I like the more field of view of the xp50. Glad I went with that unit and bought it from fox optics. Great service and shipping. Now I just need thermal scanner
This is great Travis, for those of us who have been in photography for a long time, the whole smaller sensor = greater magnification is an easier concept to grasp when looking at 12 vs 17 micron thermal sensors. I think the effort you go to and the side by side video comparions are really helpful to anyone who is trying to decide between these scopes - your video comparing the XM vs XQ vs XP being another great one. Thanks again for your effort and I hope it brings you customers through the door. Im not in the US, so I cant buy from you (and have to pay much higher prices), but your videos/reviews helped me make my choice. Thank you!
Great video Travis, I just bought the wraith from you last year, it was just stolen last week 😞 it was awsome but now that thermals are getting more affordable I might have to look into them. Thank you for the info
Although the comparison video was excellent and much appreciated, the foregoing explanation was extremely confusing and technically incorrect. It's not the lens diameter which affects magnification and field of view, it's the focal length of the lens. The ratio of focal length to lens diameter gives the relative aperture, which affects how much thermal radiation reaches the sensor and also affects the depth of field. The focal length of the objective lens in both scopes is 50mm (hence the 50 in the model name). The relative aperture of those lenses is 1.2, so the diameter of the lens is 42 mm (50/1.2) Also, it's not the lens diameter which controls the magnification. The combination of the sensor size and lens focal length are the main factors in determining magnification, but display size and ocular focal length also come into the calculation of magnification. Magnification is dependent of lens focal length and sensor size. Increasing focal length increases magnification and decreasing sensor size increases magnification. Sensor size depends on the number of pixels and the size of the pixels Both scopes have the the same focal length lens and the XG uses a sensor with almost the same number of pixels as the XP, but the pixels in the XG are smaller, so the sensor is smaller and therefore the magnification is higher. Since the magnification is higher, the field of view will be narrower. I'd also take issue with your use of the term "resolution" to compare the number of pixels in the sensor. Resolution (effectively. the smallest thing an individual pixel can see) is simply the pixel size (in microns) divided by the focal length of the lens (in mm) The result of that simple calculation is an angle in mrad and the smaller that number the more detailed the image and the longer the detection range. That simple calculation can be applied to any thermal imager (monocular or riflescope) and provide an immediate "figure of merit" with regard to the level of detail it can display and it's detection range For the XP 50 the resolution is 17/50 = 0.34mrad For the XG50 the resolution is 12/50 = 0.24mrad So the XG50 will give a more detailed image and have a longer detection range
Bruce, Thanks for the detailed information. I really appreciate your explanation. So is it possible to maintain 42mm lens diameter increase the lens magnification to 3X and still adequately "flood" the the 17 micron sensor with only a focal length shift or would that increase aperture if they didn't increasing lens diameter?
@@foxoptic5887 Forget about lens diameter, when it comes to magnification and field of view, it's focal length that matters. Both the XP50 and XG50 have objective lenses with a focal length of 50mm. The position of the sensor behind the lens is such that either sensor is fully covered by the thermal radiation coming through the lens. The magnification of a digital scope (be it night vision or thermal) depends on 4 factors. There are: Objective lens focal length(A), the diagonal size of the sensor (B), the diagonal size of the display (C) and the focal length of the ocular lens (D). The magnification (M) is given by (A/B) * (C/D) The XP50 and XG 50 have the same objective lens, display and ocular lens, the only thing different is the diagonal size of the sensor and the sensor in the XG50 is smaller (because its pixels are smaller) Looking at the (A/B) bit of the equation - making B smaller makes the magnification higher. Another example of this is comparing the XP38 with the XP50. The only difference between those scopes is the focal length of the objective lenses (38mm v 50mm) Looking at (A/B) again, A is bigger for the 50mm scope, so (A/B) is bigger and the magnification is bigger. Now compare the Helion XP50 monocular with the Thermion XP50 riflescope Both have the same objective lens, sensor and display. The Helion has a base magnification of x2.5 but the Thermion only has a base magnification of x2 The difference is because in the Thermion, the focal length of the ocular lens has to be longer to provide eye relief. Looking at the (C/D) part of the equation, increasing the focal length of the ocular makes (C/D) smaller, and therefore the overall magnification smaller I found the equation here www.pulsar-nv.com/glo/support/night-vision-technologies/77/ Going back to lens diameter. The aperture (f number) of the lens is the focal length divided by the diameter, so you could have a scope with a 50mm focal length lens which has a diameter of 50mm (aperture f1.0) and a scope with a 50mm focal length lens and a diameter of 42mm (aperture f1.2) and they would both have the same magnification and field of view. However the scope with the 50mm diameter lens would allow more thermal radiation to reach the sensor, In fact the overall NETD of a thermal imager is the NETD of the sensor multiplied by the lens aperture. So, a thermal with a 35mK sensor with an f1.2 objective lens would have an overall NETD of 42mK, while a 40mK sensor with an f1.0 lens would have an overall NETD of 40mK Hope that helps
@@brucemcpherson8832 Thanks for the detailed reply, I really appreciate it. I have spent a fair amount of time trying to find more information regarding these devices and it's hard to come by. Feel free to call me sometime. Travis Fox Fox Optic direct cell or text 6603419370
Hi Travis. Great material you are putting out there. One thing I was wondering with the XG and XP units is the difference in adjustment. Is one more precise than the other say adjusting the fall of shot in the target at say 100yards?
