Printable View
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.
I'm sure we could sort something for you. Where are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by StrikerNZ
If only headoffice would introduce a XP75........... :drool:
Hi there,
In Rangiora, sent you an email last week before posting here.
Thanks
Robbie
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by faregame
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
Yes, but not the main disadvantage, good try though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Henry
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'....Quote:
Originally Posted by Guypie
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
Agree with you faregame....sounded like he was trying to turn into some sort of pissing contest...🤨🤨Quote:
Originally Posted by faregame
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This post is probably the worst advertising you have ever done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon
It's not advertising, but a response to a comment which is rather biased, especially when given by someone who claims to be an expert.
Although the 30% smaller pixel may be an advantage for resolution under the right circumstances, those being an increase in overall format size, it is also a disadvantage.
Firstly, it is true that when the pixel size is reduced, so is the amount of light, (light, heat, electromagnetic radiation, call it what you like) that falls upon each pixel is reduced by the same ratio. Therefore, though a 30% gain in resolution is achieved, so is a 30% reduction in sensitivity, and therefore for any given lens aperture, the NETD will be increased accordingly. The NETD by the way is one of the critical benchmarks for any thermal IR system. Higher the NETD, the less capable is the unit for detecting the slight differences between objects of similar heat.
Secondly, because the pixels are so much smaller, the overall size of the sensor is also smaller. This means that the magnification increases at the expense of filed-of-view. A small sensor means that a smaller proportion of the lens is used to form the image, and therefore, clarity (resolving power) is compromised. Further more, smaller sensors require shorter focal length lenses to form a usable image.
I remember when I first used large format cameras, the older ones actually had bubbles in the lenses, and yet, the image quality was breathtaking. A 640x480 sensor will piss all over a smaller sensor, regardless of pixel pitch. I know this, because I've seen for myself.
I think it would be really helpful, if we didn't confuse our potential customers with halve-truths, but let them get unbiased opinions. I therefore think it would be really good if Owl Optics and ourselves lend some equipment to forum members so that they can see, try, and form opinions based upon experience.
How about it?
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with this statement. I have used both against wallabies in pretty much similar conditions, in the same location, same range etc, so I will be able to review the video that I took.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarvo
I remember that the XD75 was difficult to pick up animals quickly, which was made worse because I forgot to pack my hand-held Quantum thermal for spotting, but with the XP50, I didn't need a spotter, I just picked them up and smack them. The XD has 25µ pixels and a beautiful lens, so I would't be surprised if absolute distance performance was better. The XP50 killed it for ease of use though. I dropped those hoppers like stones, once I had tightened up my suppressor, but that's another story.
All our pro pest controllers seem to be doing well with the XP.
I think it would be really helpful, if we didn't confuse our potential customers with halve-truths, but let them get unbiased opinions. I therefore think it would be really good if Owl Optics and ourselves lend some equipment to forum members so that they can see, try, and form opinions based upon experience.
How about it?[/QUOTE]
That’s a big call to make, considering the issues your having with some of your products at the moment Yukon
Excellent suggestion, if it goes ahead Can you put me on the list!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon
Pretty much sums it up ...Quote:
Originally Posted by tiroatedson
Anyway - NETD for a FLIR Boson (.12u core) 40-60mk depending on the model, but typically its 50mk - NETD on a Tau2 (.17 core) 50mk - so oddly enough as technology improves you can have more resolution and retain the same sensitivity levels
Actually if anything reduces it the f1.2 lens will reduce the sensitivity a lot vs a f1
Lenses are normally matched vs the camera to the distance/FOV you want to see 320 or 640 models are available as well - so designers can select to what objectives they are looking for
In the past 320's used to mean .25 pixel pitch and 640 used be .17 - so larger imagers and more resolution, these days there are more options
Leaving the lenses aside the raw resolution of the pixels is better - so overall you will see more pixels per square inch which translates into better resolution apples for apples
That’s a big call to make, considering the issues your having with some of your products at the moment Yukon[/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat ninja
And what issues are you talking about?
PM meQuote:
Originally Posted by Marty Henry
The issues with the fn 135’s
So, we have demonstration models of all our systems because we believe that people need to be sure that they are buying wisely, and I back up my gear with confidence. Come on Faregame, let's see you back up your gear by submitting systems to test by independent forum members.
Once again wanting a pissing contest. Perhaps you should concentrate more on your business and care less about someone else's. It really isn't a good look.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon
Oh Fat Ninja, you are kidding me surely? I made the call to halt sales due to a minor issue with menu until a software update is released. This issue doesn't even affect performance, but I had the scruples to halt sales anyway. FN135 sales make up around 2% of our sales. So, I do stand by our products, or I wouldn't be selling them. Were you after a FN135? If so, sorry, but I would rather make you wait than sell you a substandard product. PM me if you need more info.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat ninja
Maybe you are right, or maybe you are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shearer
Members, would you be interested in comparisons between different brands of thermals. Please answer constructively.
A comparison like the rod and rifle suppressor test?
Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk
True, I am sure a lot would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon
But maybe it's just me, I find the goading of a business competitor on a public forum a bit distasteful.
I hope that was constructive.
That was constructive, and point taken. However, it's not the first time that Faregame has extolled the virtues of his 12 micron system on this forum, all I'm saying is prove it. It's a bit like Ford challenging Holden to a race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shearer
Nice analogy. Which one are you? Ford or Holden?
Shearer sums it up - you go ahead and make statements about half truths when in actual fact you were totally wrong yourself and then just ignore it - as for you offer not interested in being around people like that thanks
If anyone wants to talk to me they can, happy to help - a lot of members are clients of mine as well
If you go and read my original post - the answer was around having something with a longer lens to achieve the result with a bit of background knowledge added in to help; out of my 800 posts or so very few mention anything that I do, mostly I'm just here because I like the place
FLIR, BAE have .12s, there is even .10s with others - does pulsar, guess not - will they - maybe - they buy their cores in rather than make them so it will be up to their supplier and pricing - but its a trend with most things, fairly typically really newer technology comes along all the time
Shit man, this has turned in to thermal warfare.
I don’t even know who ‘faregame’ is....as for Yukon ...we’ll that’s a bit of a give away
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk