I currently have a thermion xp50 but am absolutely horrible at guesstimating range. I’m looking at possibly selling my thermion to go with the xq50 lrf but wondering how much worse off the image quality will be? With the 3.5 base mag, I assume that makes up some of the difference but never looking through the xq, I don’t know. I scan with a helion 2 so I don’t think the narrower field of view will hurt me too much and I’m strictly hunting coyotes 175 yards plus most of the time. Any input appreciated
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Night Vision Xq50 lrf compared to xp50?
- Thread starter Smith1
- Start date
It’s not exactly the same because mine are the older Trail models with lower base magnification (1.6/2.7X vs 2X Therm/3.5X LRF). Between my Trail XQ50 & XP50 I can’t tell the difference when set to the same magnification because I lose resolution when I zoom the XP50. I favor the XP50 only because the wide FOV is ideal for the thick woods usually I hunt in. That may change some once my Nox18 arrives in a few weeks, but the low mag is still great for shots <50 yards. I take a good number of hogs from really close range at 1.6X, but once they’re out at 80-100 yards + I zoom to 3.2X before I shoot. If you have a scanner and find yourself zooming the Thermion to around 3.5X as soon as you turn it on, you’re already reducing your resolution to roughly what you’ll get out of the XQ50 LRF.
If you use base magnification on your XP50 a lot you will miss it. If you are always bumping up your magnification, you won't miss it.
Im about 50% on using basemag and zoom. I know the resolution is supposed to be 1/2 resolution on the next zoom but it looks worse than that, or atleast there’s seems to be more static pixilation if I’m describing that right. I don’t think I’d ever have a shot closer than 50 yards
Last edited:
I second what the other two knowledgeable dudes above me said.
If you are constantly doubling your native magnification to 4x on your XP50, you are looking at 320x240 resolution at that point. If that is alright by you, then a 384 unit is actually going to be just a bit better if you keep it at the native 3.5 magnification.
Where you'll lose out big time with the "downgrade" is on field of view if you're using your scope as a scanner as well. Plus, an XP50 is noticeably clearer at 2x, than an XQ50 is at 3.5...but that really only comes into play if you plan on sharing videos and want to be an internet star like Todd.
If you are constantly doubling your native magnification to 4x on your XP50, you are looking at 320x240 resolution at that point. If that is alright by you, then a 384 unit is actually going to be just a bit better if you keep it at the native 3.5 magnification.
Where you'll lose out big time with the "downgrade" is on field of view if you're using your scope as a scanner as well. Plus, an XP50 is noticeably clearer at 2x, than an XQ50 is at 3.5...but that really only comes into play if you plan on sharing videos and want to be an internet star like Todd.
I have a dedicated scanner so I think I’m okay there. Going to look at one tomorrow, I think the lrf is going to out weight the 640 core since I’ll be IDing with the helion
I don’t think you will find the difference that bad. Humid, rainy, snowy nights expose it a little bit. Animals will still pop, but the background grays out. Fov not a big deal considering you are scanning with the helion. Radius is an option too, i love mine, ranges way better than my accolades
After giving the radius a shot and hating the extra weight, I finally broke down and went with the trail 2 xq50 lrf. Got it signed in tonight and range finder is going to be a game changer for me. The picture was better than expecting and i’m Anxious to try it out in the field at night this weekend
Similar threads
