Digex C50 vs Pard 008

[ferretmanabu]

HI. I'm looking for some opinions from anyone who has owned the c50 and the pard.

I have a Pard 008 at the moment and find it very good in day time. My night time use is not that extensive and from when I've need to use the Pard at night, it is quite good with the on board IR.
The things that I don't like about the Pard are
i) At magnification, the picture gets quite grainy
ii) The reticle is not properly centred. I'm thinking about getting the Eaglevision mount to address this. Does the C50 have a centred reticle or does it have the same problem that the reticle can be off centre when zeroed on the rifle?

How much would I gain by upgrading to a C50 bearing in mind my NV requirements are easily met by the Pard. Is the C50 better for daytime use?

Many thanks for any advice in advance.

 

[Blackwood Outdoors]

The C50 is lower magnification and has a much wider field of view with a much faster lens. The C50 is primarily designed for low light and night time use although the day image is still good, the Pard is primarily designed for daytime use and it requires a heap of VCSEL based IR to perform... Both great units but at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of build quality, design and performance...

The Wraith 4K is the best daytime image through the mag range I have used, but the scope design is not great and the eye display and reticule design , dreadful...

 

[ferretmanabu]

The C50 is lower magnification and has a much wider field of view with a much faster lens. The C50 is primarily designed for low light and night time use although the day image is still good, the Pard is primarily designed for daytime use and it requires a heap of VCSEL based IR to perform... Both great units but at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of build quality, design and performance...

The Wraith 4K is the best daytime image through the mag range I have used, but the scope design is not great and the eye display and reticule design , dreadful...

How is the C50 with the reticle placement? Does it have potential to go off centre?

 

[Foxyboy43]

HI. I'm looking for some opinions from anyone who has owned the c50 and the pard.

I have a Pard 008 at the moment and find it very good in day time. My night time use is not that extensive and from when I've need to use the Pard at night, it is quite good with the on board IR.
The things that I don't like about the Pard are
i) At magnification, the picture gets quite grainy
ii) The reticle is not properly centred. I'm thinking about getting the Eaglevision mount to address this. Does the C50 have a centred reticle or does it have the same problem that the reticle can be off centre when zeroed on the rifle?

How much would I gain by upgrading to a C50 bearing in mind my NV requirements are easily met by the Pard. Is the C50 better for daytime use?

Many thanks for any advice in advance.

Hmmm. I have no experience with the c50 but find the Pard 008 to be an excellent bit of kit both day and night time, add a good IR like the Sirius/Solaris or Dragonfly and it becomes a very capable night rifle. The one thing that lets it down IMHO is as you mention the absence of the reticle centring function which the 007 Pards have, frankly Pard missed a trick on this. That said with a bit of faffing, with in my case, thin strips of insulating tape (or the less handy recommended coke tin strips) you can quite easily solve this irritating issue.

OO7a

008P

 

[boar & deer]

I have no experience of the c50 but the pard 008 is a cracking tool even with the in built ir it's perfect for foxing out to 200yards if you get one you won't regret it

 

[mealiejimmy]

Last week, Russ Douglas, forum member Sauer and I did a side by side test of the Pulsar C50, the old model PARD 008LRF the new the model PARD 008S LRF and the DNV Gen3 3-13 day/night digital scope Night Vision rifle scope DNV-GEN3 3-13X50
There will be videos of this test coming soon on Russ's YouTube Channel
The short summary as it applies to your situation is that you'd be better sticking with your PARD.
The PARD has a slightly sharper daylight image than the Pulsar, although the Pulsar is much better at dusk and has a smoother less grainy image in full darkness when using IR
As for reticle centring, all digital scopes have the potential for the reticle to be off centre when zeroed.
In a glass scope, the reticle position is fixed in the centre of the field of view and as the elevation and windage controls are adjusted to zero the scope, it's the field of view which moves
In a digital scope the field of view is fixed by the relative positions of the objective lens and sensor so, to get the scope zeroed, the reticle has to move.
In most digital scopes, if you can't live with the reticle not being in the centre of the screen, the position of the scope on the rifle has to be mechanically adjusted.
Having said that, some digital scopes will position the reticle in the centre of the screen when digital zoom is used because there are then unused pixels around the edges of the sensor.
This allows the processor to use the centre of the reticle as the reference point for the production of an image with the required number of pixels and a centred reticle
Sadly, the PARD does not do that, so shimming or an Eaglevisioncam adjustable mount is needed.

Cheers

Bruce

 

[ferretmanabu]

Last week, Russ Douglas, forum member Sauer and I did a side by side test of the Pulsar C50, the old model PARD 008LRF the new the model PARD 008S LRF and the DNV Gen3 3-13 day/night digital scope Night Vision rifle scope DNV-GEN3 3-13X50
There will be videos of this test coming soon on Russ's YouTube Channel
The short summary as it applies to your situation is that you'd be better sticking with your PARD.
The PARD has a slightly sharper daylight image than the Pulsar, although the Pulsar is much better at dusk and has a smoother less grainy image in full darkness when using IR
As for reticle centring, all digital scopes have the potential for the reticle to be off centre when zeroed.
In a glass scope, the reticle position is fixed in the centre of the field of view and as the elevation and windage controls are adjusted to zero the scope, it's the field of view which moves
In a digital scope the field of view is fixed by the relative positions of the objective lens and sensor so, to get the scope zeroed, the reticle has to move.
In most digital scopes, if you can't live with the reticle not being in the centre of the screen, the position of the scope on the rifle has to be mechanically adjusted.
Having said that, some digital scopes will position the reticle in the centre of the screen when digital zoom is used because there are then unused pixels around the edges of the sensor.
This allows the processor to use the centre of the reticle as the reference point for the production of an image with the required number of pixels and a centred reticle
Sadly, the PARD does not do that, so shimming or an Eaglevisioncam adjustable mount is needed.

