-
I can buy a new T1020 at http://www.davis.com/Product/FLIR_T1020_45_Thermal_Imaging_Camera_UltraMax_MSX_45_Degree_Lens/DO-39756-05 for over $40000, but I could buy a brand-new Mercedes or BMW car for a few hundred dollars less than that (if I bought one of their lower priced cars). So I wonder if any company out there is getting rid of any of their used T1020 thermal cams (maybe some company going out of business or maybe just don't need the cameras anymore).
-
Since it's a pretty current model I wouldn't expect much of a used market, though sometimes something gets listed on ebay. Given the fees associated with using ebay, maybe asking vendors that have similar age FLIR cameras and maybe they also have (or can get) the TI1020. Maybe your best bet would be to ask places that rent them or sell them if they have one that's come in that they could sell at a reduced rate.
Though speaking of, do you need to keep it, or would a rental be a good option for your application? -
Don't expect the "used" tag to magically drop the price by 90%.
A used T1020 will likely cost around $25-35k, depending on lenses and options. -
I'm first in line for one of those cameras! 20mK sensitivity and high resolution - what's not to like?
Oh yes, the price.
I would treat with extreme caution any eBay or similar listing of a cut-price T1020. On anything as new and high-class as that, a low price screams "scammer". Would you feel comfortable buying a "nearly-new Ferrari" for $500?
You might (just might) get some joy if you approach FLIR direct asking about ex-demo cameras, but it's a bit of a long shot.
When I have 50,000 burning a hole in my pocket I intend to get the T1020 with the three-lens set... Until then, I'll have to stick to the old-fashioned method of generating hi-res thermal images.
Mind you, when you see the sort of quality mahony can get from a 640x480 sensor I wonder just how much better the T1020 would be.
-
Fraser is a master of finding camera bargains, though I know he only does so for his own collection. I'm thinking of his rather nice science-grade MWIR camera that cost him about 1% of its new price...
I was fortunate on eBay some time ago when I purchased a FLIR SC-660 science-grade uncooled LWIR 640 x 480 camera for about 10% of its new price. But that was still about twice what I'm prepared to pay for a used car. -
Ultrapurple,
Do not forget the ~£50K Agema THV550 that I bought for 99p and arrived in good working order
Sometimes you get lucky but it does not happen often on eBay these days as sellers tend to search eBay for previous sales to establish value. My FLIR SC4000 purchase was just a case of luck. The THV550 was another case of luck that people did not seem to know what it was and maybe read the “broken case” in the description as the camera body being broken..... it was, in fact, the Pelicase that was cracked
Logically, there is little reason for a modern professional thermal camera to appear on eBay and sell at a bargain price. It is just too easy to determine its value and set the start price or reserve appropriately. Even company liquidators tend to get expensive kit valued before sale to get the best return. Exceptions can be auctions of equipment acquired by debt collection companies who just want to recover the debt and their fees.
I think anyone looking for a ‘bargain’ FLIR T1020 will either have a very long wait or suffer at the hands of the many scammers who focus on high value items as part of their scams. It is also worth remembering that if you buy stolen goods, you may end up dealing with some pretty nasty characters and/or the Police. Portable High value items are attractive to thieves.
Fraser
-
For anyone who is impressed with the NETD figures provided by camera manufacturers, take them with a pinch of salt ! I personally could not believe a <20mK NETD from an uncooled camera in a real world scenario so decided to look into the T1020 specs. As has previously been discussed, where the NETD specification is concerned, all is not as it seems and the figures can be misleading. Manufacturers tend to create their NETD specification through careful laboratory testing setups and, in some cases, the use of specialist noise reduction algorithms that are not available to the end user ! See the linked paper for an interesting test of some high performance thermal cameras, including the FLIR cooled cameras and the T1020. In summary, the 'RAW' T1020 NETD turned out to be up around 110mK ! See page 74 of the test document for the plots in figure 4.11. How can FLIR claim a much lower NETD ? Well the FLIR Researcher 4 analysis software contains a noise reduction algorithm that can improve the apparent NETD through temporal frame averaging. Is this cheating ? Make up your own mind. The cooled cameras also exhibited higher NETD than claimed in the specifications but were far better than the Microbolometer camera figures. The cooled cameras did not have the option of applying the noise reduction algorithm however. In the testing the noise reduction was switched off as it could have caused the loss of wanted data.
