I really like the ease of operation on the XRF and certainly appreciate the USA made quality. With that said, I honestly like the balance of FOV vs ID the 1.75x provides. (Basically identical top end, better mid range, and 64% more FOV than the XRF) 3x on an HD sensor would = low FOV, large lens diameter, and a longer focal length, just not sure it's worth it for the average user. (Already getting ID'S past 400 yards at 1.75x)

@@foxoptic5887 FOV and ID-Thats the biggest question/concern/deciding factor for me with my next purchase-I am looking for an improvement over what I have. The 1024 Pulsar is at top of my list. I have an IR defense (now Trijicon) MK II, an ATN Thor 4 640, and an iray bolt 384. Very impressed with the Bolt image, btw. After spending close to 1000 nights in the field over last 9-10 years, the 1-1.5 x base is ideal when you don't know where the hogs will show up and need to sit tight and watch. If you are hunting over a feeder and looking for a single kill, then any base mag will work. Glassing a field all night (especially when solo) with a 2.5-3.0+ power is exhausting. Even with rifle mounted on a tripod, constantly moving 180 degrees or more all night is challenging-especially when the night is slow. I have only used up to 640's and based on what I am seeing on youtube with the 1024 and 1280 ,compared to 640's, is there are heat signatures that can be spotted at much greater distances with good FOV. With my MKII, I can positively ID hogs, coyotes and deer, at over 1500-2000 yds or more on a good night. Have been able to pick up heat signatures over 2500yds with the MK II. Experience behind the scope also helps with knowing what you are looking for and looking at. But, if I can get a scope that goes beyond my current scope capabilities with better technology and, I am all in. That is a big plus for me when working a property and getting the job done. Just my 2 cents.....

Personally, I like the extra versatility that the lower base magnification and higher resolutional compression provide. The XL unquestionably has better image performance if focused properly at distance than the XP50 with double the pixels per sq unit area. I lock the PIP on and use it to shoot with so I don't have issue with it going out after 10 seconds when the lfr is activated. Ranging with the LRF hasn't been an issue for me. In inclement weather I still get better ID'S, than the XP50 PRO can provide in almost every side by side condition that I have tested.

@@foxoptic5887 Im not seeing the versatility. In reality the picture is fantastic in short to medium range (

@paddymularkey At 100 yards, the XL with 1.75x has a FOV of 14x10.5 degrees or approximately 3975 sq ft with 786432 pixels this translates to approximately 200 pixels per sq ft at 100 yds. This is basically identical resolutional compression as all 3x 640x480 units on the market. The versatility comes in having the same resolutional compression (same top end ID'S. I prefer to use mathematical facts rather than subjective opinions. ) If focused correctly, the shallower 1.75x lens should actually produce slightly better results than a 3x at the same focal distance as the rays aren't bent as steeply. For me, the advantage of PIP is that I get FOV from the larger base screen for better situational awareness while being an eye movement away from clear and potentially highly magnified shot precision. The alternative in non HD devices narrowing the base FOV to increase resolution with less pixels. As your sensor gets bigger, your base magnification is limited at a given focal length. Increase the lens depth and you decrease exit pupil, this then requires a longer focal length and typically larger lens to deal with the weaker and potentially noisier signal caused by the longer distance from lens to sensor and sharper lens curve. With this said, I will agree to disagree. The XL50 is much more versatile than pretty much anything else on the market currently. (An opinion based on facts and my own comparison with multiple 640x480 units) 640x480 3x units are a great way to save money if you click the box FOV isn't critically important for my use. For me, the fact is, if I can have both in 1 device (FOV and long range high resolution), I will take it. FOV gives me more situational awareness (at night you can't see what's happening outside the display and it also gives me increased reticle travel vs narrower resolution/FOV units as reticle movement is constrained by the FOV

@@foxoptic5887 Wow that all sounds great and thats what I spent £6000 British pounds on, Pulsars marketing blurb, Your obviously paid to sell it, IM not, Im stuck with an inferior product. But the trouble is im not playing at 100yards. The problem comes at 300m-600m where that 1.75base with 10.5 degrees of angle is practically useless as a FOV where everything is now dots in the distance and your left with a poor quality PIP to shoot with. At that distance I find I want the whole screen for identification and see whats around my target. And again thats where this scope falls down, by not giving a good non PIP option. You like your numbers I just like a good clear picture, the Thermion HD does this badly. Show a side by side test of a fox or rabbit at 600m / 14x zoom and see what scope has the best image. If your brave show something at 1000m and the HD will show individual pixels, I know I spent my weekend comparing with my NON HD Thermion2.

I am working on a side-by-side video right now showing the XP50LRF PRO vs XL50LRF, I will try to incorporate some XG50LRF footage as well. I have actually already compared them quite a bit and if you are interested in an opinion without "seeing", what you will find is that the effective top-end IDs are practically identical. (XG and XL 3X and up) The XL adds versatility by increasing FOV 60% for 30% more cost. If you would benefit from larger FOV (better situational awareness, more forgiving leads in moving shots, larger reticle adjustments, etc) then it's worth the money, if you can/choose to afford it.

