Pixfra Australia · Comparison · Thermal Monoculars
Two ranges dominate the Australian thermal monocular shortlist right now, and one of them has only just arrived. HIKMICRO’s Lynx 3.0 has been the default recommendation on Australian shop floors since late 2025. The Pixfra Mile 3 range landed in August 2026 and lines up against it almost model for model.
What makes this comparison unusually clean — and unusually useful — is that two of the pairings are not merely similar. They are the same optical instrument on paper. Same detector format, same pixel pitch, same focal length. When that happens, the marketing collapses and one question is left standing: if the optics sample the scene identically, what is the price difference actually buying?
This article answers that. It credits HIKMICRO where HIKMICRO genuinely wins, which is in more places than a Pixfra retailer might find comfortable, and it refuses to manufacture a Pixfra victory out of specification rounding. Every figure below comes from a manufacturer datasheet or a named Australian retailer, and every one is dated.
Two of these four pairings are the same optical instrument on paper. That is not a marketing problem. It is the most useful fact in the comparison.
Pixfra Australia
Key takeaways
- The M325 and the Lynx LH25 3.0 resolve identically. Both are 384 × 288 on a 12 µm pitch behind a 25 mm lens. Both sample the scene at 0.480 milliradians per pixel. Neither picks out finer detail than the other at any distance.
- So do the M335 and the Lynx LH35 3.0 — both 0.343 mrad on a 35 mm lens. Two of the four pairings are optical twins.
- NETD is a dead heat. Both ranges publish 15 mK quoted at the same f-number, so for once the figures are directly comparable — and they are equal. Nobody wins that row.
- HIKMICRO genuinely leads on four things: a ten-year warranty on the uncooled sensor specifically — while both brands state three years on the rest of the device — plus higher native magnification in every pairing, longer eye relief, and stock sitting on Australian shelves today.
- Pixfra genuinely leads on four things: a faster F0.9 objective on three of four models, a closer minimum focus, a higher operating-temperature ceiling, and price at every single matched pairing.
- At the 640 tier the two brands stop competing and start diverging. HIKMICRO’s 640 sits on a 35 mm lens and genuinely out-resolves the Mile 3 M625. The M625 sits on 25 mm and sees far wider. Different tools, and the price gap is large.
- Price is the headline, and it is consistent: the Pixfra costs between 26% and 36% less than its HIKMICRO counterpart at every pairing, at the prices published on the date below.
Specifications and Australian pricing checked: 17 August 2026
The short answer
If you are cross-shopping these two ranges and want the conclusion before the working, here it is by pairing.
| If you are looking at… | The honest verdict |
|---|---|
| Lynx LH25 3.0 ($2,099) vs Mile 3 M325 ($1,550) | Optical twins. The HIKMICRO gives you more eyepiece magnification, longer eye relief and a ten-year sensor warranty. The Pixfra gives you a faster F0.9 lens, focus down to 1 m and costs 26% less. Neither resolves more detail than the other. |
| Lynx LH35 3.0 ($2,399) vs Mile 3 M335 ($1,690) | Optical twins again. Same trade, wider gap: the Pixfra costs 30% less. If you want the most magnification you can get from a 384 sensor, the LH35’s 3.4× native is the highest here. |
| Lynx LQ35 3.0 ($3,299) vs Mile 3 M625 ($2,190) | Not twins — genuinely different instruments. The LQ35 puts its 640 sensor behind 35 mm and resolves about 40% finer than the M625. The M625 puts its 640 behind 25 mm and shows you about 40% more scene width. Pick by job. The Pixfra costs 34% less. |
| Lynx LQ35L 3.0 ($3,799) vs Mile 3 M625 LRF ($2,450) | Same divergence, plus a laser rangefinder on both. Both publish 1,000 m. The Pixfra costs 36% less; the HIKMICRO resolves finer at distance. |
Australian prices inc. GST, checked 17 August 2026 across multiple retailers. Percentages are calculated against the HIKMICRO price throughout this article.
How we express the price gap
One convention, used everywhere below: “the Pixfra costs X% less”, calculated against the HIKMICRO price. The same $549 gap can honestly be written as “26% less than the HIKMICRO” or “the HIKMICRO costs 35% more”, and switching between the two depending on which sounds bigger is a sales trick, not analysis. We picked the smaller-sounding one and stuck to it.