FLIR are past masters of image improvement software in thermal cameras and it would appear that they are using their analysis software capabilities to improve the apparent NETD of some cameras but can you truly apply that NETD to the camera in its specifications without making it clear that it is a 'tweaked' figure ? Beware of the Marketing team 'tricks' ! It may, however, be fair to say that the T1020 has superior NETD to previous generations of camera, just not as amazing as claimed ! Note also the effects of integration time.
I reproduce the relevant text from the document below. The URL for the document is here:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/250168454.pdf
Fraser
4.2 NETD values
In Figure 4.11, the histogram presents the distribution of the temporal standard
deviation values of the pixels calculated for every camera. An area of 100 × 100
pixels was selected for the analysis and thus the temporal NETD value is calculated
for 10 000 pixels over 32 sequential frames. In top of the figure one can see the
median of the standard deviations i.e. the temporal NETD of the camera.
Temporal NETD values of tested cameras.
The histograms present the distribution of standard deviations of each pixel in 100 × 100 area. The temporal NETD
of the camera is defined as the median value of all standard deviation values.
When the calculated temporal NETD values are compared to the NETD values provided by the manufacturers, one can notice that the calculated values based on the measurements are much higher. The noise reduction setting of the microbolometer
cameras was set off during the measurements. This is the feature of ResearchIR software that can be used with microbolometers. According to Danjoux (2019), the noise reduction feature performs some temporal frame averaging and thus smoothens
the output signal. According to discussion with Danjoux (2019), FLIR uses a special noise reduction filter for the specification measurements with microbolometers.
This filter is not identical with the feature of ResearchIR, but those are close to each other. Just for testing the noise reduction, one test was performed to A655sc camera where the feature was on. This caused the temporal NETD of A655sc to
drop to 28 mK. So this setting reduces the noise level significantly. Because the detected area was small and the heat effect was rapid, it was decided not to use the noise reduction feature in the camera tests to prevent reducing the desired signal as
well. For cooled photon detectors, there was not a noise reduction option, yet the calculated NETD values of the InSb cameras are higher than the values provided by the manufacturers. However, the NETD measurements of manufacturers are performed
in strictly controlled laboratory conditions with an object close to a perfect blackbody. It is understandable, that the values given by the manufacturers are smaller.
After all, one can reliably compare the NETD values of different cameras only if the test conditions and the signal processing algorithms are similar for every camera. When comparing the calculated NETD values of the cameras, one can notice that
the values are almost the same between microbolometers. Also the two InSb cameras manufactured by FLIR produce similar values. According to the calculated values, the InSb camera manufactured by Telops produces the best NETD value, 31.2 mK.
The standard deviation values of different pixels deviate more from the median value in microbolometers than in InSb cameras. Also in this respect, Telops is better than the other cameras.
The results of the spatial NETD calculations are also favourable to Telops as can be seen in Figure 4.12. Now the histogram presents the distribution of standard deviation values of 5 × 5 pixel areas that is calculated for every camera from the
averaged frame. The areas of the histograms for InSb X6900sc and MB T1020 are larger than others, as these cameras contain more pixels i.e. a higher resolution. Again, the standard deviation values between different 5 × 5 pixel areas vary more
with the microbolometers. The manufacturers do not provide spatial NETD value for the cameras.
The histograms present the distribution of standard deviations of 5 × 5 pixel areas. The spatial NETD of the camera is
defined as the median value of all standard deviation values. The total NETD values were also calculated for the cameras. The calculated temporal, spatial and total NETD values are presented in Table 4.2. It is important to notice, that the NETD is not an intrinsic feature of IR cameras. It will vary depending on the test conditions, the camera settings and the target temperature
as told in Subsection 2.2.6. Typically one desires to know what is the temperature difference that will create a signal equal to the noise level. After all, this reveals the magnitude of temperature differences that can be detected with the camera. Instead
of just checking the NETD value provided by the manufacturer, one should define the NETD value of the camera in real life operating conditions to acquire a realistic NETD value.
Table 4.2 The calculated temporal, spatial and total NETD values.
Cameras Temporal NETD (mK) / Spatial NETD (mK) / Total NETD (mK)
Telops Fast-IR 2K --- 31.2 / 6.1 / 31.8
FLIR SC7600 --- 44.6 / 8.8 / 45.5
FLIR X6900sc --- 48.4 / 10.9 / 49.6
FLIR A655sc --- 118.4 / 34.1 / 123.2
FLIR T1020 --- 110.3 / 31.3 / 114.6
-
I'm first in line for one of those cameras! 20mK sensitivity and high resolution - what's not to like?
