Experience with Hikmicro FQ35 and FQ50

Leica Fortis 6 - Bright and powerful.
B

Borders Mike

Member
Hi. I'm thinking about buying my first thermal (having had the advantage of stalking with others who carried on). I have narrowed it down to the Hikmico FQ35 or FQ50 (unless I'm missing a better option), and the price difference is around £200.
The FQ35 has the advantage of a wider field of view and being a little smaller and lighter (as well a a bit cheaper), while the FQ50 has the advantage of having a clearer like-for-like image as you don't need to magnify the image something you are focussing on so much.

Any thoughts or experience of using these in the field would be great to hear. I'm hoping this is a one-off purchase so I need to call it right.
 
For deer I'd go wider field of view every time, particularly woodland. You're using them to spot not identify so covering more ground quickly is better than covering less ground with more detail. I'd think both would be able to give you more than enough detail to tell a deer from a fox or badger. But squirrels at head height in trees have this amazing ability to look like deer and regularly catch me out. :lol:
 
Pellet Pinger said:
Having had a go with the Telos and Falcon at the show this weekend i much prefer the ergonomics of the Condor, its shape means as soon as you grab it you know exactly where you are with it whereas the symmetrical barrel shape of the others not so.
Click to expand...
Condor has a smaller eye display and different eye display hue to the Falcon. Falcon FQ50 model has F0.9 lens compared to Condor CQ50L also.

I find from a heap of testing the XG/XP/XL Pulsar models retain more image detail , in-target detail and sharpness at longer distances than the equivalent Hik models, although the Hik show at closer ranges more in-target detail of smaller animals than a lot of the Pulsar models... Also Pulsar eye displays are much larger and refresh/panning is seamless. The HikMicro are good value for money . If I was to choose between a Condor or Falcon, I'd choose Falcon everytime , it's only the LRF that the Condor gains on... Eye display is larger and colour hue better, plus longer battery life.
 
Last edited:
I have the FQ35 and it’s excellent. Most of my stalking is in woodland so the wider FOV over the FQ50 is very handy. That said, I’ve also used it on the hill and not been left disappointed. Far from it
 
Blackwood Outdoors said:
Condor has a smaller eye display and different eye display hue to the Falcon. Falcon FQ50 model has F0.9 lens compared to Condor CQ50L also.

I find from a heap of testing the XG/XP/XL Pulsar models retain more image detail , in-target detail and sharpness at longer distances than the equivalent Hik models, although the Hik show at closer ranges more in-target detail of smaller animals than a lot of the Pulsar models... Also Pulsar eye displays are much larger and refresh/panning is seamless. The HikMicro are good value for money . If I was to choose between a Condor or Falcon, I'd choose Falcon everytime , it's only the LRF that the Condor gains on... Eye display is larger and colour hue better, plus longer battery life.
Click to expand...
Thanks for such a detailed response.

One of the points in the comments I have received is the advantage of a wider field of view in the FQ35 over image size/clarity. I know I'm showing my ignorance here, but how important is that and why. I work with binoculars with a much smaller field of view and learned to scan hillsides, as I'm sure we all have.
 
Borders Mike said:
Thanks for such a detailed response.

One of the points in the comments I have received is the advantage of a wider field of view in the FQ35 over image size/clarity. I know I'm showing my ignorance here, but how important is that and why. I work with binoculars with a much smaller field of view and learned to scan hillsides, as I'm sure we all have.
Click to expand...
How important is FOV ? That depends on how close your using it , If you have a 50 and your using it for scanning up close or finding quarry on the ground, it can make hard work of it , compared to the 50 , plus your scanning a lot more to cover the same area...
 
I just purchased a HikMicro Condor LRF CQ35L Thermal Monocular, I also own a more expensive Pulsar Telos. I really like the Condor with 35mm, it’s a great fit to the hand and nice and compact. I was on a short trip to Scotland for roe buck last week and got to test the new Condor out, it performed amazingly, I can not say enough good things about the Condor.

A reasonable thermal monocular is a serious game changer when trying to spot deer.
 
Steve29 said:
I have the FQ35 and it’s excellent. Most of my stalking is in woodland so the wider FOV over the FQ50 is very handy. That said, I’ve also used it on the hill and not been left disappointed. Far from it
Click to expand...

This is also my experience. I looked through both when making my decision and ended up with the FQ35 it's been really good so far. Would recommend :)
 
I went up to the Stalking Show at the weekend and had my mind set on a Telos XQ35 LRF but after comparing it with the Condor CQ35 LRF I am undecided. The image quality (within the show) of the Condor seemed a lot more detailed.
What are peoples thoughts?
I heard there were a few issues with the early Condors and I like the build quality of the Pulsar.........

I hope @Borders Mike does not mind me jumping in on his post.
2Teal
 
2teal said:
I went up to the Stalking Show at the weekend and had my mind set on a Telos XQ35 LRF but after comparing it with the Condor CQ35 LRF I am undecided. The image quality (within the show) of the Condor seemed a lot more detailed.
What are peoples thoughts?
I heard there were a few issues with the early Condors and I like the build quality of the Pulsar.........

I hope @Borders Mike does not mind me jumping in on his post.
2Teal
Click to expand...
I own both, buy the Condor, the fit in the hand and smaller unit is what I like. Condor works great for spotting deer or foxes. Save some money too!
 
2teal said:
I went up to the Stalking Show at the weekend and had my mind set on a Telos XQ35 LRF but after comparing it with the Condor CQ35 LRF I am undecided. The image quality (within the show) of the Condor seemed a lot more detailed.
What are peoples thoughts?
I heard there were a few issues with the early Condors and I like the build quality of the Pulsar.........

I hope @Borders Mike does not mind me jumping in on his post.
2Teal
Click to expand...
I don't mind at all ... All good discussion which helps me decide what I'm likely to do.
I'm leaning towards them FQ50 I think.
 
The Telos uses a 17 micron 384x288 sensor and 35mm lens, while the Condor uses a 12 micron 640x512 sensor and 35mm lens
Those numbers mean that there will be more physical detail in the Condor image than in the Telos - you'll be able to detect, recognise and identify potential targets at longer ranges with the Condor than with the Telos
In poor thermal conditions, the Telos image will have more background detail than the Condor image.
Potential quarry will still be clearly visible with both but the lack of background detail on the Condor could make judging the safety of a shot more difficult.
in good thermal conditions the Telos' better temperature sensitivity will not be particularly noticeable
The Telos build quality is definitely better, but it is quite a big lump of a thing and, IMHO, not particularly ergonomic

Cheers

Bruce
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pulsar telos xp50 or hikmicro falcon fq50 2.0
Replies
7
Views
334
Blackwood Outdoors
Blackwood Outdoors
I'm afraid of the Dark - Thermal suggestions
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
wytonpjs
wytonpjs
HikMicro Condor 2.0 vs Falcon 2.0
Replies
4
Views
711
melias
M
Alpex 4k left
Replies
8
Views
642
Keith Edmunds
Keith Edmunds
Thermal scopes with a 384x288 sensor vs high end stuff with a 640x512 sensor
Replies
12
Views
899
Zetter
Z
https://Immersive-optics.com/
Back
Top