Thread: Thermal knowledge?

Good morning all,
I currently run a Pulsar Apex XD38 on a 22 for Rabbit control, it has performed faultless for me.
Sometimes need the pests to hop or move head for definite ID before hitting them.
Have the images gotten a lot better defined in later scopes? What model in the Pulsar line would be considered an upgrade, get a lot of mixed messages at gun shop. Not shooting beyond 100 m just looking for greater definition of target.
Thanks for any help.
Robbie

The newer Pulsar Trail XP line is what you want. (not the XQ). The XP has a much higher resolution sensor, which makes a world of difference for resolution and detail.

I've done a fair bit of rabbit shooting with both the older XD50 and the newer XP50, and the increase in definition with the new one is massive. Still get a rare "I can't ID that" but it's pretty well restricted to partial obstruction, behind a bush etc. Overall detail and crispness is a huge step up. Last week I could clearly see that a rabbit only had one ear, before I shot it.

However, it's still a significant investment, so I would suggest contacting the distributor (Yukon optics) directly and asking if a demo unit is available. Especially as an existing owner, I'm sure they'll do their best to line something up for you.

Originally Posted by StrikerNZ

The newer Pulsar Trail XP line is what you want. (not the XQ). The XP has a much higher resolution sensor, which makes a world of difference for resolution and detail.

I've done a fair bit of rabbit shooting with both the older XD50 and the newer XP50, and the increase in definition with the new one is massive. Still get a rare "I can't ID that" but it's pretty well restricted to partial obstruction, behind a bush etc. Overall detail and crispness is a huge step up. Last week I could clearly see that a rabbit only had one ear, before I shot it.

However, it's still a significant investment, so I would suggest contacting the distributor (Yukon optics) directly and asking if a demo unit is available. Especially as an existing owner, I'm sure they'll do their best to line something up for you.

I'm sure we could sort something for you. Where are you?

If only headoffice would introduce a XP75...........

Hi there,
In Rangiora, sent you an email last week before posting here.

Thanks
Robbie

@faregame

The 2 main factors you should look at are the thermal cores resolution - generally these days its .17u (thats the spacing between pixels, lower is better, means more pixels per square inch) older/cheaper models are generally .25u and the new standard is .12 (each step is around 30% better which is a lot) and the lens length which is your optical magnification

The size of the core/lens will effect the overall Field of view and number of pixels on the target as well; Others are factors like lens quality (f/1 is ideal etc) core quality, image processing, sensitivity etc

that pulsar unit is a 38mm lens (f1.2) with a .17 core - So to get the improvements you are after you may need to look at something with a longer lens to get the magnification you need for a more defined image

Originally Posted by faregame

The 2 main factors you should look at are the thermal cores resolution - generally these days its .17u (thats the spacing between pixels, lower is better, means more pixels per square inch) older/cheaper models are generally .25u and the new standard is .12 (each step is around 30% better which is a lot) and the lens length which is your optical magnification

The size of the core/lens will effect the overall Field of view and number of pixels on the target as well; Others are factors like lens quality (f/1 is ideal etc) core quality, image processing, sensitivity etc

that pulsar unit is a 38mm lens (f1.2) with a .17 core - So to get the improvements you are after you may need to look at something with a longer lens to get the magnification you need for a more defined image

Let's now see if you are knowledgeable enough to explain the disadvantages of a small pixel size. Go on, impress me!

My guesses would be higher power consumption, possibly a slower refresh rate, heavier as well. I dont own one but am in awe of Striker NZs wallaby video. Ive spot lighted them but a thermal is in a league of its own. If only you could rent them, the annual wallaby walloping trip would be something else.

Smaller pixels = less photons hitting the pixel. So pixels generally get smaller only as we cam make more sensitive sensors. Well that would be my guess anyway. Basically no replacement for displacement but for cameras, medium format and large format are still the kings of quality

Originally Posted by Marty Henry

My guesses would be higher power consumption, possibly a slower refresh rate, heavier as well. I dont own one but am in awe of Striker NZs wallaby video. Ive spot lighted them but a thermal is in a league of its own. If only you could rent them, the annual wallaby walloping trip would be something else.

Yes, but not the main disadvantage, good try though.

Originally Posted by Guypie

Smaller pixels = less photons hitting the pixel. So pixels generally get smaller only as we cam make more sensitive sensors. Well that would be my guess anyway. Basically no replacement for displacement but for cameras, medium format and large format are still the kings of quality

You are pretty much bang-on regarding photons hitting pixels. The comparison to different sized formats is very valid, but for another reason. But there is a little more to it to tie the two together. I'm sure Faregame will get this as he is the 'expert'....

Well that’s just weird

Care just to say what you mean rather than that sort of comment

XD75
Eats all the latest XP Trials – had an XD50 before and amazing how much superior the XD75 is !!
Aperture – I presume

Originally Posted by faregame

Well that’s just weird

Care just to say what you mean rather than that sort of comment

Agree with you faregame....sounded like he was trying to turn into some sort of pissing contest...🤨🤨


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Yukon

Let's now see if you are knowledgeable enough to explain the disadvantages of a small pixel size. Go on, impress me!

This post is probably the worst advertising you have ever done.