Pixfra Australia · Buyer’s Comparison
Two current thermal-monocular families an Australian hunter actually cross-shops. They share the same 12 µm pixel pitch and the same published F0.9 aperture on the models that matter — so the real question isn’t which is better built. It’s which range puts the sensor and lens you need in your hand for less, and where each one genuinely pulls ahead.
The short version
- They line up class-for-class: both families run 12 µm-pitch detectors and F0.9 apertures (every LUMI, and every Mile 3 except the M625 LRF). The honest match-ups are LUMI L35 vs Mile 3 M335 (384 / 35 mm) and LUMI H35 vs Mile 3 M625 (640 sensor).
- On the head-to-head pairs, the Mile 3 is cheaper — verified on current Australian pricing: M335 $1,690 vs L35 $2,199.95 (about $510 / ~23% less), and M625 $2,190 vs H35 $2,999.95 (about $810 / ~27% less). LUMI prices are currently below RRP; we use the current selling price.
- Where the Mile 3 leads: a lower published NETD (≤15 mK vs ≤18 mK), a sharper 1920×1080 display, 64 GB vs 32 GB, two 18650s + a charger in the box, the widest field of view in either range (M625, 17.4°), and a published C.R. Kennedy Australian warranty.
- Where the LUMI genuinely leads: a 35 mm lens on its 640 sensor (the H35 — more reach and target scale than the 25 mm M625), electronic image stabilisation and Reality+ processing, and a compact single-cell body. NocPix also fields a 256-sensor P13 at ~$800, a tier below where the Mile 3 starts.
- The F0.9 headline is a wash on the models you’d cross-shop: both the L35/M335 and H35/M625 pairs are F0.9. NocPix’s “large aperture” is real — but it isn’t an advantage over the non-LRF Mile 3.
When two ranges share the same 12-micron pixel pitch and the same published F0.9 aperture, the question stops being “which is better made” and becomes which one puts the sensor you need in your hand for less.Pixfra Australia
Who makes these — and who backs them in Australia
Both are current-generation gear, not clearance stock. NocPix is the recreational thermal brand built on iRay’s sensor and processing technology; the LUMI is its compact monocular family, distributed in Australia through Ground Force International. Pixfra‘s Mile 3 is the new-generation entry monocular family, brought in as genuine Australian stock by C.R. Kennedy — the long-established optics distributor — with warranty and service handled locally rather than sent overseas. Both brands are legitimate; the difference this article is really about is what each range gives an Australian buyer for the money, class by class.
Start with the map: which LUMI lines up against which Mile 3
Neither range is a single product, so a one-model-versus-one-model duel would be misleading. The useful question is which model in each family occupies the same buying territory — same detector class, same kind of lens, same job. Here’s how they actually line up.
| Sensor class | NocPix LUMI | Pixfra Mile 3 | Closest match? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 256×192 | P13 — 13 mm · $799.95 | — (none) | LUMI-only entry tier |
| 384×288 · wide | L19 — 19 mm · $1,699.95 | M325 — 25 mm · $1,550 | Loose (different lens) |
| 384×288 · 35 mm | L35 — 35 mm · $2,199.95 | M335 — 35 mm · $1,690 | Direct — same detector format & lens spec |
| 640×512 | H35 — 35 mm · $2,999.95 | M625 — 25 mm · $2,190 | Same detector format, different lens |
| 640×512 + LRF | H35R — 35 mm · $3,699.95 | M625 LRF — 25 mm · $2,450 | Both add ranging |
Current Australian pricing (August 2026): Pixfra from pixfra.com.au; NocPix current selling prices from the Australian distributor, Ground Force. LUMI L19/L35/H35 are currently listed below their RRP. Two match-ups do the real work: L35 vs M335 (a true like-for-like) and H35 vs M625 (same detector format, deliberately different lens).
Two things fall straight out of the map. NocPix starts a rung lower than Pixfra — the 256-sensor P13 at about $800 has no Mile 3 equivalent, because the Mile 3 range opens at a 384 sensor (the M325, $1,550). And at the top, the LUMI H35 puts a 35 mm lens on its 640 sensor, while Pixfra’s 640 models (M625, M625 LRF) use a 25 mm lens. That single optical choice — not the sensor — is the most important difference in the whole comparison, and we give it its own section below.
What each one costs in Australia — the price ladder
Value isn’t “cheapest wins,” but price is where this comparison gets interesting, so put every model on one scale first. These are current Australian selling prices; the LUMI line is running below RRP at the time of writing.