Which model competes with which
Both ranges are built on the same two building blocks — a 384 × 288 or a 640 × 512 detector, always on a 12 µm pixel pitch — and then differentiated by lens. That makes the mapping unusually tidy.
| Pixfra Mile 3 | AUD | HIKMICRO Lynx 3.0 | AUD | Optically equivalent? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M325 — 384, 25 mm | $1,550 | LH25 3.0 — 384, 25 mm | $2,099 | Yes — identical sampling |
| M335 — 384, 35 mm | $1,690 | LH35 3.0 — 384, 35 mm | $2,399 | Yes — identical sampling |
| M625 — 640, 25 mm | $2,190 | LQ35 3.0 — 640, 35 mm | $3,299 | No — different lens, different job |
| M625 LRF — 640, 25 mm, laser | $2,450 | LQ35L 3.0 — 640, 35 mm, laser | $3,799 | No — different lens, both ranged |
| — (no Mile 3 equivalent) | — | LH19 3.0 — 384, 19 mm | $1,899 | Wider and shorter than anything in Mile 3 |
HIKMICRO’s Lynx 3.0 range runs wider than this table — the LE10, LE15 and LH15 3.0 sit below $1,700 on smaller detectors, and there is no Mile 3 model competing with them.
The number that decides this comparison
Almost every misleading thermal comparison you will read makes the same mistake: it treats detector resolution as if it were image quality. It is not. What determines how much detail an instrument can put on a distant animal is not how many pixels the detector has, but how small an angle each pixel covers.
Both ranges use a 12 µm pitch on every model. That single fact does something remarkable to this comparison: it removes the detector from the equation entirely and leaves angular sampling determined by focal length alone.
| Model | Detector | Pitch ÷ focal length | IFOV | What that means |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HIKMICRO Lynx LH19 3.0 | 384 × 288 | 12 ÷ 19 | 0.632 mrad | Coarsest sampling here — a wide-field scanner |
| Pixfra Mile 3 M325 | 384 × 288 | 12 ÷ 25 | 0.480 mrad | All four sample identically. None of them resolves finer than another at a given distance. |
| HIKMICRO Lynx LH25 3.0 | 384 × 288 | 12 ÷ 25 | 0.480 mrad | |
| Pixfra Mile 3 M625 | 640 × 512 | 12 ÷ 25 | 0.480 mrad | |
| Pixfra Mile 3 M625 LRF | 640 × 512 | 12 ÷ 25 | 0.480 mrad | |
| Pixfra Mile 3 M335 | 384 × 288 | 12 ÷ 35 | 0.343 mrad | All four sample identically, and all four resolve finer than the 25 mm group above. |
| HIKMICRO Lynx LH35 3.0 | 384 × 288 | 12 ÷ 35 | 0.343 mrad | |
| HIKMICRO Lynx LQ35 3.0 | 640 × 512 | 12 ÷ 35 | 0.343 mrad | |
| HIKMICRO Lynx LQ35L 3.0 | 640 × 512 | 12 ÷ 35 | 0.343 mrad |
Calculated from each manufacturer’s own published pixel pitch and focal length. Lower is finer.
Same lens, same pixel pitch, same detail on the animal
What the bigger detector actually adds at 25 mm
384 × 288 · 25 mm
M325 or Lynx LH25 3.0
640 × 512 · 25 mm
Mile 3 M625, same lens
Same angular sampling. Wider scene, not a sharper target.
Why this matters commercially
It means the two most affordable pairings in this comparison — M325 against LH25 3.0, and M335 against LH35 3.0 — cannot be won or lost on resolving power. Anyone who tells you their 384 monocular picks out more detail than the identically-configured one next to it is selling, not explaining. Read resolution vs lens vs sensitivity if you want the longer version of why.
Same pixel pitch, same focal length, the same detail on target. On the two identical pairings, the sensor label is the only thing that differs.The number that decides this
M325 vs HIKMICRO Lynx LH25 3.0
The cleanest comparison in this article, and the one most Australian buyers will actually face. Same detector, same pitch, same lens, same 0.480 mrad. Everything that differs below is a design decision, not a capability tier.
| Specification | Pixfra Mile 3 M325 | HIKMICRO Lynx LH25 3.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Detector | 384 × 288, 12 µm, VOx uncooled | 384 × 288, 12 µm, VOx uncooled |
| Focal length / aperture | 25 mm, F0.9 | 25 mm, f/1.0 |
| Angular sampling (IFOV) | 0.480 mrad | 0.480 mrad |
| NETD (both quoted at f/1.0) | ≤15 mK | <15 mK @ 25 °C |
| Native magnification | 1.8× | 2.5× |
| Digital zoom | 1×–8× | to 20× total (8× digital) |
| Field of view (published) | 11.0° / 19.3 m at 100 m | 10.5° / 18.4 m at 100 m |
| Minimum focus | 1 m | 3 m |
| Display | 1920 × 1080, 0.49″ OLED | 1920 × 1080, 0.49″ AMOLED |
| Frame rate | 50 Hz | 50 Hz |
| Eye relief / diopter | 15 mm / −5 D to +3 D | 20 mm / −5 D to +3 D |
| Storage | 64 GB | 64 GB |
| Battery | One 18650 in use, two supplied | One 18650 in use, two supplied + charger |
| Stated runtime | ≥5.5 h at 25 °C, Wi-Fi off | 5 h at 25 °C, hotspot on |
| Operating temperature | −30 °C to +55 °C | −30 °C to +45 °C |
| Protection | IP67 | IP67 |
| Weight | ≤300 g (basis not stated) | 328.5 g with battery |
| Manufacturer detection figure | 1,300 m | 1,200 m |
| Australian price (inc. GST) | $1,550 | $2,099 |
Sources: Pixfra PFI-M325 datasheet (rev. 31 July 2026); HIKMICRO LH25 3.0 official datasheet; Australian pricing from multiple retailers, 17 August 2026.
