Hi,
Great videos indeed both of them.
I see most of the feedback is from "pro" Fluke users, as an everyday DMM user and a Fluke user I would like to say that Fluke has to up their game. Agilent just made a remarkably good meter. If the only bad thing about it is the probes and how fast it actualizes the display so what? can we actually read and write that fast? When was the last time someone needed to record measurements of that accuracy? We all know here that electronics measurements are never exacts, passive components have tolerances, then temperature, noise, etc... Plus if I was in the need to get that kind of reading I would use the average function.
Don't get me wrong, I see that feedback very useful, but in saying that, would I buy a 87V over a U1272A today, probably not so far I haven't been convinced that spending the extra money for a 87V is worth it. The 87V look old, the display isn't as clear and is quite small. Agilent is very competitive, what meter today matches its performance with its price? I think Fluke are living on their reputation and that's fine, but it is very good to see that Agilent is having a go at them and to be fair they are on the right track.
FYI, my long overdue review of the U1272A is rendering now, so should be up by tomorrow.
Yes, it's hard to fault the Agilent. Bang-for-buck it just trumps the 87-V.
The only places the 87V was superior was audible continuity speed, screen size and contrast, the High-Z input mode on mV, and of course the "trust" things built up over 20 years in that model.
The Agilent still has firmware issues, it locked up on me during the review.
And it had an issue with input overload recovery on the ohms range.
Oh yeah, I didn't like the probes much either.
But the Agilent things can be fixed with firmware mostly, so really, unless it has long term issues that haven't surfaced yet, it's a bit of a no-brainer choice, unless you lust after the Fluke because, well, it's a Fluke.
Dave.