Generation comparison
Stellar 3.0 vs 4.0: Upgrade Now or Save on the Older Model?
If you already own a Stellar 3.0, you probably don't need to upgrade. The Stellar 4.0 SQ50L keeps the same 640×512 sensor, 50 mm lens and field of view as the Stellar 3.0 SQ50L, so the basic picture resolution is unchanged. What the 4.0 improves is sensitivity, rangefinder reach and eye relief.
If you're buying for the first time, the 3.0 SQ50L is the value pick. Step up to the 4.0 if you shoot a heavy-recoiling calibre, range beyond 1,000 m, or hunt a lot on humid nights.
What changed, and what didn't
HIKMICRO's spec sheets line the two SQ50L generations up almost row for row. The diagram below splits the specs into the ones that stayed the same and the ones that moved.
Three of those changes matter in the field: NETD, the rangefinder and eye relief. The 4.0 also brings HIKMICRO's Image Pro 4.0 processing with Intelligent Zoom, and a rail-mount version alongside the 30 mm tube. Battery and weight figures are published under different conditions for each generation, so we haven't compared them here.
Sensitivity on a muggy night
NETD falls from under 15 mK on the 3.0 SQ50L to under 12 mK on the 4.0. Both are sensitive figures for a hunting thermal, and on a cold, clear winter night you'd struggle to tell them apart.
The gap shows on a humid summer night after a storm, when the grass, the dirt and a fox in the middle of them all sit within a degree or two of each other. A lower NETD separates those small temperature differences more cleanly, so the outline of the animal holds up better against the background. We explain how the figure works in how NETD affects the thermal picture.
The rangefinder now reaches 1,200 m instead of 1,000 m. For most fox and pig shooting that extra 200 m won't change anything, but it helps if you range landmarks or work very open country.
More eye relief for heavier calibres
Eye relief goes from 45 mm to 55 mm, and the exit pupil from 6 mm to 8 mm. Eye relief is the gap between the eyepiece and your eye when you see the full picture. Under recoil, the rifle and scope move back toward you, so a bigger gap means more room before the eyepiece reaches your brow. The diagram below draws both to scale.
On a .223 the 3.0's 45 mm is rarely a problem. On heavier calibres, or when you're shooting from an awkward position, the 4.0's extra 10 mm is the most practical improvement in this generation. The larger exit pupil also makes it quicker to find the full picture when your head isn't perfectly lined up.
The 1280 models: SX60LS 3.0 or SX75L 4.0
The high-resolution choice is different, because the lens changed as well. The Stellar SX60LS 3.0 pairs its 1280×1024 sensor with a 60 mm lens, and the Stellar 4.0 SX75L uses a 75 mm lens. The table below compares them, along with the 25 Hz Stellar SX60L 3.0.
| Spec | SX60L 3.0 | SX60LS 3.0 | SX75L 4.0 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sensor | 1280×1024, 25 Hz | 1280×1024, 50 Hz | 1280×1024, 50 Hz |
| NETD | <18 mK | <15 mK | <12 mK |
| Lens | 60 mm F1.0 | 60 mm F1.0 | 75 mm F1.2 |
| Field of view | 14.6° × 11.7° (25.6 m at 100 m) | 14.6° × 11.7° (25.6 m at 100 m) | 12.1° × 9.7° (21.2 m at 100 m) |
| Ground per pixel at 100 m (our estimate) | ≈ 2.0 cm | ≈ 2.0 cm | ≈ 1.6 cm |
| Rated detection range | 3,100 m | 3,100 m | 3,600 m |
| Rangefinder | 1,000 m | 1,000 m | 1,200 m |
| Eye relief | 45 mm | 45 mm | 55 mm |
The SX60LS 3.0 gives you the wider view, about 25.6 m across at 100 m, which suits scanning big country. The SX75L 4.0 trades some of that width for finer detail per pixel and a longer reach: by our estimate it holds detail about 25% further out than the SX60LS. If you mostly scan and shoot inside 300 m, the SX60LS is a strong choice. If you need to identify animals at long range, the SX75L is the better tool. We break down the SX75L against its 640 sibling in SQ50L vs SX75L: is the 1280 sensor worth the step up.
We'd skip the SX60L 3.0 if you often follow running animals. Its 25 Hz refresh rate draws half as many frames per second as the 50 Hz models, so a moving fox looks less smooth in the eyepiece.