About those two detection figures
Pixfra publishes 1,300 m for the M325. HIKMICRO publishes 1,200 m for the LH25 3.0. These are optically identical instruments — same detector, same pitch, same lens. The 100 m difference cannot be a capability difference, because there is no physical mechanism by which it could be. It is a difference in how each manufacturer models and reports the figure, and neither publishes the target size, temperature differential or atmospheric assumptions behind it. Treat every detection distance in this article, from either brand, as a manufacturer specification rather than a measured result. If you want to understand what those numbers really describe, how far can a thermal really see and the Johnson criteria explained both cover it properly.
Where the Lynx LH25 3.0 leads
Three real advantages, none of them trivial. Native magnification of 2.5× against 1.8× means the scene simply looks bigger through the eyepiece before you touch the zoom, and it means less reliance on digital zoom to frame something — the LH25 reaches 20× total where the M325 tops out at 14.4×. Eye relief of 20 mm against 15 mm is a genuine ergonomic advantage if you wear glasses. And HIKMICRO’s ten-year warranty on the uncooled sensor is longer than anything Pixfra Australia offers.
Where the M325 leads
The F0.9 objective is genuinely faster than f/1.0 — about 23% more light reaching the image plane, all else being equal. Focus down to 1 m against 3 m matters more than it sounds if you use a monocular around sheds, yards or vehicles. The +55 °C operating ceiling against +45 °C is a real consideration in an Australian summer. And it costs 26% less.
M335 vs HIKMICRO Lynx LH35 3.0
The same story on a longer lens. Both step up to 35 mm, both sample at 0.343 mrad, and both are rated by their makers at 1,800 m. This is the pairing for people who watch across open country rather than scanning close cover.
| Specification | Pixfra Mile 3 M335 | HIKMICRO Lynx LH35 3.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Detector | 384 × 288, 12 µm | 384 × 288, 12 µm |
| Focal length / aperture | 35 mm, F0.9 | 35 mm, f/1.0 |
| Angular sampling (IFOV) | 0.343 mrad | 0.343 mrad |
| NETD (both quoted at f/1.0) | ≤15 mK | <15 mK @ 25 °C |
| Native magnification | 2.5× | 3.4× |
| Field of view (published) | 7.8° / 13.6 m at 100 m | 7.5° / 13.1 m at 100 m |
| Minimum focus | 2 m | 3.5 m |
| Stated runtime | ≥5.5 h at 25 °C, Wi-Fi off | 5 h at 25 °C, hotspot on |
| Operating temperature | −30 °C to +55 °C | −30 °C to +45 °C |
| Weight | ≤310 g (basis not stated) | 354.5 g with battery |
| Manufacturer detection figure | 1,800 m | 1,800 m |
| Australian price (inc. GST) | $1,690 | $2,399 |
Display, frame rate, storage, IP rating, battery architecture and diopter range are identical to the 25 mm pairing above on both instruments.
Where the Lynx LH35 3.0 leads
3.4× native magnification is the highest figure in this entire comparison, and on a long-lens instrument that is exactly where you want it — you are looking at distant, small things, and more of the display is filled by them before any digital zoom is applied. Total magnification reaches 27.2×. The ten-year sensor warranty applies here too.
Where the M335 leads
Faster F0.9 glass, focus to 2 m rather than 3.5 m, the higher temperature ceiling, and a 30% lower price — $709 less. Both instruments carry the finest angular sampling available in either range, so this is the pairing where the price gap does the most work.
At the 640 tier the brands stop competing. HIKMICRO resolves finer detail; the Mile 3 M625 shows a wider field. Neither is simply better.Where they diverge
The 640 tier: where the two brands stop competing
Here the ranges genuinely diverge, and it would be dishonest to present it as a straight fight. HIKMICRO puts its 640 detector behind a 35 mm lens. Pixfra puts its 640 behind 25 mm. That is not a quality difference. It is two manufacturers answering two different questions.
