Home › Models › Thermal monoculars › Compare

Pulsar Axion Compact XG35 vs Pulsar Telos XQ35

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
The 384×288 Telos: 35 mm lens, 3x base magnification, 1024×768 display and the big 6,400 mAh LPS 7i battery in the upgradeable Telos body.
no live Amazon listing tracked

Specification side by side

Pulsar Axion Compact XG35Pulsar Telos XQ35
TechnologyThermalThermal
Sensor640×480384×288
Pixel pitch12 µm17 µm
NETD≤40 mK≤25 mK
Lens35 mm35 mm
Magnification2.5–20x3–12x
Digital zoomup to 8xup to 4x
Detection range1,750 m1,300 m
Field of view12.5°10.7°
DisplayAMOLED 640x400AMOLED 1024x768
Recordingphoto and videophoto and video
Wi-Fi / appyesyes
Battery lifeup to 7 hup to 8.5 h
BatteryAPS 3 removable Li-ion 3200 mAhLPS 7i removable Li-ion 6400 mAh
Weight300 g570 g
Water resistanceIPX7IPX7

Sources: Pulsar Axion Compact XG35 (spec page); Pulsar Telos XQ35 (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 Telos XQ35 · 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