Printable View
I'm an absolute nube with this stuff but am looking to get into the market. Will need to be hand held not rifle mounted. Whats the price point below which its just crap and not worth buying. Was up Wallaby shooting last weekend and though it would be a great way to see them up in the snow grass. Any advice would be appreciated from those who have used this gear.
I wear thermals when it gets cold, well worth the investment.
Didn't take longQuote:
Originally Posted by 257weatherby
Especially handy having thermals now that you list Fairlie as your location now !
Not wrong, alarm went at 5am this morning, thought about where I was going to go, the creeks I was gonna cross, and went naah, wife's nice and warm, staying right here!Quote:
Originally Posted by akaroa1
Sorta like you need a plb and gps and etc etc to go into the bush. The NZ supplier must love the advertising this stuff about you "needing" it. My mate up the coast shot 16 stags and 2 pigs during the lock down. All bush stalking. Go figure.
@Sarvo will know.
I've compared a 4-5k unit with an 8k unit, and the latter was clearly superior with better definiton. Animals and features were more pronounced.
Whether that extra bit of performance matters, probably comes down to how efficient you want to be. But if efficiency isn't the be-all-end-all, why go for a thermal device in the first place? Unless you've just got cash to burn, it's a lot of $$ to spend on a piece of gear that will be outdated in a year or two as new models come onto the market.
How good are your binos? Apologies if you're already sorted in this area, but on the off-chance that you're not, $3-5k of thermal money could do wonders in the bino department, and they'll last a lifetime.
Bugger the early morning hunts up here,when the sun is up shining, the deer might come out.Thermo hand helds certainly help you see deer,early mornings or evenings just befor they see you.But how many deer have you gota shoot to make up the $5k cost,15 to 20 to break even depending on size.$5k =a lot of sides of beef.
Its an interesting one...we are just coming to grips with a Helion ZQ38F and I'm not yet convinced its a keeper.
Its a hell of a luxury but it seems incredible effective for finding deer in the steep scrubby country we hunt.
My worry is that it is so effective that it takes something away from the hunting. I can scan a huge amount of country quickly that would take constant glassing to pick apart.
In the right conditions, if the thermal doesn't show an animal then there is no animal there, and we seem end up with a lot of time on our hands.
I think the act of looking is a massive part of the hunting experience and why we have such unique eyesight, its not quite the some predatory experience thru the Helion (for me).
But I can tell you where the deer are in the country we haunt that's for sure.
I've had a loan of the Helion XP50 and found the same. It takes a bit of getting used to but once mastered these things are pretty awesome at defining game is some pretty shitty country. I've decided though, its not for me, as I just cant justify the expense based on the amount I hunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman
Getting to the OP's question; I find its a bit like optic's, you gotta pay the money to get the good results. Yes the XP50 is pretty much up there in terms of quality and I was advised by a person who uses this gear professionally that there's a big difference between entry and top shelf. Entry level could give you an impression that doesn't really equate to the potential of thermal vision, so see if you can try a few before you take the plunge.
I would love to have been able to try them all...my impression is that the XQ38 is pretty adequate (I said ZQ above...getting old) I was massively tempted by the new Axion 30s for convenience but got sick of waiting. The other thing that pushed me up spec was I heard that the axions are a bit harder to use with glasses, as it is I prefer to use this with my glasses off, you have to push in a little with them on to get the full picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathias
So if I understand correctly you probably need to spend around $5000 to get something that is adeqaute anything less is not worth it?
the ones I saw were approx that and they were amazing
just watching farm animals and hares boxing in the grass
same for me too much $$, Or im too poor/tight arsed
bit of both I think
I have used one......and thought it was great. Spotted a deer at night from the hut that I wouldn't have seen before..But still it didn't matter as you can't shoot it anyway!! However, the reason I don't see the point is this.........
Say you buy a model that costs $5000. Well plenty of places charge you $100 to shoot a deer on their farm. So therefore taking the money you would have spent on a Thermal device you could go and shoot 50 deer!!! That's a hell of a lot of animals and venison!! And if you spent the $5000 on the thermal you would have to shoot a hell of a lot more than 50 deer to make it viable. Plus, how many of those deer that you have shot that you had located with a thermal would you have been able to pick up with Bino's anyway???