| Specification | Mile 3 M625 | Mile 3 M625 LRF | Lynx LQ35 3.0 | Lynx LQ35L 3.0 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Detector | 640 × 512, 12 µm | 640 × 512, 12 µm | 640 × 512, 12 µm | 640 × 512, 12 µm |
| Focal length / aperture | 25 mm, F0.9 | 25 mm, F1.0 | 35 mm, f/1.0 | 35 mm, f/1.0 |
| Angular sampling | 0.480 mrad | 0.480 mrad | 0.343 mrad | 0.343 mrad |
| Field of view | 17.4° / 30.6 m | 17.4° / 30.6 m | 12.5° / 21.9 m | 12.5° / 21.9 m |
| Native magnification | 1.2× | 1.2× | 1.9× | 1.9× |
| Laser rangefinder | — | 1,000 m, ±1 m, Class 1 | — | 1,000 m |
| Manufacturer detection figure | 1,300 m | 1,300 m | 1,800 m | 1,800 m |
| Stated runtime | ≥5 h, Wi-Fi off | ≥5 h, Wi-Fi off | 5 h, hotspot on | 5 h, hotspot on |
| Weight | ≤290 g (basis not stated) | ≤313 g (basis not stated) | not verified | not verified |
| Australian price (inc. GST) | $2,190 | $2,450 | $3,299 | $3,799 |
HIKMICRO’s own website currently returns the LH35’s figures in the LQ35 and LQ35L specification columns, which is geometrically impossible for a 640 detector on a 35 mm lens. The 12.5° / 21.9 m figures above are the geometrically correct values and match multiple retailer listings, but they are not confirmed by a manufacturer datasheet. LQ35 and LQ35L weights could not be verified and are omitted rather than guessed.
The other side of that trade is just as real. On the same 12 µm pitch, a shorter lens buys width.
What each 640 shows you at 100 metres
Horizontal scene width, from each maker’s published field of view
Which one is right depends entirely on what you do at night. Somebody clearing foxes along a fence line covers ground and wants to find animals quickly; somebody watching a single gully for an hour wants to work out exactly what is standing in it. The M625 is built for the first job, the LQ35 for the second, and a comparison that declares a winner without asking which you are is not worth reading.
On the laser rangefinder pairing
Both the Mile 3 M625 LRF and the Lynx LQ35L 3.0 publish a 1,000 m laser. Pixfra’s datasheet states ±1 m accuracy and Class 1 laser safety. We could not find an official HIKMICRO figure for LQ35L accuracy or laser class — the ±1 m figure circulating on retailer listings is not confirmed on a HIKMICRO document we could locate. We are not treating that as a defect; it is simply a specification we could not verify, and we would rather say so than assume parity.
Aperture: the one optical spec that genuinely differs
Every HIKMICRO Lynx 3.0 model in this comparison uses an f/1.0 objective. Pixfra uses F0.9 on the M325, M335 and M625, and F1.0 on the M625 LRF. So on three of the four pairings Pixfra has the faster lens, and on the rangefinder pairing the two are level.
The physics is straightforward: light gathered scales with the inverse square of the f-number, so F0.9 against f/1.0 is roughly 23% more light at the image plane, all else being equal. What it is not is a guarantee of a better picture. Aperture is one link in a chain that also includes the detector, the readout, the image processing and the display, and a faster lens can be given away again by weaker processing. It is a real advantage; it is not a trump card. Our guide to thermal lens size covers how aperture and focal length interact.
NETD: for once, a fair fight — and a draw
NETD comparisons across brands are usually meaningless, because manufacturers quote it on different bases. Some publish a sensor figure and a system figure; some state an ambient temperature and no aperture; some state an aperture and no temperature. Comparing two numbers taken on different bases tells you nothing.
This comparison is the exception. Pixfra’s datasheets state “Sensitivity (NETD) ≤15 mK@f/1.0”. HIKMICRO’s Lynx 3.0 datasheets state “Less than 15 mK (@25 °C), F#=1.0”. Same f-number, same nominal ceiling. For once the two figures are directly comparable — and they are equal.
So nobody wins this row. Any claim that either brand has a thermal-sensitivity advantage over the other in this comparison is unsupported. Read what NETD actually measures for why the number is quoted as a ceiling rather than a measured value in the first place.
The rows where nobody wins
A surprising amount of this comparison is a dead heat, and saying so is more useful than inventing differences.
| Attribute | Both ranges | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Pixel pitch | 12 µm | Identical across every model in both ranges |
| NETD | 15 mK at f/1.0 | Same figure, same basis |
| Display | 1920 × 1080, 0.49″ | HIKMICRO specifies AMOLED, Pixfra OLED |
| Frame rate | 50 Hz | Identical |
| Internal storage | 64 GB | Identical |
| Protection grade | IP67 | Identical |
| Diopter adjustment | −5 D to +3 D | Identical |
| Batteries supplied | One 18650 in use, two in the box | Both. HIKMICRO also lists a charger in the box; Pixfra supplies one too |
| Digital zoom | 8× | Identical multiplier; totals differ only because native magnification differs |
If you see a comparison claiming an advantage on any of these rows, check the source.
