armasight zeus 75 or 100 vs hunter mk III

[mt-ed]

Does anyone out there have personal experience with these two IR scopes? If so, I would appreciate you input as to which you prefer and why. I recently saw a hog hunt where 3 hunters, with 3 different ir scopes shot at the same hog, and each was recording. The video showed all three side by side, and the differences were very interesting. I had been giving the armasight units the nod, until I saw this video. I am now wondering if what I witnessed had more to do with how each hunter had their respective unit "setup" or "adjusted", than each unit's actual potential quality? Thanks in advance....

Ed

 

[TEXASLAWMAN]

The new mk3 60mm should be very nice. My biggest complaint on the mk2 was having to cover the lense for nuc and the frequency of nuc's required. Second problem was the video out was bad but that will no affect someone who does not need video. I do not know if these things have been fixed

The Armasight scopes can be adjusted to look really nice also I do not think you could go wrong with either setup.

 

[Wildfowler]

I recently saw a hog hunt where 3 hunters, with 3 different ir scopes shot at the same hog, and each was recording.

Ed

Can you post a link to this video?

I've noticed on my mark 2 there can be some differences in the video depending on how I have the focus, contrast, and brightness set. Subtle, minor differences. I suspect this may have been what you were noticing.

I've also noticed that there does not seem to be a difference on video when switching between the three black and white settings. On video it's either black or white or outline.

This is how it works for my unit, and my videos seem to be better quality than other units. Not really sure why that is though. I may have just gotten a DRV that was assembled mid-week.

I'm anxious to see the 60mm mark 3 first hand.

 

[Brian Shaffer]

The new mk3 60mm should be very nice. My biggest complaint on the mk2 was having to cover the lense for nuc and the frequency of nuc's required. Second problem was the video out was bad but that will no affect someone who does not need video. I do not know if these things have been fixed

The Armasight scopes can be adjusted to look really nice also I do not think you could go wrong with either setup.

The only MKIII vid I have seen came from a non-LSB vendor and it was of two guys hunting a coyote. The video out seemed like a real improvement over the MKII as even the menu settings looked nice and clear.

TLM mentioned the manual NUC. This doesn't bother some people. In the video with the coyote, the shooter decided to do a NUC and it took over 6 seconds from when the lens cap was flipped down to when it was raised again (time lost where the shooter was unable see, much less be on target to shoot the coyote) and the coyote had moved a considerable distance (no surprise). Most folks, on spotting game, perform a NUC and then shoot before the several minutes pass where another NUC might be needed, OR, simply shoot the game before a NUC is needed. As many folks do not spend a lot of time behind their rifle scopes for scanning, the NUC issue is minimized.

Contrast the 6 seconds with the 2-3 needed by the Zeus do the process automatically, of which the shooter loses sight picture for less than 2 seconds and possibly less than 1.

In the coyote video, the operator zooms the image and you can seem IRH's image smoothing in the higher magnification is apparently comparable to the MKII. The image, instead of pixelating, blurs. With no objective focus, you can do nothing about this. Contrast with the Zeus line where higher magnification results in pixelation and the image can be sharpened into less blurry blockiness. So between the two scopes, I would contend that the MKIII (and MKII) have a much better native resolution image, but the Zeus has a better zoomed image.

I've also noticed that there does not seem to be a difference on video when switching between the three black and white settings. On video it's either black or white or outline.

Right, on the MKII, nothing changes on the video out when you switch between these settings.

 

[wigwamitus]

I've never used an ir-hunter. My data point from Zeus 3x75mm is that I am consistently getting sub-moa groups at 500yds with 5.56 18 inch from prone supported using FLC xm193 55gr. Targets are two handwarmers stabled side by side. They look like a bright dot on a good thermal performance night. So, the Zeus does not seem to have any negative impact on accuracy/precision in my experience. In fact, I would say this is consistently the most accurate setup for night shooting I have. The digital zoom was not used in any of these shots.

 

[mt-ed]

Thanks guys....Wildfowler.....I will look for it.....I think I saw it on youtube. Just give me a little time and I'll post it here.

In the video I referenced, the mkIII, I felt, was far superior to the other two. Image was much sharper, especially when tracking the running hog, even the background "trees" were distinctive, where as the others you couldn't see the background or it was very blurred. It did not say what each settings were, so I don't know if the differences I was seeing had to do with refresh frequencies (30 or 60) or other factors such as brightness, contrast, etc.

I will definitely post the video so you all can comment on your observations as well.

Ed

 

[mt-ed]

OK, I found the link:

The section of the video I was studying starts at approx. 3:35 to the end. I look forward to all opinions!!! Thanks again guys!
Ed

 

[Delta4-3]

What's crazy is the Apex is only $3350 and hangs in there pretty well. It's not as good as the others, but it's a lot closer image than you would expect given the large price differences.