@foxoptic5887 thanks for the reply. As some other commenters have said, it would be interesting to "see." I totally believe you that the long range ID will be virtually identical. The specifications only make sense for them to be the same at 3x and above. The XL50 is just more versatile because it now has an increased FOV due to the 1.75 base magnification.

@@foxoptic5887 "XP50LRF PRO vs XL50LRF" would really like to see this comparison. Thanks.

It obviously doesn't zoom as much, but it doesn't pixelate as musch either. (I really don't know why Pulsar chose to throttle digital zoom at 14 and not take it further than this) Essentially the resolutional down range "pixel" per unit area count (XL 786,432/452.6 vs XG 307,200/177 around 1740 pixels per sq meter at 100 meters) is the same as the XG50 at distance it just allows you to start with 64% more FOV (Which is a major improvement considering you can't see anything outside the eyepiece once you are in it.) Resolution in the mid ranges is noticeably better than the HALO even though they all have almost exactly the same pixel per FOV counts. (XL, XG, HALO X 50) This is a testament to Pulsar image algorithms and sensor/lens/focus quality. You can plainly see how much better the Pulsar is on the 100 - and 200 yard resolutional targets. (You can also see it at the range in your shot groups. ) All in all, if your experience tells you you don't need more FOV, it's probably not worth it to you. It is to me.

@@foxoptic5887 thanks for the detailed reply, I think I’ll need to look through the XL50 before deciding. It sounds like an excellent scope 👍

It's certainly worth consideration, admittedly, the Pulsar warranty is only 3 years and N Vision has excellent customer service. With this said, I would still buy the Pulsar considering the performance and price advantages. The Pulsar devices have always been very reliable, and Sellmark has always done a good job dealing with device warranty issues. ( I also find it more likely that "terminal" issues crop up in the first 90 days of use vs end of life other than batteries, and the internal battery is decently easy/cheap to fix.

Steve, the beam is vertical, and that's not an issue. I actually tested the accuracy against 3 other quality LRF units on multiple targets across many distances and all were within a yard or 2 of one another. (Halo XRF, SIG Kilo LRF binoculars, and Nikon Monarch) Truth is the best beam orientation for thin targets at long distance is vertical. I could basically make the same claim for false horizontal orientation readings left and right of target. Beam divergence and alignment are super critical. (The Pulsar laser has extremely low beam divergence and a very substantial fixed alignment) Perhaps your particular unit is mis aligned? I have sold a decent amount of XQ50, XP50, and XG50 LRF units with extremely positive feedback. You might reach out to whoever you purchased your unit from and see what your local warranty process is to have your individual unit checked.

They are all vertical beams on the Thermion LRF models , I agree side mounted rangefinders have a parallax affect either side and top mounted its slightly out at close ranges but at a distance normally beyond 40 yds then are then consistent out to great distances. If your trying to range small objects at long range, especially at ground level, then you will always risk hitting the foreground or background of your target slightly... This is were testing in the field at these targets and confirming the most accurate location on the LRF indicator comes into play ...

@blackwoodoutdoors5015 I spot checked 3 units mounted next to a Wraith 4K max . Beam alignment was spot on at 200 yards plus and divergence was extremely low. ( The center oval of the beam was aprox the size of a Whitetail deers head at 250 yards.)

5:13 target resolution to me looks hands down better in the Pulsar. The Pulsar kinda both benefits and suffers from the focus capabilities. It's much better if it's focused properly and worse if it's not vs the HALO infinity focus, however, it has its drawbacks also as I think it's why their midrange isn't as good as Pulsar and 75-250 yards is where most guys are shooting regardless of what all the high base mag "snipers" say. I would argue Contrast hold is better in the HALO. I honestly believe it's because the larger FOV is sampling to much skyline in the back of this scenario. The program makes Contrast adjustments as the thermal Contrast in the "scene" changes and there are times I wish I could hit a button and have it just stay put. The trees and grass detail vs focal subject are a by-product of depth of field.

Top end the performance is the same, it has way better resolutional definition in the mid ranges (aim small hit small), 64% more FOV, better features, and is 1500.00 less expensive to a new user is basically my "argument". If I already had an XRF, I doubt I would sell it to switch. (The HALO has some positives as well)

I don't think you got the pricing on the Pulsar XL50 correct, Sir.

7999.97 US.@@NightVisionViking

The base mag is 1.75... at 3.5 mag it's a 512 resolution. They need a base mag of 3

The video is not doing it justice. Pulsar has suffered in this recording/pic quality issue from before they added aduio.The N-Vision does recording better, and stock settings looks brighter. I have an N-Vision Halo X50 and a good selection of Pulsar devices. This scope is better. I actually think the Thermion 2 XP50 Pro is as good at half the price. N-Vision needs to step it up. When I bought N-Vision, I did not even think to ask about focus or a better way to calibrate on what was said to be 'the best'. Manual focus, auto cal, and PIP should all be standard when dropping this kind of cash.