Buyer’s guide · Updated 17 August 2026
Four models, $900 between the cheapest and the dearest, and a specification sheet that will mislead you if you read it the obvious way. The most expensive Mile 3 does not see the furthest, and the cheapest is the right answer more often than you would expect. Here is how to actually choose.
If you read nothing else
- Reach comes from the lens, not the sensor. The M335’s 35 mm objective is the only thing in the range rated beyond 1,300 m.
- The 640 models buy field of view, not detail at distance. At the same 25 mm lens and 12 µm pixel pitch, the M625 resolves exactly what the M325 resolves — it just shows you far more of the scene at once.
- The two things that actually differ are focal length and detector size. Everything else — sensor sensitivity, display, processing, storage, body, battery architecture — is identical across all four.
- Price does not rank capability. The $2,190 M625 has 500 m less rated detection than the $1,690 M335.
What is identical across all four
Before comparing anything, understand how little separates these models. Every Mile 3 shares:
Shared across M325, M335, M625 and M625 LRF
≤15 mK NETD sensitivity rating
0.49″ OLED display, 1920 × 1080
PIPS 3.0 Pro image processing · 1×–8× digital zoom · six colour palettes
64 GB storage · dual-band Wi-Fi · Pixfra Outdoor app · compass · PiP · microphone
Magnesium-alloy body, IP67, −30 °C to +55 °C
One removable 18650 in use, two supplied, plus a charger · USB Type-C · −5 D to +3 D diopter · 15 mm eye relief
So a Mile 3 will not produce a cleaner image than another Mile 3 because it costs more. The sensitivity, processing and display are the same in all four. What changes is the shape of the picture, and how far away you can still make sense of it.
Here is the whole range at a glance — four variants of one platform, separated only by lens and detector:
The default
M325
$1,550
- Detector
- 384 × 288
- Lens
- 25 mm F0.9
- FOV
- 11° × 8.2°
- Detection
- 1,300 m
- LRF
- —
Longest reach
M335
$1,690
- Detector
- 384 × 288
- Lens
- 35 mm F0.9
- FOV
- 7.8° × 5.9°
- Detection
- 1,800 m
- LRF
- —
Widest field
M625
$2,190
- Detector
- 640 × 512
- Lens
- 25 mm F0.9
- FOV
- 17.4° × 13.9°
- Detection
- 1,300 m
- LRF
- —
Wide field + ranging
M625 LRF
$2,450
- Detector
- 640 × 512
- Lens
- 25 mm F1.0
- FOV
- 17.4° × 13.9°
- Detection
- 1,300 m
- LRF
- 1,000 m
The two variables that matter
| M325 | M335 | M625 | M625 LRF | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Detector | 384 × 288 | 384 × 288 | 640 × 512 | 640 × 512 |
| Focal length | 25 mm | 35 mm | 25 mm | 25 mm |
| Aperture | F0.9 | F0.9 | F0.9 | F1.0 |
| Field of view (H × V) | 11° × 8.2° | 7.8° × 5.9° | 17.4° × 13.9° | 17.4° × 13.9° |
| What you see at 100 m | 19.3 × 14.3 m | 13.6 × 10.3 m | 30.6 × 24.4 m | 30.6 × 24.4 m |
| Base magnification | 1.8× | 2.5× | 1.2× | 1.2× |
| Rated detection | 1,300 m | 1,800 m | 1,300 m | 1,300 m |
| Close focus | 1 m | 2 m | 1 m | 1 m |
| Rangefinder | — | — | — | 1,000 m, ±1 m, Class 1 |
| Length | 160.0 mm | 170.5 mm | 160.0 mm | 167.7 mm |
| Weight, no battery | 300 g | 310 g | 290 g | 313 g |
| Runtime per cell | ≥5.5 h | ≥5.5 h | ≥5 h | ≥5 h |
| AUD inc. GST | $1,550 | $1,690 | $2,190 | $2,450 |
Official Pixfra datasheet figures. Detection distances are manufacturer numbers quoted under the manufacturer’s own test conditions.
Why detector resolution does not give you range
This is the single most misread line on any thermal spec sheet, and the Mile 3 range demonstrates it unusually clearly.
