Thermal for forest use

[bovine]

I am currently looking for a handheld thermal device for use in the forest and have narrowed down my search to the following two options:

1) Hikmicro FQ25
2) Pulsar XP50 LRF

The pros for the Hikmicro FQ25 are:
-very big field of view (30m) so it is easy to do 180+ degree scans without missing anything
-it is smaller than the Pulsar, so fits into pockets more easily
-great for stalking due to 1,4x base magnification

Cons:
IDing wild boar might be harder, since the image is worse (and smaller magnification) than pulsar
battery needs to be changed every 2-3 hours.

The pros for the Pulsar XP50 LRF are
Pro:
-amazing image quality
-battery lasts for 6+ hours
-range finder
-IDing couldn't be easier
-Pulsar promised upgrade options in the future

Cons:
-bigger and heavier than the hikmicro
-smaller field of view (22m), so sometimes need to scan up and down + left and right to see everything; also not as great for stalking for that reason

I am leaning towards the Pulsar, even though it is a bit more cumbersome to use and it takes a bit more effort to scan everything, the image quality is much better.

I would appreciate any comments on your experience with thermal devices for forest hunting and recommendations for either of the two devices or a different one.

 

[mealiejimmy]

That's a pretty wide spread in performance (i.e FOV and magnification)
The Falcon FQ35 might be a better compromise

Cheers

Bruce

 

[fizzbangwhallop]

The quickest way to improve the FOV is to turn your spotter 45 degrees to get a diamond shaped picture… as soon as you see something worth a closer look then either centralise it or revert to the horizontal.

cheers

fizz

 

[bovine]

That's a pretty wide spread in performance (i.e FOV and magnification)
The Falcon FQ35 might be a better compromise

I have considered the FQ35 as well. However, it has the same FOV as the Pulsar (22m), but only 1,8x magnification versus 2,5x (Pulsar). Therefore, I am not sure if I would gain anything with the FQ35 as opposed to the Pulsar if the FOV is the same? If I understand correctly, I would have the same picture, just with a smaller magnification with the FQ35.

 

[bullet chucker]

I use white hot and if there is something to see only the smallest of white is enough to alert me to scan again with my Pulsar XG35 Axion 2.

BC.

 

[NickJ]

If I only did woodland stalking I would have just upgraded my Pulsar Axion for a new model, they are compact, got a wide angle and work out to most forestry ranges (unless you have really huge clearfells.) They are £1k

I upgraded to a Pulsar Helion Pro 2 (nearly three times the money) purely as I use it on the open hill (over a mile), it's a big lump and preferred the wee Axion for forestry.

I have only looked through Hiks and they seem to have a better picture for the price, they are possibly just not quite as tough built

 

[mealiejimmy]

I have considered the FQ35 as well. However, it has the same FOV as the Pulsar (22m), but only 1,8x magnification versus 2,5x (Pulsar). Therefore, I am not sure if I would gain anything with the FQ35 as opposed to the Pulsar if the FOV is the same? If I understand correctly, I would have the same picture, just with a smaller magnification with the FQ35.

Stop thinking about magnification and think about image detail
The level of image detail (i.e the smallest thing a thermal imager can see) is defined by the pixel size divided by the focal length of the objective lens
For the XP50 its 17/50 = 0.34mrad
For the FQ35 is 12/35 = 0.343 mrad
You can think of those numbers as being the size of a square seen by a single sensor pixel at a given distance, and in this case, at a distance of 100m each pixel on each thermal "sees" a square with sides 34mm long
In other words both thermals can display the same level of detail - and have the same FOV
The difference in magnification comes from Pulsar using a slightly longer focal length lens on the ocular which magnifies the display a wee bit more and thus increases overall magnification.
In practice, you won't see any more or any less detailed images with either device.

Cheers

Bruce

 

[Lateral]

For use in the woods/forest, personally, I would want no more than a 1.4-1.5x base mag, and even that can be too high if the trees are close together.

Any more, and you'll feel like you're going to bump into very tree, whenever you move forward. Also, again depending on the woods, you rarely get to see the whole deer at any distance, just a flash of white hot on the edge of a tree.

I think the HIK LH15, or FQ25, would both fit the bill, the best option based on what you prefer, and if the FQ25 is worth about double the price !

 

[FISH BOY]

Spotted a Pulsar Helion XP38 in the classifieds which would fit the bill.

Used to have one and at 1.9x base mag it was brilliant for woodland use.

Massive field of view compared to the latest stuff.