Dewalt first announced their DCT416S1 visual thermometer/imaging thermometer/low resolution thermal imaging camera nearly two years ago.
Earlier today I had a conversation with a UK professional who was trying to gauge whether the Dewalt DCT416 would be suitable for his needs.
Advertisement
Aside from trying to determine whether the Dewalt thermometer would be good for the reader’s needs, I spent some time thinking a lot about whether or not it was a good value or recommendable in general.
The reader wrote:
I was hoping you could help me with a bit of technical information as Dewalt’s own service was dire.
I am thinking of picking up Dewalt’s thermal imaging camera [DCT416] and wanted to know whether this would pick up individual pipes in underfloor heating?
The floor make up is the pipes sit in foam, 18mm chipboard above that then a thin laminate or a slightly thicker engineered board for premium apartments.
I can feel a gradual heat difference where the pipes are so I would hope these would be a lot clearer on the screen.
I hope to use it to mainly show customers that the heating works fine in their apartments (the switch from traditional wall mounted rads causes issues) and to also help pinpoint any potential leaks.
I did a quick Google image search and saw that it is possible to see thermal profiles of inner-floor heating pipes. The images show that thermal imaging cameras *should* do a good job of showing the gradual heating differences around the pipe locations.
However, I am not at all convinced that Dewalt’s imaging thermometer would be suitable for the task.
Dewalt’s DCT416 has a very low resolution sensor, which is why it’s marketed as an imaging thermometer and not as a thermal imaging camera.
I conveyed this to the reader and suggested he look at higher resolution thermal imaging cameras. There are building-inspection-specific models that might do a better job at imaging an entire floor, but he might see good results with an inexpensive entry-level model that’s meant for general purpose use.
I also suggested that he borrow or buy a thermal imager from a retailer with a lenient return policy. That’s really the best way to gauge if a thermal imaging camera is suitable for a given application.
I also asked him to check out the first sample image I took with the Dewalt thermal imager of my hand, and to then look at images taken with the Flir E4 and other higher resolution thermal imaging cameras. The Dewalt imager is great for general close-up diagnostics work, but its imaging quality and resolving ability is nowhere near that of other devices.
Since the release of Dewalt’s imaging thermometer, the market landscape has changed, but Dewalt’s pricing has not.
Last month, Fluke’s visual thermometers dropped in price. The VT02, which I believe to be comparable to the Dewalt model, is priced at ~$450, while the newer and upgraded VT04 is priced at ~$645 (price check via Amazon).
Flir’s E4 is priced at $995 via Amazon.
Dewalt’s 1-battery imaging thermometer kit is priced at $800 via Amazon.
The Dewalt imager is an okay product. It is well-built and fills the gap between IR thermometers and thermal imaging cameras. But closer towards the IR thermometer side, Fluke’s VT02 and VT04 imagers are comparable – if not better – products at substantially lower prices. Closer towards the IR thermal imager side, Flir’s E4 thermal imaging camera is substantially better at a reachably higher price.
I can not think of any good reason why anyone would, or should, purchase the Dewalt DCT416S1 kit over competing models. At $800, it is overpriced for the functionality it offers, given pricing and functionality of competing models. Thus, it seems the Dewalt imaging thermometer is overpriced in today’s market.
Later this year, the Flir ONE smartphone-attached thermal imaging camera will further change the landscape. At that point, visual thermometers will probably be hard sells unless priced under $500-600.
My opinion is that the Dewalt kit would be much easier to recommend at $550, or even $650, and that at $800, their imaging thermometer/thermal imager is just not appropriately priced for what it offers. I believe that Dewalt should – and really needs to – reduce the price or release an updated model with improved features at the same price point.
Jason says
How is the Milwaukee thermal imaging camera price wise? It’s listed at $2,500 at Home Depot is that a reasonable price for that kind of system, or is the price too high compared to other comparable units? I know its a much better system that the Dewalt but $2,500 is pretty pricey compared to the other units you mentioned in the article.
Ben says
The Milwaukee unit is a 160 x 120 resolution TI, so its professional level unlike the Fluke/DeWalt’s low end units talked about here which are like 13 x13 ish. For $2,500, you get a pro image, visual camera, the battery platform and the software is pretty easy. Ends up being a better value compared to the 160 x 120 Fluke/Flir’s which tend to cost more.
Jason says
Thanks was curious how the Milwaukee unit stacks up after a few years on the market now. I don’t have much knowledge on thermal imagers
Stuart says
Ben is an associate product manager at Milwaukee, so his point of view might be a little biased.
The Milwaukee thermal imager isn’t as great a value as it used to be, but occasional free tool promos help make up for this.
Stuart says
Milwaukee’s thermal imager is much, much better than Dewalt’s, but the greater functionality and usability does come at a greater price.
It’s hard to gauge the Milwaukee against other brands’ units, but I feel Milwaukee’s thermal imager is a little outdated in regard to its software.
Fluke and Flir are moving forward because they command higher market share, but to my knowledge Milwaukee hasn’t done anything with their imager’s software since it was first released.
fred says
How much do you think the batter and charger add to the cost of the Dewalt?
I find it curious that some manufacturers want to add some tools/instruments to their LiIon battery tool platform when the instrument might be better served using alkaline batteries. As a slightly different example, I had lots of guys that liked our Milwaukee flashlights – but I was never quite sure about their economics.
Stuart says
Less than $100 – maybe $60-70 at full retail.
Stuart says
That’s a difficult aspect to consider. Milwaukee has Li-ion and alkaline versions of a couple of tools, and it would be interesting to see which have sold better.
In regard to alkaline vs. rechargeable batteries, Flir and Fluke both use Li-ion backs with their thermal imagers.
Design-wise, it could be about economics, marketing, or even performance factors. It could also be about predictable operation.
fred says
Thanks for the insights.
This technology keeps getting cheaper and better all the time.
I recall – when Barnes Thermovision cameras dominated a then tiny market at costs that only let well-heeled industrial users into the “club”
Now FLIR and others have a wide range of offerings that do thermal imaging, SF6 plume imaging, and corona detection (as in Daycor cameras).
What I’m waiting for is a reasonably-priced camera, that’s better than today’s GPIR, giving us Superman’s Xray vision with on-screen images of underground facilities independent of soil conditions.
fred says
I forgot the link for Daycor:
http://www.daycor.com/DayCor-Family/Superb.html