Pulsar Trail 2 XP50LRF and XQ50LRF have integrated laser rangefinders. I included a search link for them on our website. If you have any questions or need any help feel free to call me anytime. 877 806 2977. Thanks for watching Travis Fox Fox Optic
Have you heard complaints about poor image quality on the XG? I’m really disappointed with mine. I have allot of grainy wash consistency. I also get odd extremely dark or light wash in some modes unless I’m pointing directly level.
Same here with the dark and light wash unless level. Did you find which modes possibly clear this up? Frustrating to be on a slight hill looking down and not seeing anything.
That was by far and away, the most informative thing I've seen on thermal Scopes in a year of doing research. THANK YOU!
Thanks for watching if you ever have any questions you can also call or text me at 660-341-9370
I came here to make the same comment. Excellent explanation, thank you.
Hi Travis, another really useful video. I have the XP50 and you have confirmed I have the right unit. Many thanks 🙏
Thanks for watching. Travis Fox
great video to show the comparison. I have the xp50 thermion and love it.
Pulsar truly makes great products and the XP50 is a very versatile high resolution unit.
I like the more field of view of the xp50. Glad I went with that unit and bought it from fox optics. Great service and shipping. Now I just need thermal scanner
Getting a scanner was a great move for me!
This is great Travis, for those of us who have been in photography for a long time, the whole smaller sensor = greater magnification is an easier concept to grasp when looking at 12 vs 17 micron thermal sensors.
I think the effort you go to and the side by side video comparions are really helpful to anyone who is trying to decide between these scopes - your video comparing the XM vs XQ vs XP being another great one.
Thanks again for your effort and I hope it brings you customers through the door.
Im not in the US, so I cant buy from you (and have to pay much higher prices), but your videos/reviews helped me make my choice. Thank you!
Travis, I enjoy your comparison videos and detailed explanations. You provide great dealer support.
Thanks for watching, Tina and I really appreciate your business.
Travis, Thanks for taking the time to speak with me today. Your video was great and really help with my decision. Rb
Perfectly explained.
My new UA-cam go to channel
Amazing and in-depth explanation. Thank you!
Thank you Mr Fox....Another very informative video! Thanks for breaking it down and making it understandable.
Sick vid as usual bro. If i make my mind up, I'm getting it from you. Support a fellow Missourian.🇺🇸
Great video Travis, I just bought the wraith from you last year, it was just stolen last week 😞 it was awsome but now that thermals are getting more affordable I might have to look into them. Thank you for the info
Call me anytime with questions, my personal cell number is 6603419370
Although the comparison video was excellent and much appreciated, the foregoing explanation was extremely confusing and technically incorrect.
It's not the lens diameter which affects magnification and field of view, it's the focal length of the lens.
The ratio of focal length to lens diameter gives the relative aperture, which affects how much thermal radiation reaches the sensor and also affects the depth of field.
The focal length of the objective lens in both scopes is 50mm (hence the 50 in the model name).
The relative aperture of those lenses is 1.2, so the diameter of the lens is 42 mm (50/1.2)
Also, it's not the lens diameter which controls the magnification.
The combination of the sensor size and lens focal length are the main factors in determining magnification, but display size and ocular focal length also come into the calculation of magnification.
Magnification is dependent of lens focal length and sensor size.
Increasing focal length increases magnification and decreasing sensor size increases magnification.
Sensor size depends on the number of pixels and the size of the pixels
Both scopes have the the same focal length lens and the XG uses a sensor with almost the same number of pixels as the XP, but the pixels in the XG are smaller, so the sensor is smaller and therefore the magnification is higher.
Since the magnification is higher, the field of view will be narrower.
I'd also take issue with your use of the term "resolution" to compare the number of pixels in the sensor.
Resolution (effectively. the smallest thing an individual pixel can see) is simply the pixel size (in microns) divided by the focal length of the lens (in mm)
The result of that simple calculation is an angle in mrad and the smaller that number the more detailed the image and the longer the detection range.
That simple calculation can be applied to any thermal imager (monocular or riflescope) and provide an immediate "figure of merit" with regard to the level of detail it can display and it's detection range
For the XP 50 the resolution is 17/50 = 0.34mrad
For the XG50 the resolution is 12/50 = 0.24mrad
So the XG50 will give a more detailed image and have a longer detection range
Bruce, Thanks for the detailed information. I really appreciate your explanation. So is it possible to maintain 42mm lens diameter increase the lens magnification to 3X and still adequately "flood" the the 17 micron sensor with only a focal length shift or would that increase aperture if they didn't increasing lens diameter?