Every Mile 3 uses a 12 µm pixel pitch. Put a 25 mm lens in front of it and each pixel covers the same small angle of the world regardless of how many pixels there are in total. So the M325 (384×288) and the M625 (640×512) — both on 25 mm lenses — resolve exactly the same amount of detail on an animal at 400 m. That is why Pixfra rates both at 1,300 m. The extra pixels on the M625 are not stacked onto the target; they are spread out sideways, showing you more scene.
The practical version
At 100 m the M325 shows you a 19.3 m-wide slice of the world. The M625 shows you 30.6 m of it, at the same sharpness. If a fox steps out at 300 m, both devices render it with the same number of pixels across its body. The M625 is simply more likely to have it in frame in the first place.
Change the lens and everything changes. The M335’s 35 mm objective narrows each pixel’s angular footprint by about 30 %, which is why it — and only it — carries the 1,800 m rating. It pays for that with the narrowest field in the range. There is a fuller treatment in 384 vs 640: what the extra pixels buy and how lens size changes what you see, and if you want the underlying model, the Johnson criteria explains where “detection range” figures come from in the first place.
Field of view is a time budget
Field of view sounds like a comfort feature. It is not; it is how quickly you can clear ground.
Sweeping a 200 m tree line at 100 m distance takes roughly fifteen fields of view with the M335, eleven with the M325, and seven with the M625 — and more again once you allow for overlap. Multiply that across a night of scanning and the difference is not marginal — it is whether you cover the whole paddock before the animals move. It is also how likely you are to hold something once you have found it, because a wider field is far more forgiving of hand movement, vehicle vibration and animals that will not stand still.
The counter-argument is just as real
A wide field puts a distant animal into a very small part of the frame, and at 1.2× base magnification the M625 asks you to lean on digital zoom to identify what you have found. Digital zoom does not add information — it enlarges what is already there. On the M335, more of the identification work is done optically before any zoom is applied.
Reach comes from the lens, not the sensor. The 640 models buy field of view, not detail at distance.Pixfra Australia
Detection, recognition, identification
A rated “detection distance” means something warm is present. It does not mean you can tell a pig from a dog, still less which pig. As a working rule, recognising what an animal is happens at roughly a quarter of the detection figure, and confidently identifying it at something closer to a sixth. Those proportions are broad and depend heavily on conditions and target size, but they are the right order of magnitude, and we go through the reasoning here.
| Model | Rated detection | Roughly, recognition | Roughly, identification |
|---|---|---|---|
| M325 / M625 / M625 LRF | 1,300 m | ~300 m | ~200 m |
| M335 | 1,800 m | ~400 m | ~250 m |
Indicative only. Derived from the manufacturer’s detection figures using standard task-difficulty proportions, not measured by us. Real results vary with target size, thermal contrast, humidity and atmospheric conditions.
The point of the table is not the numbers, it is the shape of them. Nobody in this range is identifying animals at a kilometre. If your honest working distances are inside 250 m — which for most Australian hunting and pest work they are — then the M335’s extra rated reach is buying you something you will rarely use, and it is charging you a narrower field of view every single time you scan.
What the LRF actually adds, and what it costs
The M625 LRF is an M625 with a laser rangefinder in the same housing: 1,000 m rated, ±1 m, Class 1, reporting both straight-line and true horizontal distance. The horizontal figure is the one that matters when you are ranging up or down a slope.
Three costs, all small but all real
It is $260 more than the M625. It is 23 g heavier and 7.7 mm longer. And its objective is F1.0 rather than F0.9 — a slightly slower lens passing slightly less energy to the detector than the other three models. None of these is a reason not to buy it; all of them are reasons not to buy it reflexively.
The honest test
Do you currently carry a separate rangefinder, or do you currently guess? If you carry one, the LRF model consolidates two devices and is straightforwardly worth $260. If you guess, and your shots are inside 150 m where trajectory is forgiving, you may be buying a feature you will use twice a year.
Which one, then
M325 · $1,550 — the default, and there is no shame in it
Mixed country, walking, a bit of everything, working distances inside a few hundred metres. Middling field, middling reach, cheapest in the range, and identical image quality to the models above it. If you cannot articulate a specific reason to spend more, this is your answer.