Current Australian price — both ranges, low to high
The clean fight: LUMI L35 vs Mile 3 M335 (384 / 35 mm)
This is the one true apples-to-apples pairing in the comparison. Both are 384×288 thermal monoculars on a 35 mm F0.9 lens, so the optics and the angular sampling line up almost exactly — the published fields of view are within a whisker of each other (M335 7.8°, L35 7.5°), and both are built for the same 35 mm reach. When the glass and the sensor match this closely, everything else is the decision.
| Spec | NocPix L35 | Pixfra M335 | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Detector | 384×288, 12 µm | 384×288, 12 µm | Identical format |
| Lens / aperture | 35 mm F0.9 | 35 mm F0.9 | Matched — same reach, same aperture |
| Field of view (H) | 7.5° | 7.8° | Essentially the same slice of country |
| NETD | ≤18 mK | ≤15 mK @ f/1.0 | Mile 3 publishes the lower (better) figure |
| Display | 1024×768 AMOLED | 0.49″ 1920×1080 OLED | Sharper on-screen image (not more thermal detail) |
| Storage | 32 GB | 64 GB | More on-board recording |
| Battery | Replaceable 18650 | 2× 18650 + charger incl. | Mile 3 hands you a charged spare |
| Stabilisation | Electronic (EIS) | Not stated | LUMI steadies a shaky hold |
| Processing | Reality+ AI | PIPS 3.0 Pro (AI-assisted) | Both proprietary — no cross-brand score |
| Warranty (AU) | See warranty section | C.R. Kennedy, local service | Pixfra’s AU terms are clearly published |
| Current AU price | $2,199.95 | $1,690 | M335 ~$510 / ~23% less |
Both makers state magnification differently (NocPix quotes a 4–16× range that folds in digital zoom; Pixfra quotes a 2.5× visual-equivalent base with 1–8× digital), so those numbers are not directly comparable — the honest common ground is the matched 35 mm lens. Detection figures are manufacturer claims under each brand’s own method.
The picture is lopsided, and it’s fair to say so: on matched optics, the M335 gives you the lower published NETD, the sharper display, twice the storage, a spare battery and a charger in the box, and a published local warranty — for about five hundred dollars less. The L35’s genuine counter is electronic image stabilisation, which the Mile 3 doesn’t list, plus Reality+ processing and a slightly more compact single-cell body. If a rock-steady handheld image matters most to you, that’s a real reason to look at the LUMI. For most buyers cross-shopping a 384/35 mm monocular in Australia, though, the M335 is carrying more for less.
On the one pairing where the published detector format and lens specification are matched, the cheaper monocular is also the one with the lower NETD, the sharper screen and the spare battery in the box. That’s the whole 384-class argument in a sentence.Pixfra Australia
The real decision: LUMI H35 vs Mile 3 M625 — same 640 format, different lens
This is where buyers get it wrong, because both are 640×512 monoculars and it’s tempting to treat them as the same tool. They aren’t. The H35 wears a 35 mm lens; the M625 wears a 25 mm lens. Same detector format, same 12 µm pitch, same published F0.9 aperture — but the focal length changes both how much you see and how big it looks, and that sends them to different jobs.
Because the pixel pitch is identical, the 35 mm H35 lays more pixels across a distant animal — it has the greater native target scale and the longer effective reach. The 25 mm M625 does the opposite: it opens the field of view right up (17.4° against the H35’s 12.5°), so it takes in far more country per sweep and finds warm bodies faster. Neither is “better.” One is built to scan, the other to reach.
Horizontal field of view — how much country each 640 takes in
| Spec | NocPix H35 | Pixfra M625 | Practical consequence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Detector | 640×512, 12 µm | 640×512, 12 µm | Identical format |
| Lens / aperture | 35 mm F0.9 | 25 mm F0.9 | Same aperture; different reach vs width |
| Field of view (H) | 12.5° | 17.4° | M625 scans more country per sweep |
| Target scale / reach | 35 mm — more pixels on target | 25 mm — wider, less scale | H35 better for distant observation |
| NETD | ≤18 mK | ≤15 mK @ f/1.0 | Mile 3 publishes the lower figure |
| Detection (mfr claim) | ~1,800 m | 1,300 m | Longer 35 mm lens claims more range |
| Display | 1024×768 AMOLED | 1920×1080 OLED | Sharper screen (not more thermal detail) |
| Storage | 32 GB | 64 GB | More recording |
| Battery | Replaceable 18650 | 2× 18650 + charger | Spare in the box |
| Stabilisation | Electronic (EIS) | Not stated | Steadier hold at high zoom |
| Ranging | via H35R (LRF, dearer) | via M625 LRF ($2,450) | Mile 3 ranging still under the H35 price |
| Current AU price | $2,999.95 | $2,190 | M625 ~$810 / ~27% less |
The H35’s detection and magnification advantages come from its 35 mm lens, not from a better sensor — the published detector format is the same. Detection figures are manufacturer claims and describe how far a heat signature is picked up, not identified.
