What about NETD numbers. For instance, the Pulsar Telos XP50 vs XL50, the XP has a NETD <18mk and the XL with higher resolution has a wider FOV but has a NETD of <40 mk. Is there a significant difference when out in everyday weather conditions. Not everyday is it low humidity, dry conditions. The videos I've seen had the XP50 picking up more on higher humidity days. Maybe it's nothing to worry about since I see Nick's XP28 is 60 mk.
NETD is the #2 most important in my view. My daily driver is 60mK and obviously I have no issues in any of my use.
The <40 and <20 are just that much better, icing on the cake.
Between the XP50 and XL50, for birding - the XL50 wins hands down. Wider FOV and better resolution, at the cost of slightly worse NETD.
I'm in a lot of hunting groups with guys using these, and it seems split about 50/50 on whether the value of the lower NETD of the XP50 is worth it over the higher resolution of the XL50. I say no, others say yes. YMMV.
I wasn’t trying to minimize the amount of difference. I was just thinking in terms of practicality.
From my perspective, a more narrow field of view is a big benefit when it comes to identifying exactly what I’m looking at.
For example, a hog versus deer at long distance. But I have that hunting mindset ingrained in my head.
Friend of mine has a rooftop scanner that works just like mine and uses the exact same camera except his camera has a 25° field of view lens versus mine which has a 32°
The only “practical” difference between the two is that it takes us just a second or two longer to scan the same area with his camera than it does mine due to a slightly narrower field of view.
That was the only reason why I said it may not be a big deal.
I was thinking that if you’re going to scan a wood line with either set of binoculars looking for an owl and if you pan back-and-forth a couple times, you’re going to spot it with either binocular. Especially after you have a little experience under your belt on being able to spot things quickly.
Sometimes heat signatures don’t jump off the page at you when they’re in a busy background. Especially during the daytime when the effects of the sun raises the temperature of the surroundings. Pulsar with its industrial grade sensitivity does a great job of handling minute differences in temperature. My FLIR consumer grade equipment, not so much.
I personally would rather have the better resolving power of more magnification to a better identify what I’m looking at. But my usage needs for my thermal equipment is different then what might be asked for here.
Edit: regarding those sensitivity numbers.
Yes, the better the sensitivity numbers that you’re willing to pay for the better response you should expect.
I don’t think FLIR ever published their sensitivity numbers on the sensors that go into their consumer grade products.
I can just tell you from firsthand experience that two of my FLIR units both are lacking compared to Pulsar or BAE.
Some of this could be in the software algorithm that processes the image. But I believe more of this is a function of the sensor sensitivity.
I have an older Pulsar that has a 50 MK sensor, and a newer one that I believe has a 25 MK sensor, but I would have to double check.
I’ve never compared them side-by-side at the same time, but I just know from experience that the newer scope finds targets better than the older scope.
With the current thermal tech available to consumers, you're never going to be able to accurately ID something based on shape/size alone. You need to know behavior, or bring up night vision or daytime binos. As the saying goes "thermal is for detection, night vision is for identification". Swap night vision for binoculars in our case.
People who think a tighter FOV will help identify a dog vs a coyote are usually the same people who end up shooting their neighbor's dog lol. Yes it happens, and it happens a lot more than people realize.
My assumption on this forum, is that most of us are using thermals for birds, not larger mammals. So at that point - we're really just looking for hot spots anywhere, and then you're going to need binos or your lens to ID with success. For every 1 owl I found in the bog, I found about 12 red squirrels, grouse, or snowshoe hares. They all look extremely similar, regardless of FOV.
My first year at the bog I used the narrow FOV XP50, my second year I used the wide FOV XP28. There was no difference in my ability to ID or differentiate subjects. The only difference came from the FOV and being able scan a wider area at a time. With the XP28 I can (in portrait mode) get the ground, all the way up to the tree tops. With the XP50 I could only get about half of that. As a result, I would have to do twice (or more) work to find the same subjects.
www.agmglobalvision.com