@@foxoptic5887 Forget about lens diameter, when it comes to magnification and field of view, it's focal length that matters. Both the XP50 and XG50 have objective lenses with a focal length of 50mm. The position of the sensor behind the lens is such that either sensor is fully covered by the thermal radiation coming through the lens.
The magnification of a digital scope (be it night vision or thermal) depends on 4 factors. There are: Objective lens focal length(A), the diagonal size of the sensor (B), the diagonal size of the display (C) and the focal length of the ocular lens (D).
The magnification (M) is given by (A/B) * (C/D)
The XP50 and XG 50 have the same objective lens, display and ocular lens, the only thing different is the diagonal size of the sensor and the sensor in the XG50 is smaller (because its pixels are smaller)
Looking at the (A/B) bit of the equation - making B smaller makes the magnification higher.
Another example of this is comparing the XP38 with the XP50.
The only difference between those scopes is the focal length of the objective lenses (38mm v 50mm) Looking at (A/B) again, A is bigger for the 50mm scope, so (A/B) is bigger and the magnification is bigger.
Now compare the Helion XP50 monocular with the Thermion XP50 riflescope
Both have the same objective lens, sensor and display.
The Helion has a base magnification of x2.5 but the Thermion only has a base magnification of x2 The difference is because in the Thermion, the focal length of the ocular lens has to be longer to provide eye relief.
Looking at the (C/D) part of the equation, increasing the focal length of the ocular makes (C/D) smaller, and therefore the overall magnification smaller
I found the equation here www.pulsar-nv.com/glo/support/night-vision-technologies/77/
Going back to lens diameter. The aperture (f number) of the lens is the focal length divided by the diameter, so you could have a scope with a 50mm focal length lens which has a diameter of 50mm (aperture f1.0) and a scope with a 50mm focal length lens and a diameter of 42mm (aperture f1.2) and they would both have the same magnification and field of view.
However the scope with the 50mm diameter lens would allow more thermal radiation to reach the sensor,
In fact the overall NETD of a thermal imager is the NETD of the sensor multiplied by the lens aperture.
So, a thermal with a 35mK sensor with an f1.2 objective lens would have an overall NETD of 42mK, while a 40mK sensor with an f1.0 lens would have an overall NETD of 40mK
Hope that helps
@@brucemcpherson8832 Thanks for the detailed reply, I really appreciate it. I have spent a fair amount of time trying to find more information regarding these devices and it's hard to come by. Feel free to call me sometime. Travis Fox Fox Optic direct cell or text 6603419370
Hi Bruce are you on Nightvisionforumuk.com? Looking at the footage the detail on both scopes looks the same when they are on the same magnification.
@@20ppc Yes, I'm phoenix on the NV forum
Great video. Great customer service. Happy customer from Texas!
Plain and simple.
Great video sir!
so touching for an excellent video
About 9:11, I see the XG flickering at the bottom of the screan. Is this normal?
Hi Travis. Great material you are putting out there. One thing I was wondering with the XG and XP units is the difference in adjustment. Is one more precise than the other say adjusting the fall of shot in the target at say 100yards?
Great review!
So does one of these units have a built in rangefinder?
www.foxoptic.com/index.php?p=catalog&mode=search&search_in=all&search_str=trail+2
Pulsar Trail 2 XP50LRF and XQ50LRF have integrated laser rangefinders. I included a search link for them on our website. If you have any questions or need any help feel free to call me anytime. 877 806 2977. Thanks for watching Travis Fox Fox Optic
Would love to see your comparison of the infiray tube tl35 and a pulsar thermion xq38
Character In the video It's great, I like it a lot $$
Do you know if or when the Pulsar Forward F455 will be available in the United States?
Can you do this again but with the Thermion XP50 2 and etc...?
Have you heard complaints about poor image quality on the XG? I’m really disappointed with mine. I have allot of grainy wash consistency. I also get odd extremely dark or light wash in some modes unless I’m pointing directly level.
Noticed the same
Same here with the dark and light wash unless level. Did you find which modes possibly clear this up? Frustrating to be on a slight hill looking down and not seeing anything.
@@tannerking3096 nope, sold that sucker and bought a Thermion 2 XP50.
What mount would you recommend on a Ar platform for the XG or XP?
Was the Thermion the new
The Thermion XP50 was a brand new unit. (40mK, a few weeks old)
Travis, what was you using as a rangefinder?
The original Pulsar Trail XP38LRF. It is the same 640x480 sensor resolution at basically 1.5X considering the display difference.
Most of my shots on hogs is around 100 yards. Which would you recommend?
I would probably prefer XP50 for the FOV given the distance. (XQ38 would also be a great lower cost alternative.)
Where can I buy it a bit cheaper