So the H35 has two real advantages the M625 can’t match at 25 mm: more target scale for distant, deliberate observation, and a longer claimed detection range. If you glass long, open country and want the most resolved picture of a far-off animal, the 35 mm lens is worth having, and the H35 earns its price there. But you’re paying about $810 more for a 25-vs-35 mm lens change and stabilisation — while giving up the M625’s much wider field of view, its lower NETD, its sharper display and its spare battery. And if it’s ranging you want on a 640, the M625 LRF at $2,450 still costs less than the non-ranging H35.
Find more country, or put more pixels on the target?
That’s the entire 640 decision, and it’s about the lens, not the sensor. Choose the 25 mm M625 if you mostly scan — sweeping paddocks, tree lines and gullies to pick up game fast, with the widest field of view in either range. Choose the 35 mm H35 if you mostly reach — deliberate, long-range observation where target scale matters more than how much country you cover. A wider lens is not lower quality, and a longer lens is not higher quality; they’re different tools that happen to share the same published 640×512 / 12 µm detector format.
Sensor resolution: what 384 vs 640 actually buys
The step from a 384 to a 640 sensor is real, but it’s routinely oversold. A 640×512 detector carries 327,680 thermal pixels against the 384×288 sensor’s 110,592 — very close to three times as many (about 2.96×). The catch is where those extra pixels go. Because the pixel pitch is the same 12 µm across both ranges, at a given lens the larger sensor spends its extra pixels on a wider field of view, not on more detail concentrated on the target. That’s exactly why the 25 mm M625 has such a wide 17.4° view: the 640 sensor is buying width. Put a 640 and a 384 behind the same focal length and the 640 shows you more of the scene at the same angular sharpness — more country, not a crisper animal at the same distance.
Total thermal pixels — 384×288 vs 640×512
Want to go deeper on why more pixels doesn’t simply mean more detail? Pixfra’s guide to thermal resolution and angular sampling and its explainer on what lens size actually changes both cover the physics in full.
The F0.9 question — is NocPix’s “large aperture” an advantage here?
NocPix markets the LUMI’s F0.9 lens hard, and a fast aperture genuinely matters: a lower f-number gathers more energy, which helps the sensor in the hardest low-contrast conditions. But the marketing edge only exists against something slower — and here, it mostly isn’t.
The claim: the LUMI’s F0.9 optics give it a lens advantage over the Pixfra Mile 3.
The reality: the two Mile 3 models you’d actually cross-shop against the LUMI — the M335 and the M625 — are also F0.9. On those pairings the aperture is matched, so it isn’t a NocPix advantage at all. The one Mile 3 that differs is the M625 LRF at F1.0, where the LRF optics run a touch slower. F0.9 does admit roughly 23% more light-gathering area than F1.0 (it scales with the square of the f-number), so against that single model the LUMI’s faster lens is a genuine, if modest, edge. Against the rest of the range, F0.9 is simply the shared starting point.
Thermal sensitivity: NETD, and what it can and can’t tell you
Every LUMI L-series and the H35 publishes a ≤18 mK NETD (the entry P13 is ≤20 mK); every Mile 3 publishes ≤15 mK at f/1.0. Lower is better — NETD describes how small a temperature difference the imaging system can separate from its own noise — so on the published figures the Mile 3 holds the sensitivity edge across the range. Two honest caveats: the two brands don’t state their NETD under identical, published test conditions (Pixfra specifies f/1.0; NocPix doesn’t publish the equivalent measurement condition the same way), so treat this as a specification comparison rather than a measured one. And a lower NETD is not a percentage of “better image” or “more detail” — it’s most valuable in low-contrast conditions like humidity, light rain, warm evenings and near thermal crossover, where the ability to resolve fine temperature differences preserves useful separation in the scene. What NETD doesn’t decide on its own is the finished picture: optics, processing, display and tuning all shape that too.
