Generational comparison · Updated 17 August 2026
Pixfra’s Mile 3 arrives without the Mile 2 going anywhere. Both generations are on sale in Australia, they overlap on price, and the newer one is not automatically the right answer. Here is what actually changed between them, and where each one still makes sense.
The short version
- Mile 2 has not been discontinued. All three Australian models remain available and supported.
- The real change is image quality and interface, not reach. Reach follows the lens, not the generation: Mile 3’s 25 mm models carry the same 1,300 m rating a 25 mm Mile 2 lens did.
- Sensitivity improves substantially: Pixfra quotes ≤15 mK NETD across Mile 3, against 25 mK and 35 mK on Mile 2.
- The eyepiece display is the biggest single upgrade — 0.49″ at 1920×1080, up from 0.32″ at 800×600.
- Mile 2 still wins on one thing: single-charge runtime. It is rated ≥8 hours; a single Mile 3 cell is rated ≥5–5.5 hours.
- Mile 3 goes places Mile 2 cannot — it is the first Mile generation with a 640×512 model and with a laser rangefinder model.
- Mile 2 goes cheaper. At $690, $890 and $1,390, the M210P, M215M-N and M419 all sit below the entire Mile 3 range.
The newer generation is not automatically the right answer. What actually changed is image quality and interface — not reach.Pixfra Australia
The two ranges, side by side
Mile 2 is a three-model range in Australia; Mile 3 is a four-model range. They are not a one-for-one replacement of each other, which is the first thing worth getting straight.
Mile 2
- ≤25–35 mK NETD
- 0.32″ display, 800×600
- F1.0 objective
- No 640, no rangefinder
- ≥8 h on one charge · 16 GB
Mile 3
- ≤15 mK NETD
- 0.49″ display, 1920×1080
- F0.9 objective (F1.0 on LRF)
- Adds a 640 model and a rangefinder model
- ≥5–5.5 h per cell, two supplied · 64 GB
| Generation | Model | Detector | Lens | NETD | Detection | AUD inc. GST |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mile 2 | M210P | 256 × 192 | 10 mm F1.0 | ≤35 mK | 500 m | $690 |
| Mile 2 | M215M-N | 256 × 192 | 15 mm F1.0 | ≤35 mK | 710 m | $890 |
| Mile 2 | M419 | 384 × 288 | 19 mm F1.0 | ≤25 mK | 1,000 m | $1,390 |
| Mile 3 | M325 | 384 × 288 | 25 mm F0.9 | ≤15 mK | 1,300 m | $1,550 |
| Mile 3 | M335 | 384 × 288 | 35 mm F0.9 | ≤15 mK | 1,800 m | $1,690 |
| Mile 3 | M625 | 640 × 512 | 25 mm F0.9 | ≤15 mK | 1,300 m | $2,190 |
| Mile 3 | M625 LRF | 640 × 512 | 25 mm F1.0 | ≤15 mK | 1,300 m | $2,450 |
Specifications from the official Pixfra datasheets for each generation. Detection distances are manufacturer figures quoted under the manufacturer’s own conditions.
How the models map across
None of the current Mile 2 models has a like-for-like Mile 3 counterpart.
| Mile 2 | Nearest Mile 3 | What that pairing means |
|---|---|---|
| M210P — 256, 10 mm, $690 | No equivalent | Mile 3 has no 256×192 model and nothing near $690. The M210P is the cheapest way into a Pixfra thermal monocular. |
| M215M-N — 256, 15 mm, $890 | No equivalent | Mile 3 has no 256×192 model at all, and nothing under $1,550. |
| M419 — 384, 19 mm, $1,390 | No direct equivalent | Mile 3 has no short-lens model. The M419’s wider, shorter configuration is not carried over, and nothing in Mile 3 sits at $1,390. |
| — | M325, M335, M625, M625 LRF | Genuinely new territory. The current Mile 2 has no 25 mm, 35 mm, 640×512 or rangefinder model. |
What changed in the sensor and optics
Both generations use a 12 µm vanadium-oxide detector, so the physical resolving power of a given lens has not changed. What has changed is how much temperature difference the detector needs before it can show you something.
Pixfra quotes ≤15 mK for every Mile 3 model, against ≤25 mK on the M419 and ≤35 mK on the M215M-N. Lower is better: it is the smallest temperature difference the sensor can distinguish from its own noise. This is not a range specification — it will not make an animal appear at 1,600 m that was invisible at 1,300 m. What it changes is contrast in difficult conditions: humid nights, light rain, warm ground after a hot day, animals lying in wet grass. That is where a 25 mK sensor turns everything to grey soup and a 15 mK sensor still separates the shapes. If you want the full explanation, see what NETD actually measures.