Cheers

Bruce

Thanks. This is very helpful. I'm definitely leaning towards keeping the pard and getting a Eaglevision mount for it. Without zoom, the reticle is fairly well centred but when I zoom in the reticle drops to the bottom part of the screen but is still centred. It's not a huge issue but would feel nicer to have it exactly centre.

 

[mealiejimmy]

If the reticle is only dropping and is fairly well centred right to left, then I wouldn't go to the expense of an Eaglevisoncam mount.
All you need to do is shim the rear of the PARD where it fits onto it's mount.
Loosen the screws holding the PARD to it's mount and put shims (thin pieces of soft drinks cans work well) between the underside of the PARD and the mount so that the rear of the PARD is slightly raised up..
This will cause the reticle to be higher on the display when zeroed.
Play around with the thickness and number of shims until you get the vertical position of the reticle where you want it

Cheers

Bruce

 

[Foxyboy43]

Yep - vertical adjustment is precisely what the two shims which come with the 008 are for!

 

[SussexSteve]

Ive both units. The C50 reticle is centred after you zero

 

[gixer1]

My pard 008 LRF had a lower mag than the C50 I have - I also find to my eyes the C-50 has a better overall day picture other than that I can’t see a shoot n c orange bull at 100 yards with it.

Other than that the c50 is much better, WAY more user friendly for adjusting and zeroing, the buttons are better positioned.

The reticle being off centre on the pard used to annoy me, it can be a fair distance off and trying to add bits of coke can isn’t what you want to do with the price of these things.

I was happy with the improvement vs the price difference of the c50 over the pard.

Only downsides are the size and weight of the c50 but it’s not a major thing.

Regards,
Gixer

 

[SussexSteve]

My pard 008 LRF had a lower mag than the C50 I have - I also find to my eyes the C-50 has a better overall day picture other than that I can’t see a shoot n c orange bull at 100 yards with it.

Other than that the c50 is much better, WAY more user friendly for adjusting and zeroing, the buttons are better positioned.

The reticle being off centre on the pard used to annoy me, it can be a fair distance off and trying to add bits of coke can isn’t what you want to do with the price of these things.

I was happy with the improvement vs the price difference of the c50 over the pard.

Only downsides are the size and weight of the c50 but it’s not a major thing.

Regards,
Gixer

I'd agree my pard 008 has been relegated to the bottom of my nv pile with the C50 at the top

 

[delta wolf]

I have both. I was happy with the pard but now I have the c50 it never comes out. Different league in build quality. Its not that the pard doesn't do a job, it does but the c50 is just so much better in my opinion and excels at dawn/dusk.

 

[sikamalc]

Well I have of late turned to the dark side Bought a thermal and a C50, both pulsar.

I will admit the thermal comes in handy early morning on Fallow, especially scanning the woods before starting to stalk. As for the C50, its quite an impressive bit of kit. My one complaint is the extra weight, and on full mag its a bit pixilated. I have not shot a deer with it yet, but its on my 270 Tikka. I would add that I had to buy new mounts to make sure it clears the barrel.

 

[BenBhoy]

Hmmm the C50 weight keeps being a reoccurring theme....

 

[mealiejimmy]

Compared to the PARD 008, the C50 is a heavy lump of a scope.
That will be a serious problem for some, an annoyance that can be put up with for some and not noticed by others.

Cheers

Bruce

 

[SussexSteve]

Compared to the PARD 008, the C50 is a heavy lump of a scope.
That will be a serious problem for some, an annoyance that can be put up with for some and not noticed by others.

Cheers

Bruce

Exactly that some will worry about 3-400 gram difference then load their pockets and have things hanging off them they don't need while stalking that resemble Buckaroo

 

[Pellet Pinger]

Hmmm the C50 weight keeps being a reoccurring theme....

Ive had nothing but 008’s on my rifles for the last 3 years, one of the reasons for not looking at anything else is the lightness and compactness.
The C50 is heavier but i don’t even notice it now, i was out for six hours the other night, on foot, when it’s on your back you can’t tell any difference. A decent sling is all you need.

 

[Blackwood Outdoors]

Ive had nothing but 008’s on my rifles for the last 3 years, one of the reasons for not looking at anything else is the lightness and compactness.
The C50 is heavier but i don’t even notice it now, i was out for six hours the other night, on foot, when it’s on your back you can’t tell any difference. A decent sling is all you need.

Exactly decent sling and your laughing..

 

[sikamalc]

Hmmm the C50 weight keeps being a reoccurring theme....

Yes, sold mine now and gone back to conventional scope. I don't really need it, and it does add a considerable amount of weight to the rifle.