Nearly a year ago, Fluke introduced their VT02 visual IR thermometer, which provides thermal imaging capabilities for less than $1000. Fluke recently came out with an upgraded model, the VT04, which is said to output images four times sharper.
Update: Read about the price drop!
Features
- -10° C to 250° C (14° F to 482° F) measurement range
- ± 2° C or ± 2% measurement accuracy
- Centerpoint temperature measurements (center spot mode)
- “True pocketable design”
- Built-in digital camera
- Visual and thermal heat map blending at 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and full thermal
- “Best in class field of view” – 28° x 28°
- Hi/Lo temperature alarm
- Time lapse image capture
- Auto-monitor alarm captures image after temperature alarm is triggered
- Stores up to 10,000 images per GB on SD card
- Powered by rechargeable Li-ion battery
- 8 hours of runtime per charge
- Focus-free optics
- .is2 format can be used in images or to export popular image formats via included SmartView software
- MSRP $1200
- 2-year warranty
Buy Now(via Amazon)
More Info (PDF via Fluke)
Advertisement
First Impression
The resolution on this IR thermometer is going to be low, so low that Fluke doesn’t publish the sensor’s resolution at all. Assuming the VT02 had a 15 x 15 sensor similar to Dewalt’s, then the VT04 would possibly then have a 30 x 30 resolution sensor according to Fluke’s “four times sharper” claims. Maybe the resolution is higher, but Fluke has been tight-lipped about this since the VT02 came out.
Nearly all of the VT04’s sample images on Fluke’s and distributors’ product pages are composite images with what looks to be 50% visual and thermal blending. To me, this emphasizes that Fluke strongly intends for the VT04 to be true in its role as a visual infrared thermometer and not quite an entry-level thermal imaging camera.
So they don’t tell you the thermal resolution in pixels, and don’t show you 100% thermal image samples without visual light digital camera image underlays.
I cannot help but look at Flir’s new EX-series thermal imaging cameras and wonder why anyone would purchase a visual IR thermometer instead. Flir’s E4 is priced at $995, and their E5 at $1495.
The Fluke VT04 looks to offer more built-in measurement options, but the new entry-level Flir models have high enough sensor resolutions that they can be considered thermal imaging cameras and not just visual thermometers.
Fluke boasts that the VT04 has “best in class” field of view of 28° x 28°, but the less expensive Flir E4 easily beats that with its 45° x 34° field of view. Fluke could definitely have matched this using different optics; it is the VT04’s limited resolution sensor that puts a constraint on the field of view.
Advertisement
Don’t get me wrong, the VT04 visual IR thermometer will definitely outperform IR thermometers, which can be thought of as having 1 x 1 pixel sensors and large spot sizes. But compare the VT04’s output images to those from even an entry-level thermal imaging camera, and the difference in thermal resolution will be quite striking.
Although the VT04 visual infrared camera looks to be as point-and-shoot and easy to use as Fluke describes it to be, I don’t quite like how you have to load up the output images into the SmartView reporting software in order to export them in jpg, gif, bmp, or other common file formats.
On the bright side, it looks like the VT02 ($756 via Amazon) has dropped in price now that the VT04 is available. In my opinion, the VT02 might be a better option for users not ready to invest in a true thermal imaging camera. Dewalt’s visual thermometer also remains an appealing middle ground option.
matt
on the upside products like this keep driving price’s down on better units..
I really think the price range needs to be in the $500-1000 range on most units.. Then the tool will really take off..
Phil
This gets the ball rolling. Decent entry-level units like these show up on the market and people find new uses for them. In five years, the price will be about half of what it is now, and the resolutions will probably be improved too. In ten years HF will have them for 149 bucks, probably under the “Indiana Infrared” brand. 😉
Stuart
Not necessarily. Instead of significant price drops, we’re more likely to see better features and specs at today’s price points, at least at the entry level side of things.
Visual IR thermometers were introduced to get under entry-level thermal imaging cameras, but the pricing is too close, in my opinion, for this new category to be very successful.
Prices are dropping, but it will be many years before we see a true thermal imaging camera break the $500 barrier.
Think about smartphones. Four years ago my Motorola Droid cost $200 under contract. Two years ago my Samsung Galaxy Nexus cost $200 under contract. This month, my new Motorola Droid Maxx cost $200 under contract from Amazon, and is priced at $300 under contract via Verizon Wireless directly.
Yes, you can score a low-end Android phone or older Apple iPhone for pretty cheap under contract and at full price, but the same was true in past years.
New features, better specs, and more capabilities mean that prices will likely only float around today’s targets. A price reduction of 10% for specific models every few years seems most likely.
Phil
Smartphones are a different animal in this case. It seems there is a price point the phones are released at, rather than the usual technology upgrades driving the prices down as they do in things like computers. I see the imagers being more in the category of digital cameras, you can get a decent entry level p&s with lots of features at about $120 that only a few years prior was the realm of a prosumer camera. The early uptake of digicams as the market was defining itself really drove the innovation, today the market is matured to the point where it takes some really fresh thinking to make people notice. Right now the thermal imaging gear is very specialized with niche penetration, If the price becomes low enough, it will catch the attention of serious DIYers and create a new market for the tech. Of course, this is where all the bottom end units will congregate, but you can always upsell to those serious types that would love these things for home energy, track days, etc.
matt
5 years ago it was close to $10, 000 to get into any kind of thermal imaging and they pretty much sucked for resolution then.. the price is coming down features are going up. And the manufactures are pushing this toward the mainstream users not just high end industrial inspection users..
Once Joe mechanic realizes he can use this tool to quickly diagnose a auto problem. Or your local general contractor finds out he can scam a little old lady with rainbow pics everyone will start to need them.
The el cheapo Amazon/HF camera will happen and it will really drop the price. Fluke and Flir might be able to keep their prices up but the newcomers will either drop the price or get out..
Stuart
Flir broke the $1200 barrier nearly 4 years ago (Feb 2010) with their i3. It only had a 60 x 60 pixel infrared sensor at that time. Now, their new E4 is about $1000 and with an 80 x 60 pixel sensor.
4-1/2 years ago, when I first wrote about thermal imaging cameras, the i5 was priced at $3000.
What I think we’re likely to see next is a bare bones IR thermal imaging camera module that connects with smartphones, where free apps will handle a lot of the measurement and analysis tasks typically handled by on-board software.
This way companies such as Flir and Fluke could expand their product offerings and decrease their price floor without cannibalizing their current product lines.
Even if they somehow drop the entry price, there will still be a market for higher-end units.
I had the opportunity to test out a higher priced Flir model (E60) and it absolutely trumped any of the sub-$5000 models I have tested before or after then.
Mike Johnson
At $1200 I would agree, but at $500? …
Ben
Hey any updates to this conversation, your most recent post on visual IR is from 2015, price point for the fluke has dropped to $450 ish. The Flir spots are at 350 and the full thermal cameras are still over $1,000.
I would be interested in whats new and whats worth the money.
Stuart
Generally, I think that visual IR thermometers are useful for knowing where to take spot measurements, but higher pixel count thermal imagers or cameras are better when visualizations are more important.