A 25 mK sensor turns everything to grey soup. A 15 mK sensor still separates the shapes.Where the upgrade earns its keep
The other optical change is the objective. Mile 2 runs F1.0 across all three models; Mile 3 runs F0.9 on the M325, M335 and M625, reverting to F1.0 only on the M625 LRF. A faster objective passes more energy to the detector, which compounds with the sensitivity improvement.
What changed in the eyepiece
This is the difference you notice in the first ten seconds, and it is the one that is hardest to convey on a specification table.
| Mile 2 | Mile 3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Display | 0.32″ OLED, 800 × 600 | 0.49″ OLED, 1920 × 1080 |
| Diopter adjustment | −3 D to +1 D | −5 D to +3 D |
| Eye relief | 13 mm | 15 mm |
| Digital zoom | Stepped — 1× / 2× / 4× / 8× | 1×–8× |
| Image processing | PIPS 2.0 | PIPS 3.0 Pro |
| Colour palettes | 6, including Amber and Emerald | 6, substituting Sepia and Green Hot |
The panel carries roughly four times the pixels of the Mile 2’s, on a physically larger screen. The practical consequence is that the display is no longer the bottleneck. On a 800×600 panel, a 384×288 sensor image is already being upscaled; the extra detail a good sensor produces has nowhere to go. On a 1920×1080 panel it does. That matters most when you zoom, which is exactly when the Mile 2 generation looked its worst. There is more on this distinction in sensor resolution versus display resolution.
The wider diopter range is a smaller change that some people will care about a great deal: −5 D to +3 D covers materially more prescriptions than −3 D to +1 D.
What changed in the hand
Pixfra’s headline ergonomic change is the control layout. On Mile 3, focus, digital zoom and menu navigation all run through a single integrated wheel, which Pixfra describes as an industry first — the design intent being silent, one-handed operation without moving your hand or taking your eye off the eyepiece. Whether that suits you is a matter of preference, but it is a genuine departure from the Mile 2 layout rather than a cosmetic one.
| Mile 2 | Mile 3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Dimensions (L×W×H) | 157.5 × 56.6 × 50.3 mm | 160.0 × 52.6 × 50.5 mm (M325/M625) |
| Weight, no battery | 270 g (M210P) / <300 g (M215M-N) / <320 g (M419) | 290–313 g depending on model |
| Body | IP67 | Magnesium alloy body and lens cap, IP67 |
| Onboard storage | 16 GB | 64 GB |
Both generations are genuinely pocketable and within about 20 g of each other. The Mile 3 is a few millimetres longer and a few millimetres narrower. Neither is heavy enough for weight to decide the purchase.
Battery: the one place Mile 2 is ahead
This runs against every other line in the article
The Mile 2 is rated at ≥8 hours (≥8.5 h on the M215M-N) from its 3,200 mAh cell. A single Mile 3 18650 is rated at ≥5.5 hours on the M325 and M335, and ≥5 hours on the M625 and M625 LRF, with Wi-Fi off. On single-charge endurance, the older generation wins and it is not close.
What Mile 3 changes is the architecture rather than the number. Pixfra supplies two removable cells and a charger, so total capacity across a night is roughly 10–11 hours, and a flat cell is a ten-second swap in the dark rather than the end of the session. Whether that is an upgrade depends entirely on how you use the thing: for a two-hour walk it is irrelevant, and for an all-night shoot it is the whole argument. We wrote about what battery figures actually mean in the field separately.
What Mile 3 adds that Mile 2 never had
Two things, and both of them are why the Mile 3 range extends more than $1,000 above the current Mile 2 range.
A 640×512 model. The M625 and M625 LRF are the first Mile-series monoculars with a 640 detector. Note carefully what this does and does not buy: at the same 25 mm focal length and 12 µm pitch, the M625 is rated to the same 1,300 m as the M325. What the larger detector gives you is field of view — 30.6 m across at 100 m against the M325’s 19.3 m. Because the pixel pitch and the lens are identical, the detail resolved at a given distance is the same as the M325’s; the 640 simply shows you far more of the scene at once. It is a scanning advantage, not a reach advantage. See 384 vs 640 for the full working.
A rangefinder model. The M625 LRF integrates a 1,000 m Class 1 laser rangefinder rated to ±1 m, reporting both straight-line and true horizontal distance. No Mile 2 model offered ranging at all. If you have been using a Mile 2 alongside a separate rangefinder, this consolidates them.
Should an existing Mile 2 owner upgrade?
Not automatically, and in several cases not at all.