Published NETD — lower is better
The display: 1920×1080 vs 1024×768 — a real difference, honestly framed
This one is easy to overstate, so let’s be precise. The Mile 3 uses a 0.49″ 1920×1080 OLED; the LUMI uses a 1024×768 AMOLED. That’s a genuinely sharper screen on the Pixfra — smoother menus, finer rendering, a more refined viewing experience. What it is not is more thermal detail. The detector — 384 or 640 pixels — is what actually samples the heat in the scene; the display only shows you what the sensor already captured, scaled up to fit the panel. A higher-resolution display can’t add thermal information the 384 or 640 sensor never recorded. So the 1080p panel is a real, worthwhile experience advantage for the Mile 3 — better to look through for long sessions — but “1920×1080” is a screen spec, not a detection or resolution spec, and it doesn’t mean the Mile 3 sees more than its sensor allows.
Size, weight and battery — where the bases don’t match
Both ranges run replaceable 18650 cells, which is the right architecture for the field — a flat battery is a swap, not the end of the night. Beyond that, the weight comparison needs care, because the two makers quote it differently. Pixfra states the Mile 3 weights without batteries (290–313 g depending on model); NocPix quotes the LUMI at roughly 335–345 g, and the with-or-without-battery basis isn’t clearly stated in the material we reviewed. Since a Mile 3 carries two 18650s and the published figure excludes both, and the LUMI figure’s basis is uncertain, we’re not going to declare a ready-to-use weight winner — the honest statement is that both are genuinely pocket-class handhelds in the low-300-gram-plus range, and the published numbers aren’t measured on the same basis. What is verifiable: the Mile 3 ships two cells and a charger for roughly 10–11 hours total on the 384 models, so you start with a charged spare; the LUMI uses a single-18650 design, while the Mile 3 includes a second cell and charger in the box.
Processing and features — claims, not scores
NocPix runs Reality+ image processing and electronic image stabilisation; Pixfra runs PIPS 3.0 Pro, an AI-assisted engine, plus a dual-band Wi-Fi hotspot to the Pixfra Outdoor app (up to four phones), on-board microphone, picture-in-picture and a compass. These are proprietary feature sets, and a brand name is not a benchmark — neither “Reality+” nor “PIPS 3.0 Pro” proves better real-world image quality on its own, and without a controlled side-by-side we won’t pretend there’s a cross-brand score. Two feature facts are clear and worth weighting, though: the LUMI’s electronic stabilisation is a genuine capability the Mile 3 doesn’t list, and it steadies a handheld image at higher zoom; and the Mile 3’s 64 GB storage, four-phone streaming and PIP are equally concrete on the Pixfra side. Pick the feature that matches how you actually hunt, not the louder acronym.
Warranty and Australian ownership
Warranty is part of the price of ownership, and here the two sit differently — mostly in what’s published. Every Mile 3 is genuine Australian stock through C.R. Kennedy, with a clearly stated full Australian warranty and local service — repairs handled here, not shipped overseas. NocPix internationally runs a strong multi-year warranty programme, but a specific Australian warranty term wasn’t established from the distributor material we reviewed. That’s a documentation gap, not evidence that a claim would be refused — the LUMI is sold here through an established distributor, and buyers should simply confirm the current Australian terms with Ground Force. What we can say plainly: Pixfra’s Australian warranty and local-service position is the clearer, more transparent of the two as published, and for a buyer who values knowing exactly how a fault gets fixed at home, that has real weight.
Where the LUMI genuinely wins
A fair comparison names the competitor’s real strengths without flinching, and the LUMI has several:
| LUMI advantage | What it is | How real |
|---|---|---|
| 35 mm on a 640 sensor (H35) | The one 640 in this comparison with a long lens — more target scale and reach at distance than the 25 mm M625, plus a longer claimed detection range. | Genuine optical edge |
| Electronic image stabilisation | Steadies a handheld thermal image, especially at higher zoom — the Mile 3 doesn’t list it. | Real feature Mile 3 lacks |
| A true entry tier | The 256-sensor P13 at ~$800 sits below where the Mile 3 range starts — the cheapest way into either family. | LUMI-only price point |
| Compact single-cell body | One-battery, pocket-oriented design for buyers who prize minimal bulk. | Subjective / ergonomic |
Where the Mile 3 genuinely wins
| Mile 3 advantage | What it is | How real |
|---|---|---|
| Price on matched pairs | ~$510 under the L35 (384/35), ~$810 under the H35 (640) — on current AU pricing, matched detector class. | Verified, material |
| Lower published NETD | ≤15 mK vs ≤18 mK across the range — the better published sensitivity figure. | Published spec (qualified) |
| Sharper display | 1920×1080 vs 1024×768 — a more refined view (a screen spec, not more thermal detail). | Real experience edge |
| Widest field of view | The 25 mm M625’s 17.4° is the widest in either range — the fastest scanner here. | Genuine, for scanning |
| In the box + storage | Two 18650s and a charger; 64 GB vs 32 GB. | Concrete |
| Australian warranty clarity | Published C.R. Kennedy AU warranty and local service. | Clearer as published |
| Cheaper ranging on a 640 | M625 LRF ($2,450) adds a 1,000 m rangefinder and still undercuts the non-ranging H35. | Verified |
This isn’t forced symmetry — on current Australian pricing and published specs the ledger genuinely runs longer on the Mile 3 side, with the LUMI’s wins concentrated in the H35’s long lens and stabilisation.
