So, to help the OP with his decision........
The ETS320 is a novel unit that has some design flaws that need addressing. It can be greatly improved by some modification work on the part of the owner. Does it work OK in its supplied state ? Yes, but it is somewhat limited in its capabilities. For simple PCB thermal profiling, with a fixed focus distance from the PCB of around 70mm, it does work. Adding some decent software to the equation, such as FLIR ResearchIR 4 Max provides very useful thermal profiling functionality.
The TE-Q1 is a modern thermal imaging Dongle camera that requires a host, be it a smart phone or a PC. The processing power of the host dictates the frame rate of the camera but not the image quality produced. The TE-Q1 is intended to appeal to a market segment that is not involved in professional radiometric thermography. That is to say, radiometric accuracy may not be as good as professional industrial thermal imaging systems. It is easy to check the measurement accuracy of such a camera however. In many cases the TE-Q1 accuracy will be adequate. Much depends upon the needs of the user. The lenses used on the TE-Q1 are interchangeable and of far higher performance than the single lens option fitted to the ETS-320.
To put it bluntly, if I were mass producing a PCB and wanted reliable accurate thermal profiling of the PCB whilst operating, I would likely not use either the ETS320 or TE-Q1. I would be using a very capable industrial thermal camera with close-focus lens like my FLIR A40 or Jenoptik cameras.
For small scale PCB thermal profiling or diagnostics, both the ETS320 and the TE-Q1 will get the job done. The TE-Q1 is more versatile and offers the user far more deployment options as it is effectively a compact thermal camera head that may be deployed on an umbilical cable for ease of deployment. One issue to consider with the TE-Q1 is the analysis software. The quality of such software is crucial to the user experience when operating the camera. The software needs to offer the required measurement capabilities and decent image processing. This is essential for a dongle type camera as the ‘clever stuff’ happens in the host that is running the cameras software application.
Just some food for thought
As has been previously stated in this thread...... sometimes “good enough” is enough and there is no need to over-spend. That being said, in the commercial world, professional grade equipment may cost a lot of money, but it can also pay for itself in terms of performance and efficiency in its tasking.
There is no better test than actually using a camera so, where possible, get a demonstration of a cameras capabilities before parting with your hard earned cash.
Fraser