I suspect the Axion 30s at $3600 will be well worth while...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dermastor
Most I know who are using started with cheaper units (2500-3000) and upgraded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dermastor
To say 5K buys a lot of Venison - yes true - but 40 -50 80K boats buy a a lot of fish fillets too :-)
Thermal has/is great for commercial operators like Pet food guys - but also exc for farmers policing poaching
True...But people buy a boat because they enjoy fishing at sea...so the boat is 100% necessary to do that. However you can still hunt, enjoy hunting and harvest deer without a thermal... :-) You can't fish out at sea without a boat!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarvo
I really don't give a crap about the shoud I, could I, would I, or ethics that wasn't the question. The question was how much do you have to spend to get something that's worth while. Thanks for the answers guys.
Yes, I'd say about 5k will get you started with new entry level equipment that will give you a good result. 4-5k would get you a good used upper level unit too, with added features like a 38 or 50mm lens for better FOV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dermastor
The best FOV (field of view) I have had was from a XP28 - the worst from a 50mmQuote:
Originally Posted by Mathias
FOV with these comes down to the base/start magnification not the aperture at the end.
If you want a locator that will pick up a Deer out to 1000m - but not need to count the hairs on its neck - you can pay 2500 for a top condition XQ30 V Lite or 3500 for a used XQ Helion prob a 28 or 38
New - well I would not recommend the Axion Key as I had 2 and both had issues and the viewing set up was crap
The Axion XM30 - maybe an option - but I have not tried one
PM me if you want to know of a couple that I know are for sale from contacts I have
These all shot and retrieved. He stopped hunting becasue he was getting so many.He used to be HB's top pig hunter.No fool.Quote:
Originally Posted by mimms2
You can use them for spotting Salmon in Rivers too.
*cough*
"allegedly"
*cough*
True, however if you needed to locate a wounded animal in thick scrub or were hunting in closed bush, the bigger aperture will allow you a better FOV at close range. Something to consider when purchasing, what type of hunting and terrain you will be using it on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarvo
The bigger aperture doesnt give you more fov, theres a bunch of other stuff going on. You can see that when comparing the thermion xm and xp line if you want an example of fov and aperture size.
Anyways ive got a set of accolades to sell. Xq38 is the model. Bought brand new at start of year and has probably 3 hours or less use on them at the mo. I upgraded to the xp50 so the xq is just gathering dust.
Sorry Mathias - that is not correct - inside 50m the XQ50F for example starts on 4.1x - which is very strong and bugger all FOV (the XP50F is much better at 2.5x but at a price)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathias
A XQ28F starts on 2.3x
A XP28F is the best as it starts on 1.4x
This might explain better than me
https://www.scottcountry.co.uk/news/...helion-models/
Sorry I was making reference to my own experience using an XP50 at 2.5x and the advice I got from a professional pest control worker that has both current Helion XP28 & XP50.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarvo
Sent from my SM-A530F using Tapatalk
Yes but I have had both and FOV with XP28 is amazing diff to the XP50 - in close especiallyQuote:
Originally Posted by Mathias
ie: Possums up tree etc :-)
The XP50 though would be the ultimate over all if you have a good mix of terrain like farm etc
Myself however - I dont its all close in or looking down into crap regen
Xp28 has a fov of 39 meters at 100 meters.
Xp50 has a fov of 21.8 meters at 100 meters.
Xm50 has a fov of 7.7 meters at 100 meters (thermion)
Fov is something to be considered when buying thermal.
Yes - I wish I never sold my XP28 - I also think its not in production anymoreQuote:
Originally Posted by Towely
They will be used for pest destruction on private land. Wallabies, hares, rabbits and cats. There are a lot of options out there sort of hard to work through it all.
I am not familiar with thermals but I believe it works the same way as digital cameras. That I have plenty of experience.
Width FOV is basically the reverse of optical magnification (ignoring hardware digital magnification for a minute). The number in Pulsar's model name appears to be focal length, which is one of the two things that affect FOV. The bigger this number the longer the focal length and narrower FOV / larger magnification. Vice Vesa.