Oh yes, the price.
I would treat with extreme caution any eBay or similar listing of a cut-price T1020. On anything as new and high-class as that, a low price screams "scammer". Would you feel comfortable buying a "nearly-new Ferrari" for $500?
Yeah. I also would worry about fakes. But the other thing I might worry about is it actually WAS real. As has been mentioned elsewhere on this thread, those are FLIR's newest cameras, so no company who had them would be upgrading to anything better. So not too many reasons to legitimately get rid of them. So if one WAS seen on eBay, it might be something that got stolen from the company by an employee of a company that used these cameras, an employee looking to make some quick money on the side. And if I bought one that turned out to be stolen, even if I didn't know it was stolen until the police informed me of that fact, the police could still probably charge me with "purchasing stolen property" or "possession of stolen property". And I don't know how I could prove I didn't actually know it was stolen. I don't even know if those charges require actual knowledge that the item was stolen. They might just require that the person who bought the item had a reasonable suspicion that the item was stolen. -
For anyone who is impressed with the NETD figures provided by camera manufacturers, take them with a pinch of salt ! I personally could not believe a <20mK NETD from an uncooled camera in a real world scenario so decided to look into the T1020 specs.
Instead of just checking the NETD value provided by the manufacturer, one should define the NETD value of the camera in real life operating conditions to acquire a realistic NETD value.
Table 4.2 The calculated temporal, spatial and total NETD values.
Cameras Temporal NETD (mK) / Spatial NETD (mK) / Total NETD (mK)
Telops Fast-IR 2K --- 31.2 / 6.1 / 31.8
FLIR SC7600 --- 44.6 / 8.8 / 45.5
FLIR X6900sc --- 48.4 / 10.9 / 49.6
FLIR A655sc --- 118.4 / 34.1 / 123.2
FLIR T1020 --- 110.3 / 31.3 / 114.6
I am not sure how valid the comparison is in that paper, he seems not to have accounted for the lens aperture. NETD, when used to compare detectors, is usually normalised back to an f/1 system.
The NETD part of the paper is measuring freeze frame camera image noise, and while equally valid it is not necessarily comparable.
So the SC7600 measured at 45mK is for an f/3 camera, giving the detector an NETD at f/1 around 5mK, if the freeze frame is indeed one scan frame (it may not be).
Bill
-
Bill,
An interesting comment I think I read that the NETD was the result of a multiple frame average.
The F number of the lens would indeed be a factor that should be included. This is where the Peer Review of research documents is important.... mistakes can be made after all. I was surprised at the Temporal NETD of 110mK for the T1020 camera as that is an awful long way from <20mK stated in the specs..... almost misleading specs in fact. If FLIR Researcher is indeed needed to achieve that figure, or close to it, that should be clearly stated in the specifications as an external post capture processing requirement. This is why potential customers are advised to test demo cameras rather than purchase using a purely paper based selection process.
Fraser -
I volunteer to test a T1020 on behalf of the forum, if someone would like to lend me one.
Pretty sure I should be able to come up with an answer in five or ten years
-
Long time lurker here, this topic finally convinced me to register as I have some relevant info on this.
The issue with the T1020 is each lens is quite expensive, something like $6k-8k CAD each.
So the price can very quite a bit depending on the lens bundle.
For reference purposes only, I work for a Canadian test equipment distributor and the lowest we would sell our T1020 rental unit with 3 lenses is 36k CAD, and that's taking a decent loss...
Like others have stated, I would be wary buying this from non-authorized dealers, they're not the most reliable cameras and repairs are costly.
Hopefully the next generation of T1K cameras drops down in price.
Have you looked at the T1010? You lose quite a few features (Video recording, viewfinder) but if those features don't matter to you, you could save some coin there. -
So this is obviously pretty outdated, but I have a used FLIR T1020 I am trying to sell from a startup that eventually shut down.
I am an engineer but barely used the camera (<2 hours). I believe it was used on a previous project at the same company but only for some simple testing.
It was last calibrated in 2017 and there is wear to the case but otherwise everything seems in good working condition.
I have received very lowball offers (~$10k) from retailers and more reasonable offers on eBay (~$32k) that I am wary of taking due to a lack of seller protection against scams. I think if someone has a solution for a safe way to sell the camera (or is interested themself) I would be very willing to accept something a little lower than the eBay offer.
I’m assuming a local pickup for a cashiers check is the safest option and am located in NYC if that is doable for anyone.