Matched on sensor class and optics, the Mile 3 lands five to eight hundred dollars under the LUMI it’s cross-shopped against — and still publishes the lower NETD, the sharper screen and the local warranty.Pixfra Australia
Which should you buy?
Buy the Pixfra Mile 3 if…
You want the most sensor and the most features for your money in Australia. On the matched 384/35 mm pairing the M335 beats the L35 on NETD, display, storage, in-box spare and price; and in the 640 class the M625 gives you the widest field of view in either range, a sharper display and a published local warranty for about $810 less than the H35 — with a ranging M625 LRF still under the H35’s price. It’s the choice for the buyer who scans as much as they reach, values a clear Australian warranty, and doesn’t want to pay a premium for a lens change and stabilisation they may not need.
Buy the NocPix LUMI if…
Your priority is the 35 mm lens on a 640 sensor — the H35 gives you more target scale and reach for deliberate, long-range observation than any 25 mm Mile 3, and a longer claimed detection range. Electronic image stabilisation matters to you and you want it steadying the image at zoom, or you want the lowest-cost way into thermal at all and the 256-sensor P13’s ~$800 entry point fits. If long-range target scale and a stabilised view are what you actually use, the LUMI is a defensible buy — you’ll accept the higher price, the higher NETD and the smaller-format display to get them.
Notice what that verdict isn’t: it isn’t “Pixfra wins because this page lives on pixfra.com.au.” The LUMI has a real optical advantage in the H35’s long lens and a genuine feature edge in stabilisation, and for the buyer who needs those, it’s the right tool. But for most Australian buyers cross-shopping these two ranges — closely matched on detector class and published optical specifications — the Mile 3 delivers the sensor you’re after for several hundred dollars less, with the lower NETD, the sharper screen, the spare battery and the local warranty. That’s a lot of specific, verifiable ground to make up from a lens change and a stabiliser.
Pay more for the H35’s long lens and steadier image if that’s how you hunt. But when the detector format and published aperture already match, the premium has to earn itself on the lens alone.Pixfra Australia
Frequently asked questions
Is the NocPix LUMI or the Pixfra Mile 3 better value in Australia?
On current Australian pricing and matched sensor classes, the Mile 3 is the stronger value for most buyers. The 384/35 mm M335 ($1,690) undercuts the equivalent LUMI L35 ($2,199.95) by about $510, and the 640 M625 ($2,190) undercuts the H35 ($2,999.95) by about $810 — while publishing a lower NETD, a sharper display and a local C.R. Kennedy warranty. The LUMI’s genuine edges are the H35’s 35 mm lens (more reach on a 640 sensor) and electronic image stabilisation. LUMI prices are currently below RRP, so confirm the current figures before buying.
Which LUMI model compares to which Mile 3 model?
The clean like-for-like is the LUMI L35 vs the Mile 3 M335 — both 384×288 on a 35 mm F0.9 lens. In the 640 class the closest pairing is the LUMI H35 vs the Mile 3 M625, but they use different lenses (35 mm vs 25 mm), so they suit different jobs. The LUMI L19 (384/19 mm) sits loosely against the Mile 3 M325 (384/25 mm), and the 256-sensor LUMI P13 has no Mile 3 equivalent — the Mile 3 range starts at a 384 sensor.
Does the LUMI’s F0.9 lens beat the Pixfra Mile 3?
Not on the models you’d cross-shop. The Mile 3 M325, M335 and M625 are all F0.9 too, so on the L35-vs-M335 and H35-vs-M625 pairings the aperture is matched — it isn’t a NocPix advantage. The only Mile 3 with a different aperture is the M625 LRF at F1.0, where the LUMI’s F0.9 admits roughly 23% more light-gathering area. Against the rest of the range, F0.9 is the shared starting point.