Two things we deliberately did not compare
Weight. HIKMICRO states its weights explicitly “with battery” — 328.5 g for the LH25, 354.5 g for the LH35. Pixfra’s datasheets give a “net weight” without stating whether the 18650 is included. An 18650 cell is roughly 45–50 g, which is more than the apparent gap. Until Pixfra confirms the basis, any weight comparison here would be guesswork dressed as a specification, so we have printed both figures and drawn no conclusion.
Runtime. Pixfra publishes “≥5.5 h at 25 °C, Wi-Fi off”. HIKMICRO publishes “5 h at 25 °C” with the hotspot running. A figure measured with the radio off and a figure measured with the radio on are not the same test. Both ranges will run all night on two cells; neither has a demonstrated advantage from the published numbers.
Warranty and Australian support
This is the section where HIKMICRO has its single most quotable advantage, and it deserves to be stated without hedging — and read precisely, because the headline number and the coverage it buys are not the same thing.
| Pixfra Australia | HIKMICRO | |
|---|---|---|
| Device, electronics | 3 years | 3 years |
| Uncooled thermal sensor | 3 years — included in the same three-year term | 10 years — HIKMICRO’s published global policy |
| Battery and accessories | 12 months | 12 months |
| Transferable to a second owner | Not stated | No — “not transferable to any other party” |
| Return costs under the published terms | Not stated | Customer — inbound freight, insurance and incidental costs; HIKMICRO pays return freight |
| What counts as a sensor failure | Not stated | Not published — no dead-pixel threshold in any HIKMICRO document we could find |
| Registration required? | No — recommended, not required | No — optional; registering within 30 days adds 180 days |
| Who handles an Australian claim | Pixfra Australia lodges it; C.R. Kennedy, the authorised Australian distributor, provides national service | Administered in Australia by the local importer, Huntsman Optics |
| Australian Consumer Law | Applies regardless of any manufacturer warranty, for both brands | |
Pixfra Australia terms from our published warranty policy; HIKMICRO terms from its official global limited-warranty policy. Both checked 17 August 2026.
HIKMICRO has the stronger stated detector warranty, and it is theirs to claim. Its headline ten-year term applies specifically to the uncooled detector. The rest of the device — electronics, display, controls, connectors, housing — carries three years, which is the same as Pixfra Australia, and the battery is twelve months on both. So whole-device coverage is level, and HIKMICRO is ahead by seven years on one critical component. If long-horizon cover on the detector is what you are optimising for, HIKMICRO is the better buy on paper and we are not going to argue otherwise.
Three things are worth knowing alongside it, none of which make it a bad warranty. It is not transferable — HIKMICRO’s policy states the cover “extends only to you”, so it does not follow the device to a second owner, which is worth factoring into resale. HIKMICRO’s published terms put certain return costs on the customer — freight for your shipment to HIKMICRO, plus insurance and incidental charges; HIKMICRO covers the freight back to you. The Australian importer says it may cover inbound shipping in some circumstances, so it is worth asking. And HIKMICRO does not publish a definition of sensor failure — there is no dead-pixel threshold in its warranty policy, its returns policy, or any regional document we could find, so what triggers a detector claim in year eight is not something a buyer can read in advance.
There is also an Australian wrinkle worth raising, and it is a publication gap rather than a problem with the warranty itself. The ten-year detector term is HIKMICRO’s global published policy, and that policy says the period “may vary depending on the country or state where this product is sold”. We could not locate an Australia-specific schedule. The importer who would handle your claim, Huntsman Optics, publishes a three-year warranty but does not separately publish the ten-year detector term, and Australian retailers represent it inconsistently — of those we checked, one advertises the three-plus-ten structure, five advertise three years, two advertise two years, and four state no term at all. None of that indicates the ten-year detector term would be refused, and we have no evidence that it would be. It means that if you are placing material value on years four to ten, it is worth asking your retailer to confirm that detector coverage in writing before you buy.
Pixfra Australia’s structure is flatter. Three years covers the core optic, the thermal sensor and the electronics together under one published Australian term, with twelve months on batteries and accessories, and C.R. Kennedy — a distributor that has been servicing optics in this country for decades — named as the national service network. Shorter on the detector, simpler to read, administered locally. Both sit on top of your Australian Consumer Law rights, which no manufacturer warranty can reduce.
How much is a decade of detector cover actually worth to you?
Context, offered as context and nothing more. A ten-year detector warranty is not a ten-year thermal monocular warranty, and a working monocular depends on a great deal that sits outside the detector — the display you look through, the encoder wheel you turn every time you use it, the USB port, the battery contacts, the seals that keep the weather out. On both brands, none of that carries the ten-year detector term. It is covered for three years.