Probably yes — you hunt in humid or wet conditions
The jump from 25 mK to 15 mK, plus the faster F0.9 objective, does the most work precisely where thermal is hardest — warm nights, rain, damp ground, low thermal contrast.
Probably yes — you use digital zoom constantly
The 1920×1080 display removes the bottleneck that made the Mile 2 look soft when zoomed. If you spend most of your time at 2× or 4×, this is the upgrade you can see.
Yes, if you need it — you want 640 or a rangefinder
Mile 2 cannot do either at any price. This is not an upgrade decision, it is a capability decision.
Probably not — you want more range
A 25 mm Mile 3 sees no further than a 25 mm Mile 2 did. Only the M335’s 35 mm lens extends it, and it does so by narrowing the field of view.
Probably not — your sessions are short
If you are out for two or three hours at a time, the Mile 2’s longer single-charge runtime is an advantage and the Mile 3’s swap-a-cell architecture solves a problem you do not have.
Probably not — your M419 or M215M-N does the job
Neither has a Mile 3 counterpart at or near its price. Replacing an $890 M215M-N means spending at least $1,550. That is a category change, not an upgrade.
The 25 mm M425 the M325 replaced has since been discontinued — which is exactly what a generational change should look like.Pixfra Australia
Which generation should a new buyer choose?
Both are current products, so this is a real choice rather than a run-out decision. If you are still weighing the wider field, our buyer’s guide to the best thermal monoculars in Australia ranks the whole Pixfra monocular range.
Choose Mile 2 if
Your budget is genuinely under $1,550 — the M210P at $690, the M215M-N at $890 and the M419 at $1,390 have no Mile 3 answer — or if you want the longest possible runtime from a single charge and do not want to think about spare cells.
Choose Mile 3 if
Your budget reaches $1,550 or above. At that point the M325 offers a better sensor, a much better display, four times the storage, a faster objective and a supplied spare battery.
Choose Mile 3 without hesitation if
You want a 640 sensor or an integrated rangefinder, because Mile 2 has neither.
Compare the live pricing and stock
Both generations are on sale in Australia through C.R. Kennedy with full local warranty. Current pricing, stock and any back-order ETA are on the product pages.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Pixfra Mile 2 discontinued?
No. All three Australian Mile 2 models — the M210P, M215M-N and M419 — remain on sale and fully supported alongside the Mile 3. Mile 2 has not been transitioned to legacy status.
What is the main difference between the Mile 2 and the Mile 3?
Thermal sensitivity and the eyepiece display. Pixfra rates every Mile 3 at ≤15 mK NETD against 25 mK and 35 mK on Mile 2, and the display goes from 0.32″ at 800×600 to 0.49″ at 1920×1080. Mile 3 also adds a 640×512 model and a rangefinder model, neither of which existed in Mile 2.
Does the Mile 3 see further than the Mile 2?
Not model-for-model. Mile 3’s 25 mm models, the M325 and M625, are rated to 1,300 m, the same as a 25 mm Mile 2, on the same 12 µm pixel pitch. The only Mile 3 model rated beyond that is the M335 at 1,800 m, and that comes from its longer 35 mm objective rather than from the new generation.
Which Mile 3 model replaces the Mile 2 M425?
The M325. The 25 mm M425 has been discontinued, and the M325 is its closest successor. Both are 384×288 detectors behind a 25 mm lens rated to 1,300 m. The M325 adds a lower NETD figure, a faster F0.9 objective, the larger 1920×1080 display, 64 GB of storage and a supplied spare battery.
Does the Mile 2 have better battery life than the Mile 3?
On a single charge, yes. Pixfra rates the Mile 2 at ≥8 hours (≥8.5 hours on the M215M-N) against ≥5 to ≥5.5 hours per cell on the Mile 3. The Mile 3 supplies two removable cells and a charger, so total available runtime is roughly 10–11 hours, but each individual charge is shorter.
Should I upgrade from a Mile 2 to a Mile 3?
Only for a specific reason. The strongest cases are difficult conditions where the improved sensitivity earns its keep, heavy use of digital zoom where the larger display removes a real bottleneck, or needing a 640 sensor or an integrated rangefinder that Mile 2 cannot provide. If you want more range, or your sessions are short, the upgrade is harder to justify.
Is the Mile 2 still worth buying in 2026?
Yes, in two situations. If your budget is under $1,550, the M210P at $690, the M215M-N at $890 and the M419 at $1,390 have no equivalent in the Mile 3 range. And if you value the longest single-charge runtime without carrying spare cells, the Mile 2 is rated higher. Above $1,550, the Mile 3 M325 is the stronger buy.
