Thermal Imagers

[Tinkerer]

So I do want to get one of these and I am looking to spend up to something like $2000 for one of the handhelds. I see alot of good things about the FLIR E series but little on any of the other brands. I am just wondering if anyone knows anything that might be comparble but a little cheaper than FLIR or is FLIR really about the end all of handheld thermal imagers?
I also I was thinking about getting one of those upgraded E4 to E8 ones off ebay, think thats a good idea?

My puprose is general use, but that includes electronics.

[PedroDaGr8]

So I do want to get one of these and I am looking to spend up to something like $2000 for one of the handhelds. I see alot of good things about the FLIR E series but little on any of the other brands. I am just wondering if anyone knows anything that might be comparble but a little cheaper than FLIR or is FLIR really about the end all of handheld thermal imagers?
I also I was thinking about getting one of those upgraded E4 to E8 ones off ebay, think thats a good idea?

My puprose is general use, but that includes electronics.

Why not do the hack yourself. It originated here on this forum.

At this time FLIR is it when it comes to a value perspective. No one even comes close, let alone once you get the "upgrade" then its not even near the same ballpark.

[ixfd64]

I don't have a thermal camera myself, but from what I can tell, the FLIR E4 is the best deal in terms of resolution alone. I know of no other thermal camera that offers 80 x 60 resolution (let alone the upgraded 320 x 240 version) at sub-$1,000 prices. The only major complaint from users is that the screen is unusually sensitive to scratches, but this is hopefully something FLIR is aware of.

Fluke is the other major producer of thermal cameras, but they seem to have fallen behind in the competition. Their lowest-priced model (excluding "visual IR thermometers") is the sub-$2,000 TiS, but its 120 x 120 resolution probably isn't too impressive compared to that of a hacked E4.

The Testo 870-1 is a somewhat better deal as it has a 160 x 120 resolution at around the same cost, but again, it's not impressive when you can get a hacked E4 for half that price.

There's also the General Tools GTi10 that offers 160 x 120 resolution at an even lower price, but I don't know if it's any good because I haven't seen a single review for it.

[lewis]

I have a Fluke TI10 and a Flir E4 (hacked to 320x240 - everything you need is here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/flir-e4-thermal-imaging-camera-teardown/ ). I use the Fluke all the time for electronics work, it has variable focus and can resolve much finer detail than the Flir with the stock lens. However, the picture quality on the Flir is much much better, and the MSX imaging is fantastic. Others have 3D printed extra lenses for closeup work using the E4.

Buy the E4 for $1000 and hack it to the higher resolution, you'll have a $6000 camera. You won't regret it.

[deth502]

I have a Fluke TI10 and a Flir E4 (hacked to 320x240 - everything you need is here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/flir-e4-thermal-imaging-camera-teardown/ ). I use the Fluke all the time for electronics work, it has variable focus and can resolve much finer detail than the Flir with the stock lens. However, the picture quality on the Flir is much much better, and the MSX imaging is fantastic. Others have 3D printed extra lenses for closeup work using the E4.

Buy the E4 for $1000 and hack it to the higher resolution, you'll have a $6000 camera. You won't regret it.

ive been looking into these and have pretty much decided i was going to get an e4 (without even knowing about the hack) planning on using it extensively for electronic troubleshoting, but now your post has me wondering.

without modding the e4 lens, does it still work well, or at least acceptably, just not as good as the fluke, or is it just totally useless at that point??

[edavid]

without modding the e4 lens, does it still work well, or at least acceptably, just not as good as the fluke, or is it just totally useless at that point??

You don't do anything to the existing lens, you add a closeup lens:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/flire4-e8-useful-for-pcbs

[lewis]

The E4 has a usable working distance of about 200-300mm, but the TI10 and get down to about 20mm. This is great for debugging SMD designs, you can see 0402s and SOT323s glowing with ease, something that's not possible with the E4 and standard lens. As edavid says, the lens modifications involve adding a separate lens in front of the E4, and some people have reported success although I haven't tried it. You need to bugger about with 3D printing and ZnSe lenses from ebay, but there's LOTS of information in the other thread all about it. It's also possible to refocus the E4's lens by screwing it in (or out?) a bit to get closeup thermal shots. The E4 has a wider angle lens than the TI10 which explains the difference.

The quality of the Flir's thermal image is exceptional, much better than the TI10 in my opinion. But I got the TI10 in 2010 and paid about £3000 (~$5000) for it - the technology has moved on significantly since then.

My advice would be to demo each unit and see how you get on. Fluke were more than happy to send me a TI10 to try for a week for free, and I fell in love with it. I didn't demo the Flir, it was cheap enough that it wasn't necessary and I just jumped in. But even though the hacked E4 has higher resolution, is smaller and lighter and the battery lasts longer, I almost never use it in favour of the TI10 for the sort of electronics work we do.

Forum user 'Aurora' in the other thread seems to be somewhat of an expert on thermal imagers, he has a collection of them.

[Tinkerer]

Yea, order the FLIR E4, ill just do the upgrade myself.