Should you upgrade or save?
For 3.0 owners, we'd usually keep what you have. Upgrade if the 45 mm eye relief has ever caught your brow on a heavy calibre, if you range past 1,000 m, or if your picture regularly turns grainy on humid nights. For new buyers, the 3.0 SQ50L gives you the same 640 picture for less money, and the 4.0 SQ50L is worth the extra if eye relief, rangefinder reach or humid-night performance matter to you. The flowchart below covers both cases.
The main weakness of staying with the 3.0 is that 45 mm eye relief, which no setting can change. If that's not a problem for your rifle, the 3.0 remains a very capable scope. For the rest of the 4.0 range, see our HIKMICRO Stellar 4.0 review, and for how far each model can recognise a fox, pig or deer, see how far the Stellar 4.0 can identify a fox, pig or deer.
Compare the Stellar 3.0 and 4.0
Check the current price and availability on each product page.
Stellar 3.0 SQ50L Stellar 4.0 SQ50L Stellar SX60LS 3.0 Stellar 4.0 SX75LStellar 3.0 vs 4.0 FAQ
Is the Stellar 3.0 still worth buying?
Yes, especially the Stellar 3.0 SQ50L. It uses the same 640×512 sensor, 50 mm F1.0 lens and 8.8° × 7.0° field of view as the 4.0 SQ50L, with a 1,000 m rangefinder and under-15 mK NETD. If eye relief and humid-night sensitivity aren't priorities, it gives you the same basic picture for less money. Check current prices on both product pages.
Does the Stellar 4.0 have a better picture than the 3.0?
The resolution is the same on the SQ50L: both generations use a 640×512 sensor and a 50 mm lens. The Stellar 4.0 improves sensitivity, with NETD under 12 mK against under 15 mK, and adds Image Pro 4.0 processing with Intelligent Zoom. You'll notice the difference most on humid, low-contrast nights; on clear, cold nights the two look very similar.
Should I upgrade from Stellar 3.0 to 4.0?
Most Stellar 3.0 owners don't need to. Upgrade to the Stellar 4.0 if the 3.0's 45 mm eye relief has caught your brow on a heavier calibre, if you need to range beyond 1,000 m, or if your picture often turns grainy on humid nights. Otherwise, your 3.0 already has the same sensor resolution and field of view.
What's the eye relief on the Stellar 3.0 and 4.0?
HIKMICRO lists 45 mm of eye relief and a 6 mm exit pupil for the Stellar 3.0 range, and 55 mm with an 8 mm exit pupil for the Stellar 4.0. The extra 10 mm gives your brow more room when the rifle recoils, which matters most on heavier calibres and when shooting from an awkward position.
Does the SX60L 3.0's 25 Hz refresh rate matter?
It matters if you follow moving animals. The Stellar SX60L 3.0 refreshes its picture 25 times a second, half the rate of the 50 Hz SX60LS 3.0 and every Stellar 4.0 model, so a running fox or pig looks less smooth. For animals that are standing or walking slowly, 25 Hz is usually fine. If you hunt moving targets, choose a 50 Hz model.
Which is better, the SX60LS 3.0 or the SX75L 4.0?
It depends which you value more: width or detail. The Stellar SX60LS 3.0 has the wider view, about 25.6 m across at 100 m. The Stellar 4.0 SX75L covers about 21.2 m, but by our estimate each pixel sees about 1.6 cm at 100 m against 2.0 cm, so it holds detail roughly 25% further out. It also adds 55 mm eye relief.
Will my Stellar 3.0 rings fit the Stellar 4.0?
The tube diameter is the same. HIKMICRO lists a 30 mm mount for the Stellar 3.0 range and a standard 30 mm tube for the Stellar 4.0 L models, so 30 mm rings fit both. The 4.0 bodies are slightly different in size, so check that your rings give enough clearance for the objective and that the longer eye relief still suits their position.
Is the Stellar 4.0's lower NETD noticeable in Australian summers?
Yes, on the right nights. Under 12 mK on the Stellar 4.0, against under 15 mK on the 3.0, helps most when the air is humid and the ground stays warm after a hot day, so the animal and background sit close in temperature. On cool, dry nights the difference is small. Both figures are already sensitive for a hunting thermal.
This comparison is based on HIKMICRO's published Stellar 3.0 and 4.0 specifications; per-pixel figures are our estimates from those specs.