Home › Models › Thermal monoculars › Compare

Pulsar Axion Compact XG35 vs Pulsar Axion XM30F

Two thermal monoculars compared on the makers' own figures. Rows in bold are where they differ; a dash means that maker does not publish the figure.

A 640×480 sensor in Pulsar's smallest body: 35 mm lens, 12.5° field of view, 64 GB memory, APS 3 battery, 300 g without battery.
no live Amazon listing tracked
Pulsar's entry-level 320×240 thermal monocular: 30 mm F1.2 lens, 3x base magnification, APS 3 swappable battery, IPX7, 310 g.
no live Amazon listing tracked

Specification side by side

Pulsar Axion Compact XG35Pulsar Axion XM30F
TechnologyThermalThermal
Sensor640×480320×240
Pixel pitch12 µm12 µm
NETD≤40 mK≤50 mK
Lens35 mm30 mm
Magnification2.5–20x3–12x
Digital zoomup to 8xup to 4x
Detection range1,750 m1,300 m
Field of view12.5°7.8°
DisplayAMOLED 640x400AMOLED 640x400
Recordingphoto and videophoto and video
Wi-Fi / appyesyes
Battery lifeup to 7 hup to 7 h
BatteryAPS 3 removable Li-ion 3200 mAhAPS 3 removable Li-ion 3200 mAh
Weight300 g310 g
Water resistanceIPX7IPX7

Sources: Pulsar Axion Compact XG35 (spec page); Pulsar Axion XM30F (spec page). Detection ranges are for a 1.8 m object under each maker's own test conditions and are not directly comparable between brands.

Full pages: Pulsar Axion Compact XG35 · Pulsar Axion XM30F · all thermal monoculars in stock today

Specifications are the manufacturers' published figures. Prices are Amazon.co.uk at our last daily check. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. More