M335 · $1,690 — open ground and habitual distance
Long paddocks, cleared country, glassing across valleys, contacts routinely past 300 m. The only Mile 3 with real optical reach. Accept that scanning scrub with a 7.8° field is slow, deliberate work.
M625 · $2,190 — scanning-first, everything else second
Bush, scrub, timber, gullies, vehicle-based spotting — anywhere finding is harder than reaching. Roughly two and a half times the scene area of the M325, at exactly the same detail per pixel — and more than five times the M335’s. You are paying $640 over the M325 for coverage, not for range or clarity.
M625 LRF · $2,450 — when the distance has to be a number
Everything the M625 does, plus ranging to 1,000 m. Worth it if you already carry a rangefinder, if you shoot across slopes, or if legal boundaries and safe backstops depend on knowing the actual distance.
There is no best Mile 3 — only the one that matches how much country you need to see, and whether the distance has to be a number.Pixfra Australia
Common ways people get this wrong
A decision in three questions
Do you need a distance readout?
If yes, the M625 LRF is the only model that gives you one. Stop here.
Are most of your contacts beyond about 300 m, in country open enough to see that far?
If yes, the M335. If no, the extra reach is not worth the narrow field.
Is finding animals harder for you than reaching them?
If yes — thick scrub, timber, broken ground, a lot of ground to cover — the M625’s field of view is worth the $640 over the M325. If no, take the M325 and spend the difference on a second battery charger and a decent tripod adapter.
See live pricing, stock and the full specifications
All four models, every specification, the complete image gallery and the current Australian stock position are on the product page.
Picked your model? See how the Mile 3 range compares against another brand in NocPix LUMI vs Pixfra Mile 3.
Frequently asked questions
Which Pixfra Mile 3 model sees the furthest?
The M335, rated to 1,800 m. It is a 384×288 model, not one of the 640s. Its advantage comes entirely from the 35 mm lens — the M325, M625 and M625 LRF all use a 25 mm objective and are all rated to 1,300 m.
Is the M625 better than the M325?
It is different, not uniformly better. Both use the same 25 mm lens, the same 12 µm pixel pitch, the same ≤15 mK sensor and the same display, so they resolve the same detail at a given distance and share the same 1,300 m rating. The M625’s 640×512 detector shows roughly two and a half times the scene area, which makes scanning much faster. If you scan a lot, that is worth $640. If you do not, it is not.
Does a 640 sensor give a sharper image than a 384?
Not at a given distance behind the same lens. Because pixel pitch is identical across the Mile 3 range, each pixel covers the same angle whether the detector is 384×288 or 640×512. The larger detector widens the field of view rather than concentrating more pixels on the target.
Is the M625 LRF worth $260 more than the M625?
If you already carry a separate rangefinder, or you shoot across sloping ground where true horizontal distance matters, yes — it consolidates two devices and the ranging is rated to 1,000 m at ±1 m. If your working distances are inside about 150 m, you may rarely use it. Note also that the LRF model uses an F1.0 objective rather than the F0.9 fitted to the other three, and is 23 g heavier.
Which Mile 3 is best for hunting in thick scrub or timber?
The M625 or M625 LRF. Their 17.4° field of view covers 30.6 m across at 100 m, against 19.3 m for the M325 and 13.6 m for the M335. In close, broken country the limiting factor is finding animals rather than reaching them, and field of view is what solves that.
Which Mile 3 is best for open paddocks?
The M335. Its 35 mm lens gives it the range rating (1,800 m) and the base magnification (2.5×) to work at distance, and in open country the narrow 7.8° field costs you far less than it would in scrub.
What can I actually identify an animal at, rather than just detect it?
Considerably closer than the rated detection distance. As a broad rule, recognising the type of animal happens at around a quarter of the detection figure and confident identification at around a sixth — so roughly 200–250 m for these models, depending on target size, thermal contrast and conditions. Rated detection means “something warm is present”, not “you know what it is”.
Do the cheaper Mile 3 models have a worse image?
No. Sensitivity (≤15 mK), image processing (PIPS 3.0 Pro), display (0.49″ 1920×1080), storage, body and battery architecture are identical across all four models. Only the detector format and the focal length change, and those alter the shape of the picture rather than its quality.