 

[TEXASLAWMAN]

Well that is the old mkII from what I have seen the MKIII 60mm looks better. The other is a pulsar like Delta said low end of the price spectrum. And then there is the ATN Thor no Zeus. But the Thor and the Zeus use the Flir core that is the difference Flir belives that by dulling the background some the targets pop more.

 

[Wildfowler]

I would have to agree with what Delta just said. I've not seen that video before now, thank you.

I'm obviously biased towards the mark two since that's the unit I have. Like Brian Shafer said, you have to nuke the Unit manually. I leave my unit on during the majority of my hunting time and have learned that once it's warmed up and has been nuked a few times it holds its image very well and doesn't require much maintenance after warmed up. With manual nuke there is no danger of the unit automatically nuking it's self when you were about to pull the trigger. But I've never seen a video online where that happen to someone so it probably is not an issue to worry about?

I can see how manual nuke would be a problem for someone who does not prefer to leave the unit powered on for a couple hours at a time, and therefore it may not be the best choice.

I've got the battery extender which allows you to use a third 123 battery and I get two outings on average between battery changes.

 

[mt-ed]

You guys have been such a wealth of information...and again...thanks so much!!

 

[JPK]

A couple of comments re the MK II:

I agree with Wildflower about the MK II stabilizing after warm up. I would also mention that even if I've let my cold MK II go for too long without a nuc, the image has never degraded to the point that I couldn't take a quick shot at an opportunity that pops up, which happens when predator calling.

Nuc'ing the MK II once you are used to it is a quick and simple one hand operation that can be done without looking at or though the scope, and takes only a couple of seconds, nowhere near six seconds once the operator gets the process down. I'm lefty so the process for me is close the lens cap with my right hand's ring finger and pinky, rotate the top knob with my tumb, wait one and release the lens cover. I can do it on the move without fumbling.

I am now using Ultimate Night Vision's rechargeable remote battery pack, and leave the MK II on anytime I'm not in a truck, and battery life is no issue at all. Before going to the remote battery pack I only turned the MK II on when on a predator stand or when approaching hogs (because changing the MK II's batteries in the field is a little bit of a pita because of tight clearance between the battery compartment and the AR's receiver rail.) It takes no effort to nuc it a couple of times on approach. Perhaps the only issue is that when the MK II is turned on you need to switch menu pages to get to the page that operates the nuc, and it's a different page than the page that operates the zoom. I think IR would have done better to have the zoom and nuc operations on the "home" page which comes up when the unit is turned on, especially since the last brightness and contrast, etc, settings are remembered when the scope is rebooted.

On the Zeus 3x 75mm vs. the 35mm MK II, I had the opportunity to compare them in about the worst conceivable thermal conditions and I thought there was no appreciable difference in performance. The fellow who owned the Zeuas and had the chance to compare it against my MK II thought the same thing.

On auto nuke, it's nice to have on a scanner, and it is nice to have when you loan gear to an inexperienced bud. But once you use your non- auto nuc gear a bit, the process just becomes, well, automatic... I have an HD 19A scanner with auto nuc, and after using it I would not want auto nuc on a scope, and, if the scope had it, I would turn it off.

Edit to add: On native magnification, so far, it seems that about 2-3x is the best compromise for a scope. Less is better for a scanner.

My thoughts, worth at least what you paid for them!

JPK

 

[Brian Shaffer]

OK, I found the link:

The section of the video I was studying starts at approx. 3:35 to the end. I look forward to all opinions!!! Thanks again guys!
Ed

I am a huge fan of the Pulsar Apex and of the IR Hunter MKII. I like the video and all the scopes do look pretty darned good. The Apex could have been zoomed more to get a bigger image and it still would have looked pretty good. The problem with the video when it comes to comparison of products is that the hog is at 20 yards or less when they start shooting. That is some close distance work. If the images looked anything but wonderful at this distance, then the scopes would be garbage. At less than 20 yards, things look pretty darned good through my FLIR PS32 handheld, LOL. At 100 yards, the image is very different.

The point here is that 20 yards isn't very good for a standard of comparison. If you do a slow comparison of the trees in the background, some of the image quality differences really show themselves. We don't know the distance of the trees, but they appear to be at least more than twice as far as the hog, maybe several times as far. Now some of the real differences show up.

Aaron mentioned the price of the Pulsar Apex. I would have no doubt that it would be a huntable hog scope anywhere with the the FOV shown in the video, but at distance, it isn't going to compare well at all with the Thor or MKII and as can be seen in the video, the Thor's image is inferior to the MKII. So then it is an issue of the type of hunting you do. If you are a shorter distance hunter (<100 yards) and want to get the best value for your $, then the Apex is the way to go. If you like, prefer, or often have to hunt at distances greater than 150 yards or are really picky about quality images, then your money is better spent on the higher end scopes, IMHO.