The other half of the calculation is time. A monocular bought in 2026 reaches year ten in 2036. Thermal imaging is moving quickly — both the Lynx 3.0 and the Mile 3 replaced ranges that were current a year or two ago, and both brought real changes in detector, display and processing. Only you can judge how heavily to weight detector-specific cover that far into the ownership lifecycle, and it is a fair question to ask before paying for it.
None of which is an argument against a long warranty. If your detector fails in year seven, a ten-year term is worth exactly what it says, and nobody should talk you out of valuing that. It is simply worth weighing a decade of cover on one component against the things you will notice every night for the next three years — the aperture, the field of view, the ergonomics, and what you paid.
HIKMICRO has the stronger stated detector warranty. Its ten-year term covers the sensor specifically — on the rest of the device, both brands say three years.
Pixfra Australia
Availability and where you actually buy
HIKMICRO has been in the Australian market for years and it shows. At the time of writing, the Lynx LH19, LH25, LH35, LQ35 and LQ35L 3.0 were all showing in stock at multiple independent Australian retailers — we found at least six carrying the range, in most states, with prices within a few dollars of each other. If you want to hold one before you buy, or you want it this week, that is a genuine and immediate advantage.
Pixfra Australia sells direct. There is no dealer to hunt down and no margin stacked on top, which is a large part of why the prices in this article read the way they do — but it also means you are buying from one place rather than choosing between six. At the time of writing (17 August 2026) the Mile 3 range was on back-order following its August launch. Stock and delivery estimates change, so rather than freezing a date into this article, the live position is always shown on the Mile 3 product page buy panel.
Australian pricing, in one place
| Model | Configuration | AUD inc. GST | Pixfra costs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pixfra Mile 3 M325 | 384, 25 mm, F0.9 | $1,550 | 26% less |
| HIKMICRO Lynx LH25 3.0 | 384, 25 mm, f/1.0 | $2,099 | |
| Pixfra Mile 3 M335 | 384, 35 mm, F0.9 | $1,690 | 30% less |
| HIKMICRO Lynx LH35 3.0 | 384, 35 mm, f/1.0 | $2,399 | |
| Pixfra Mile 3 M625 | 640, 25 mm, F0.9 | $2,190 | 34% less |
| HIKMICRO Lynx LQ35 3.0 | 640, 35 mm, f/1.0 | $3,299 | |
| Pixfra Mile 3 M625 LRF | 640, 25 mm, F1.0, laser | $2,450 | 36% less |
| HIKMICRO Lynx LQ35L 3.0 | 640, 35 mm, f/1.0, laser | $3,799 |
Checked 17 August 2026. HIKMICRO prices were consistent across multiple independent Australian retailers with no sale or clearance pricing observed on any Lynx 3.0 model; there is no published Australian recommended retail price to cite. Pixfra prices are our own, direct. Prices change — verify before you buy.
Two honest notes on that table. The bottom two rows are not like-for-like optically, so the percentage there compares price, not equivalent instruments — a buyer choosing between the M625 and the LQ35 is choosing between width and reach as much as between prices. And the top two rows are the ones where the percentage means exactly what it appears to mean, because the instruments are optically identical.
Where HIKMICRO Lynx 3.0 is better
Collected in one place, without qualification or burial.
| Advantage | The detail |
|---|---|
| Ten-year detector warranty | HIKMICRO’s global policy gives ten years on the uncooled sensor against Pixfra Australia’s three. It applies to the detector only — both brands are level at three years on the rest of the device — but on that one critical component it is the longer stated cover by seven years. |
| Higher native magnification, every pairing | 2.5× against 1.8× at 25 mm; 3.4× against 2.5× at 35 mm; 1.9× against 1.2× at the 640 tier. More of the display filled before any digital zoom is used. |
| Longer eye relief | 20 mm against 15 mm. A practical, everyday advantage for anyone wearing glasses. |
| Finer angular sampling at the 640 tier | The LQ35 and LQ35L sample at 0.343 mrad against the M625’s 0.480 — roughly 40% more pixels on target at a given distance. If detail at distance is the priority, the HIKMICRO is the better instrument. |
| Immediate Australian availability | In stock across multiple independent retailers at the time of writing, in most states. |
| A far larger dealer network | Six or more Australian retailers carry the Lynx 3.0 range. Hands-on comparison before purchase is easy. |
| A broader ladder | Lynx 3.0 starts below $700 with the LE10 and runs to $3,799. Mile 3 covers $1,550 to $2,450 only. |
| Longer-reach options outside the Mile 3 envelope | HIKMICRO’s wider catalogue includes 50 mm instruments that sample at 0.240 mrad. Nothing in Mile 3 goes there at any price. |
Every item verified from HIKMICRO’s own documentation or from Australian retail listings on 17 August 2026.