The second thing that affects FOV is sensor size. For a given focal length, the larger the sensor, the wider the FOV. Pulsar dont directly state the sensor size of their products but it gives you resolution and pixel pitch. So you can get a idea of how big the sensors are relative to each other. For example XP50 is 640x480 at 17um, same with XP38. Therefore, XP38, with shorter focal length, must have wider FOV but less optical magnification compared to XP50. XQ50F has 384x288 pix. @ 17 µm, the sensor has same pixel density but few pixels therefore it is way smaller. This must mean XQ50 has narrower FOV compared to XP50. But because it is the same focal length, it does not have better optical magnification. (And because it has the same pixel density it also doesnt have better hardware digital magnification either.)
Aperture size does not affect either FOV or magnification. Aperture affects how much light is let in. The larger the aperture the more light comes in, resulting in better image. However, aperture works in cohort with focal length. It is the ratio of focal length vs aperture that affects how much light is focused/projected onto the sensor. XP50, XQ50, XP38 all have F ratio at 1.2 so they should all pass on same amount of light to the sensor plane. It should be noted that XP38's aperture is indeed smaller at 38/1.2 = 32mm, vs XP/XQ50's 42mm. It should also be noted that XQ50 has a smaller sensor to receive light compared to XP50 even though their optics were able to deliver the same amount of light. XQ50s' sensor, being about 35% the size, only receives about 35% as much light as XP50.
There is yet another thing that gets added into the equation. The new XM line uses sensor with smaller pixel size - 12um. This increases hardware digital magnification by putting more pixels on the same given area of projected optical image. But because the sensors have even less overall pixels, there is a significant sacrifice of FOV. XM's 320x240 12u sensors is about 1/8 the size of XP50's 640x480 17u. You can imagine how much FOV is cropped off.
Ideally you want a sensor that is large physically and have small pixels, thus have high resolution. If they can make the XP50 sensor go from 17um to 12um, it would end up with about twice the resolution around 960x640. As to why we dont have something like that, my guess is that: 1. the fabrication technology for large high density thermal sensor is still expensive. 2. more pixels = more circuitry = more heat = worse image.
Maybe it is the security concerns involved with thermals, thermal tech development seems to have been limited to only a few small time players. It has been quite slow compared to other similar areas where expanding size and density has been the goal. For example CPU, GPU, bayer CMOS sensor, OLED, AMOLED, etc. Just compare the image quality from your phone today to what it was 5 years ago or 10 years ago. in comparison thermal scopes seem to be stagnating. they just change around different trade-offs.
[QUOTE=Ultimitsu;1019644]I am not familiar with thermals but I believe it works the same way as digital cameras. That I have plenty of experience.
Excellent write up there
My XM50 Thermion has the new 12um
Apparently - it is better than the XP50 Thermion "over" 200m - but the XP50 eats it under 200m
I have found it acceptable even last night a Hind in the + hairs at 25m was clear and definition was exceptional (no I did not shoot as was waiting for yearling to show but it slipped by without viewing)
To use it inside 100m as a "locating" device would be hard work - but its not designed for that - its a finishing off tool - a rifle mount Scope.
Yep, great write up. Helps me understand more about the whole system and FOV relative to apeture size etc.
The hand held thermal spotter is a game changer for stalking and the one which most people use in the UK is the Pulsar XQ38f and thats both professional and amateur stalkers. I bought mine 4 years ago for night vision work/vermin control and its daylight stalking use at the time was relatively underused however I would not stalk without it and have driven 10 miles home to retrieve it when forgotten.
Buy once cry once and here a new unit will cost you £2000 but of all the stuff out there and there is an awful lot of crap the XQ38 is the one to get in terms of field of view and image quality.
There are draw backs to their use and air moisture content is one of them as is bright sunshine which give false indications ie a tree stump in full sun light but learning to read the image over time helps sort this.
I can scan a 300yards hedge in the distance in a few seconds and know there is no deer in and amongst it, with a pair of good quality binos (and you will still need them) that will take much longer. You cant see through the hedge although sometimes you can get a slight image if the hedge is thin enough. And once an animal is shot it helps enormously in terms of carcass location.
Some stalkers will not use them as they are not comfortable with the ethics and they do take some of the skill of stalking away but I suspect the OP has had this argument with himself.
Hope this helps
bryn
the point of no return with thermals..........was thinking thermal tights,point of no return is when the wedding tackle falls out...anything less than that they still good LOL.
It took him 16 to reach that point!!!!????? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by TeRei
May I ask why you are selling them? Are the 38s just not good enough definition? That would be interesting to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Towely