as much, I'm seeing more, but it doesn't necessarily help me if it is outside my focussed view.

Now there are numerous examples where a bigger field of view is a huge advantage, but not for me finding static animals, I don't think.

Ah I understand you now.

I'm going to have to do a poll of friends and family to see how everyone does it haha. I never considered what you're describing.

Basically you prefer to scan with your whole body/neck instead of mainly scanning with your eyes inside the thermal.

The way I use it, is I'm basically looking for any heat source anywhere in the frame, and I am able to process the entire frame (what feels like) instantaneously. So for example if the heated bird bath was in the corner of the frame - I would see it immediately, whereas you would have to physically move your thermal up and over to the left to be able to see it:

 

[Peter.home]

Ah I understand you now.

I'm going to have to do a poll of friends and family to see how everyone does it haha. I never considered what you're describing.

Basically you prefer to scan with your whole body/neck instead of mainly scanning with your eyes inside the thermal.

The way I use it, is I'm basically looking for any heat source anywhere in the frame, and I am able to process the entire frame (what feels like) instantaneously. So for example if the heated bird bath was in the corner of the frame - I would see it immediately, whereas you would have to physically move your thermal up and over to the left to be able to see it:

View attachment 1616479
View attachment 1616481

Yes, I'd rely on a (Smooth) sweep of the area left to right, back a bit higher up, then a third in tree tops if necessary/possible. Pausing when something is found.
Then switching to binoculars in day, or a torch at night. If I wanted extended observation, watching animal behaviour, looking for bat roosts, etc. then the bigger FOV and better resolution would be really beneficial.

 

[jurek]

I don't think it is that important. I tend to be looking at fairly static animals at night, prior to shining a torch on them to identify if necessary. fov is most useful in keeping a fast moving subject in the frame. If something is fast moving it would be lost between thermal and torch.

I hold my thermal in "portrait", and a zig zag of sweeps, maybe 4 scans max would cover an entire area including trees. I don't know how much the fov has improved since my model (axiom key), but I suspect it still needs multiple sweeps to cover the area. Plus a significant wider fov would mean I'd have to stop the sweep every time to look around the view, instead of a smooth quick sweep! If that makes sense.
It seems weird me writing this, but it's how I use mine, to detect only.

I think the distance it can detect animals could maybe be improved, but again, if you are detecting a small mammal at 500m you aren't going to be able to identify it anyway.

The one thing I do find frustrating is scanning treetops in a cold sky. And the whole tree is showing as hot. That needs to be improved somehow, maybe by manually tuning the calibration.

Field of view for me is the most important characteristics determining the usefulness of a night vision equipment. It allows faster and easier sweeping the area, and also making sure that no place is missed. You are less tired, so can look for wildlife longer, and have more time to rest for your eyes and your brain.

In practice, even large and slow moving animals like Roe Deer are often obscured by vegetation and layout of the ground (which IR does not penetrate). To find them one needs to sweep the area several times, when walking you stop again and again, look in the same places again, also look backwards.

Interesting thing is hat wildlife, for example these Roe Deer but also many other animals, like to rest hidden at night, for example between several trees, or against a tree trunk, so are visible in the IR only from one point.

 

[tenex]

I think they are the best overall brand. However, my use case is often very dense wooded areas - and using most of their small FOV thermals is a pain in the butt. That's why I'm still using their Helion XP28 which is decade(s?) old technology, instead of something more modern.

I've wondered about this myself. Why do more recent models have more limited FOV? Has there been demand for higher resolution instead?

 

[Peter.home]

I've wondered about this myself. Why do more recent models have more limited FOV? Has there been demand for higher resolution instead?

I know I'm saying above that the fov doesn't really matter to my usage, but I do appreciate that for many nature applications it is one of the key factors.
Are the newer models being designed more with hunting in mind?
It is unusual for the technology to take a backwards step. Particularly when the wide fov model ( xp28?) is such a massive improvement on all the others.

 

[nmerc_photos]

I've wondered about this myself. Why do more recent models have more limited FOV? Has there been demand for higher resolution instead?

I talked to some Pulsar reps about this, and it's because of the target audience - hunters.

The main people buying thermals are hunting boars, coyotes, and foxes. They're often shooting from quite a range, so they prefer a narrow FOV with further detection and (potential) ID ability.

I'm sure the resolution doesn't hurt as well. But I suspect if the demand was more birder oriented, the market would react and create wider FOV thermals that still have the same or better resolution.

I know I'm saying above that the fov doesn't really matter to my usage, but I do appreciate that for many nature applications it is one of the key factors.
Are the newer models being designed more with hunting in mind?
It is unusual for the technology to take a backwards step. Particularly when the wide fov model ( xp28?) is such a massive improvement on all the others.

See above

 

[Vollmeise]

I talked to some Pulsar reps about this, and it's because of the target audience - hunters.

The main people buying thermals are hunting boars, coyotes, and foxes. They're often shooting from quite a range, so they prefer a narrow FOV with further detection and (potential) ID ability.

I'm sure the resolution doesn't hurt as well. But I suspect if the demand was more birder oriented, the market would react and create wider FOV thermals that still have the same or better resolution.



See above

Well, fortunately, development does not stand still in this area either.

You can buy modern thermals with a wide field of view and even interchangeable lenses (Zeiss DTI 6, 640x480 px @ 12µ with 20mm or 40mm lens). FOV Zeiss DTI 6/20: 38m@100m, FOV XP28: 39m @100m.

Or choose a wide field thermal bino like the Pulsar Merger XP35 (FOV horizontal: 31,3m@100m / Res 640x480px / 25mK NETD) or wide field plus high res Pulsar Merger XT50 (FOV horizontal: 30,7m@100m / Res 1280x1024px / 40mK NETD)

Loving my XP50 with 28mm lens, which I do use since seven years now (guess I was one of the very firsts using a thermal for birding), scanning with one eye for hours is not what can be called convenient at all.

This is why I ordered a thermal bino lately to use it aside my Pulsar XP. And guess what has been left at home since then...

Cheers, Vollmeise)

 

[Ignatius]

Which Merger did you get?

 

[Vollmeise]

I chose the Merger XP35. Slightly better NETD than XT50, same FOV, enough details for my needs and almost half the price.

When used in the mountains or predominantly over long distances, the XT50 would be the better choice.

 

[Ignatius]

The Merger LRF XT50s price is nuts. I'll never use it enough to get a sensible ROI, so I guess I'll keep aiming for the Telos XP50, possibly in the LRF guise.

 

[BirderNL]

Consider the HikMicro Falcon series also. They offer great quality for the price you pay.