Where Pixfra Mile 3 is better
| Advantage | The detail |
|---|---|
| Price at every matched pairing | 26% less at 25 mm, 30% at 35 mm, 34% and 36% at the 640 tier. On the two optically identical pairings this is a straight saving for the same resolving performance. |
| Faster F0.9 objective | On the M325, M335 and M625. Roughly 23% more light at the image plane than f/1.0, all else equal. Level at F1.0 on the M625 LRF. |
| Closer minimum focus | 1 m on the M325 and M625 against 3 m; 2 m on the M335 against 3.5 m. Useful around yards, sheds and vehicles. |
| Higher operating-temperature ceiling | +55 °C against +45 °C. Both go down to −30 °C. The ceiling is the one that matters in an Australian summer. |
| A wide-angle 640 option | The M625 and M625 LRF put a 640 detector behind 25 mm for 17.4° and 30.6 m of scene at 100 m. HIKMICRO’s 640s are 35 mm only, at 12.5°. For covering ground quickly, the Pixfra sees about 40% more per sweep. |
| 640 with a laser at a much lower price | $2,450 against $3,799 — 36% less — though on a shorter lens with a wider field. |
| Australian-specific published warranty terms | Terms written for the Australian market, with C.R. Kennedy named as the national service network. One published three-year term covers the core optic, the thermal sensor and the electronics together, with twelve months on batteries and accessories. |
| Direct from the retailer | No dealer hunt, no reseller margin, and one place to call when something is wrong. |
Four claims to be sceptical of
Two pairings are the same optic at a different price. The other two are a real trade between detail and field of view. That is the whole decision.Pixfra Australia
So which one should you buy?
| If this is you… | Buy this | Why |
|---|---|---|
| First thermal, mixed distances, want the most capability per dollar | Pixfra Mile 3 M325 — $1,550 | Identical resolving performance to the $2,099 LH25 3.0, a faster lens, and $549 left over. |
| You wear glasses, or you want the biggest image through the eyepiece | HIKMICRO Lynx LH25 3.0 — $2,099 | 20 mm eye relief and 2.5× native magnification are genuine ergonomic wins. |
| Open country, long sightlines, one animal at a time | Pixfra Mile 3 M335 — $1,690 | The finest angular sampling either range offers on a 384 sensor, at 30% less than the LH35. |
| Same, but you want maximum eyepiece magnification and the long sensor warranty | HIKMICRO Lynx LH35 3.0 — $2,399 | 3.4× native is the highest here, and ten years on the detector. |
| Covering ground fast — scanning paddocks, fence lines, tree edges | Pixfra Mile 3 M625 — $2,190 | 30.6 m of scene at 100 m against 21.9 m. Finding is the hard part; this finds fastest. |
| Identifying small targets at distance, budget allows | HIKMICRO Lynx LQ35 3.0 — $3,299 | 0.343 mrad against 0.480 — about 40% more pixels on target. The better instrument for this job. |
| You want ranging as well, and value matters | Pixfra Mile 3 M625 LRF — $2,450 | 1,000 m laser, wide 640 field, 36% less than the LQ35L 3.0. |
| You are not sure which Mile 3 model fits | Read which Mile 3 model to buy | It walks the four models against use cases without the competitor comparison. |
If you are upgrading rather than buying your first thermal, the other question worth asking is whether you need the new generation at all — Mile 2 vs Mile 3 covers what actually changed, and the Mile 2 range remains current, supported and a genuinely sensible buy at the lower end. The Mile 3 Australian launch article has the full range specifications if you want them in one place.
See the Pixfra Mile 3 range
Sold direct in Australia, with C.R. Kennedy-backed national service, three years on the device and twelve months on the battery. Live pricing and stock on the product page.
Still working out whether you need 384 or 640 before you compare brands at all?
Continue learning
The concepts behind every number in this comparison.
Comparing the Mile 3 against other brands too? See how the range lines up against the NocPix LUMI family.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Pixfra Mile 3 better than the HIKMICRO Lynx 3.0?
Neither range is better across the board, and two of the four pairings are optically identical so neither can be. HIKMICRO leads on warranty length for the sensor, native magnification, eye relief, immediate Australian availability, dealer network, and angular sampling at the 640 tier. Pixfra leads on aperture, minimum focus distance, operating-temperature ceiling, field of view at the 640 tier, and price at every pairing. They are level on pixel pitch, NETD, display, frame rate, storage, IP rating, diopter range and batteries supplied.
Do the Pixfra M325 and the HIKMICRO Lynx LH25 3.0 really resolve the same amount of detail?
Yes. Both use a 384 by 288 detector on a 12 micrometre pixel pitch behind a 25 mm lens, which gives both an instantaneous field of view of 0.480 milliradians per pixel. That figure determines how many pixels land on a target at a given distance, and it is identical. Differences you may notice between them come from aperture, image processing and display, not from resolving power.
Which has the better thermal sensitivity, Pixfra or HIKMICRO?