The H35 and M625 are both 640 — are they the same?
No. They share the same published 640×512 / 12 µm detector format and F0.9 aperture, but the H35 has a 35 mm lens and the M625 a 25 mm lens. The 35 mm H35 puts more pixels on a distant target (more scale and reach); the 25 mm M625 has a much wider field of view (17.4° vs 12.5°), so it scans more country per sweep and finds game faster. Same detector format, different tool — choose by whether you mostly scan or mostly reach.
Does a 640 sensor mean a sharper image than a 384?
Not on the same target at the same lens. A 640×512 sensor has about 2.96× the thermal pixels of a 384×288 (327,680 vs 110,592), but because the pixel pitch is the same 12 µm, those extra pixels widen the field of view rather than concentrating more detail on the target. At a given focal length the 640 shows you more of the scene at the same angular sharpness — more country, not a crisper animal at the same distance. Detail on target is set by the lens, not the sensor size alone.
Is the Mile 3’s 1920×1080 display better than the LUMI’s?
It’s a sharper screen to look through — 1920×1080 OLED vs 1024×768 AMOLED — which makes for a more refined viewing experience over a long session. But it isn’t more thermal detail: the detector (384 or 640 pixels) is what samples the heat, and the display only shows what the sensor already captured, scaled to the panel. A higher-resolution display can’t add information the sensor never recorded.
Which is lighter, and how do the batteries compare?
Both use replaceable 18650 cells. The published weights aren’t measured on the same basis, so a precise winner can’t be stated: Pixfra quotes the Mile 3 without batteries (290–313 g), while NocPix quotes the LUMI at roughly 335–345 g with the battery basis unclear. Both are pocket-class handhelds. The verifiable difference is what’s in the box: the Mile 3 ships two 18650s and a charger (about 10–11 hours total on the 384 models), so you start with a charged spare; the LUMI uses a single 18650 design, while the Mile 3 includes a second cell and charger in the box.
What Australian warranty applies to each?
The Pixfra Mile 3 is genuine Australian stock through C.R. Kennedy, with a full published Australian warranty and local service — never sent overseas. NocPix runs a strong multi-year warranty programme internationally, but a specific Australian term wasn’t established from the distributor material we reviewed; that’s a documentation gap, not a refusal, so confirm the current Australian terms with the distributor, Ground Force. As published, the Pixfra warranty position is the clearer of the two.
Does either range include a laser rangefinder?
Both offer ranging as a variant. Pixfra’s M625 LRF ($2,450) adds an integrated 1,000 m rangefinder (±1 m) to the 640 image — and still costs less than the non-ranging LUMI H35. NocPix offers the H35R and L35R LRF variants, which sit above their non-LRF siblings in price. If ranging on a 640 sensor is the goal, the M625 LRF is the lower-cost route in this comparison.
Which should I buy for Australian hunting?
For most Australian buyers cross-shopping these ranges, the Mile 3 gives you the matched detector class and published optical specifications for several hundred dollars less, with a lower NETD, a sharper display, a spare battery and a clear local warranty — the M625 for wide-field scanning, the M335 for 384-class reach, the M625 LRF if you want ranging. Choose the LUMI H35 specifically if you want a 35 mm lens on a 640 sensor for long-range target scale, or value electronic image stabilisation; choose the P13 if you want the lowest-cost entry into thermal at all.
More Mile 3 reading: work through the four models in our Mile 3 model guide, or see the range against other brands in Mile 3 vs HIKMICRO Lynx 3.0 and Mile 3 vs ThermTec WILD.
See the Pixfra Mile 3 range for yourself
Four models, one new-generation core — ≤15 mK sensitivity, a 1080p display and removable batteries, from $1,550, genuine Australian stock through C.R. Kennedy. Explore the range or read how the Mile 3 compares elsewhere.
Sources & basis: Pixfra Mile 3 specifications and Australian pricing from the live pixfra.com.au product page (source-of-truth for the current Australian Mile 3 generation); NocPix LUMI specifications from NocPix first-party material and iRay/iRayUSA; Australian NocPix pricing from Ground Force (the Australian distributor), current selling prices at the time of writing (August 2026), which are currently below RRP. Pixel counts and price differences are calculated from published figures and labelled as such. NETD and detection ranges are published/manufacturer figures under each maker’s stated conditions, not measured field results; detection describes pick-up range, not identification. Prices and availability change — confirm current Australian pricing and warranty terms before purchase.