Neither. Both publish 15 mK, and unusually for a cross-brand comparison both quote it at the same f-number, so the figures are directly comparable. Pixfra states 15 mK at f/1.0 and HIKMICRO states less than 15 mK at 25 degrees Celsius at F-number 1.0. Any claim that one brand is more sensitive than the other in this comparison is unsupported.
Why does the Pixfra M625 have a bigger sensor but a lower detection figure than the HIKMICRO LQ35 3.0?
Because detection distance follows focal length, not detector size, when the pixel pitch is the same. The M625 uses a 25 mm lens and the LQ35 uses 35 mm, so the LQ35 samples the scene more finely and its maker rates it further. The M625 trades that reach for field of view, showing about 30.6 metres of scene at 100 metres against roughly 21.9 metres. They are built for different jobs.
Does the 640 sensor in the Pixfra M625 give a sharper image than the 384 sensor in the M325?
Not at a given distance on the same lens. Both are 12 micrometre pitch behind 25 mm, so both sample at 0.480 milliradians and both are rated at 1,300 metres by Pixfra. The 640 detector captures a much wider field of view, roughly 30.6 metres at 100 metres against about 18 metres, which makes scanning faster. It does not concentrate more pixels on the animal.
What is the warranty difference between the two brands in Australia?
Both brands cover the device for three years and batteries and accessories for twelve months, so whole-device coverage is level. The difference is the detector: HIKMICRO’s global policy adds ten years on the uncooled sensor, where Pixfra Australia’s three-year term already includes the thermal sensor alongside the core optic and electronics. That is a genuine HIKMICRO advantage on one critical component. Three caveats worth knowing: the HIKMICRO term is not transferable to a second owner, HIKMICRO’s published terms put certain return costs on the customer, and HIKMICRO does not publish a definition of sensor failure or a dead-pixel threshold. The ten-year detector term is also a global policy and the Australian importer publishes only three years, so it is worth asking your retailer to confirm the detector coverage in writing. Australian Consumer Law rights apply to both regardless of any manufacturer warranty.
Which is lighter, the Mile 3 or the Lynx 3.0?
We cannot say honestly. HIKMICRO states its weights with the battery installed, for example 328.5 grams for the LH25 3.0. Pixfra publishes a net weight without stating whether the 18650 cell is included, and an 18650 weighs roughly 45 to 50 grams, which is larger than the apparent gap. Until the basis is confirmed, any weight comparison between them would be a guess.
Which range runs longer on a battery?
The published figures are not comparable. Pixfra quotes at least 5.5 hours at 25 degrees Celsius with Wi-Fi off for the M325 and M335, and at least 5 hours for the 640 models. HIKMICRO quotes 5 hours at 25 degrees Celsius with the hotspot running. A test with the radio off and a test with the radio on measure different things. Both ranges supply two cells and one is used at a time, so either will cover a full night.
Is the HIKMICRO Lynx LH19 3.0 a Mile 3 competitor?
Not directly. The LH19 uses a 19 mm lens, giving 0.632 milliradians per pixel and a wider but coarser view than anything in the Mile 3 range. At 1,899 dollars it sits between the M325 and the M335 on price but between neither on capability. It is a close-range scanning instrument, and there is no Mile 3 equivalent to it.
Should I wait for stock or buy what is available now?
That depends on how soon you need it. At the time of writing the Lynx 3.0 range was in stock at several Australian retailers while the Mile 3 range had recently launched and was on back-order. Stock positions change quickly, so check the live availability on the Pixfra Mile 3 product page rather than relying on any article, including this one.
Sources and method
Pixfra Mile 3 specifications are taken from the official per-model Pixfra datasheets (PFI-M325, PFI-M335, PFI-M625 revision 31 July 2026; PFI-M625 LRF revision 3 August 2026). HIKMICRO Lynx 3.0 specifications are taken from HIKMICRO’s official model datasheets for the LH19, LH25 and LH35 3.0, from the official Lynx 3.0 product pages and Quick Start Guide, and from HIKMICRO’s published limited-warranty policy. Where HIKMICRO has not published a datasheet — the LQ35 and LQ35L 3.0 — figures are taken from the official product page and cross-checked against optical geometry and multiple retailer listings, and any figure we could not confirm has been marked as unverified rather than estimated.
Australian pricing was gathered on 17 August 2026 from multiple independent Australian retailers and cross-checked between them. No sale, clearance or promotional pricing was observed on any Lynx 3.0 model, and there is no published Australian recommended retail price for the range to cite. Pixfra pricing is our own. All prices include GST and are current at the date of checking only.
Angular sampling figures are calculated from each manufacturer’s own published pixel pitch and focal length. Detection distances from both brands are reproduced as published specifications and are not treated as comparable measurements, because neither manufacturer publishes the target size, temperature differential or atmospheric conditions behind them.
Specifications and Australian pricing checked: 17 August 2026. Prices and stock change — verify before purchase.
