Thanks for the pics Andy, I’m pretty sure these will get used in field as entry level cameras despite being a toy. 
Good information.
I was having a hard time believing a smart phone camera could keep up with a dedicated IR camera.
Anyone else purchased one of these Seek Thermal cameras?
I’m going to purchase one of these “toys” to play around.
My two cents, it’s got a decent thermal sensor with better resolution than many much more expensive cameras.
Cost is significantly reduced when you eliminate components that are not needed because your phone already has them. A mid to high end phone has a much better display and processor than any dedicated thermal camera. Phones also have better regular cameras.
The lower resolution Flir One looked better because it overlays the thermal over the normal camera.
The Seek Thermal does not have a secondary normal camera, but with an app update it could use the phone’s higher resolution camera and overlay the thermal. I’m not sure if this has already been implemented.
Many of the other shortcomings are software related and could be addressed with an app update.
Observations/Questions:
1.) The SEEK Thermal IR Camera has adequate resolution according to this standard. 206x156 is the stated resolution by the manufacturer. If resolution alone does not disqualify this camera from consideration, then what does? I am looking for a Technical reason to exclude this camera from consideration. The post above, although made by one of the most respected voices in the IR Training Community sounds too much like it is based on fear and skepticism rather than a thoughtful technical review. Please, give us a TECHNICAL reason why the SEEK Thermal camera doesn’t make the grade. What is it NOT able to do that other “professional” IR cameras can do? (… or do infinitely better?)
2.) The SEEK Thermal IR Camera can withstand a 6 ft drop onto concrete. It weighs almost nothing and has a very tough magnesium body. Big deal. What does this have to do with the camera’s ability to perform (Or Fail to perform) in the hands of a trained professional? Probably nothing! Despite this, this does NOT mean that the camera is a good fit for professional applications. Again, this objection/comparison is a straw man argument that does not move me one way or the other.
3.) The SEEK Thermal IR Camera is a “real IR camera” and not a cell phone. However, it uses a cell phone OS/app to display the images captured. It is dependent upon a cell phone in a similar way that the FLIR One is but for different technical reasons. It is my understanding that Ben Gromicko uses the FLIR One, and in my opinion, that is a “real IR camera” (though some don’t believe it to be professionally adequate for whatever reason… likely due to resolution lower than the 120x120 minimum).
It is my opinion that the comments made may have been unintentionally prejudicial in nature. John, for good reasons, may be motivated by a strong desire to promote the use of “real” tools. However, I don’t believe he has presented even one good Technical reason to avoid the use of this camera. I would very much like to hear/see strong technically-based arguments (based upon a vigorous field review) made to avoid the use of the SEEK Thermal IR camera (assuming such can be made). If there are no technical objections to the camera’s performance, then the only real hurdle is overcoming the “perception” of using a “toy”
I agree with your contrast with the Flir 1. The lower resolution makes that a deal-breaker for serious consideration IMHO… aside from the fact that it’s iPhone 5 only as of the present time.
Your “perceptions” are wrong. 
This is why you need some training and some time using a professional level IR camera. Right now your just guessing.
Listen to these podcast on this subject and more, for a better understanding.
It is not easy to bring sub-surface temperatures to the surface so the camera can see it. A clear image produced by sensitive camera, with good optics, can be a tremendous help. It is possible many times that conditions can hide an entire set of stairs. Think how easy it is for a little moisture spot to be invisible after it has almost completely dried up and it’s energy is trying to make through a half inch of sheetrock. A well trained thermographer with a professional level camera can find these kinds of defects.
The people with low budget IR cameras will only be able to see very visible hot and cold areas that can be easily seen with no trouble by the cheapest cameras on the market. The blind will not know they are blind. Only a novice would deny this liabilty to miss defects exist. I meet inspectors all the time who are angry because they purchased a cheap camera after they listed to a foolish inspector who did not know what he was talking about.
What happen to the steps? They are not visible in the IR image. Hmmmm
This was from my FLIR one you be the judge, plus it takes a nice video when I do my blower door test.
Stick with FLIR one!
Can anyone guess what kind of hot ride this is?
The worst IR camera on the market can take images of hot spots that are easy to access. We are worried about the hard to find defects, such as a moisture area that is almost dried up and is under half inch sheetrock in a poor delta-t environment. Get some training and you will understand what I am talking about.
The FLIR ONE missed the moisture spots on the far right, which were from another source than the ones on the very wet area on the left. The better camera could find both wet areas.
The FLIR ONE is 400% less than what you need as a professional home inspector.
Thanks to William T. Misegades](InterNACHI®️ Forum) for the pictures.
Obviously you don’t know what you don’t know. Those images are really bad.
I hope your pulling our leg.
One of the things that has kept many of your better IR camera prices high is the quality of the optics. (high quality germanium lenses are very very expensive). Some of the cheaper cameras we are seeing have more detectors (seems good so far… but they can now produce these cheaper than they used to). But the other cost cutting factor in the cheaper cameras is the low grade content of the lens material and the poor quality of the method they are using to produce them).
Your eyes may be 20/20 but if you try looking through some dirty sunglasses, it makes everything blurry. This is why the images in the cheap cameras still look poor, even though they have more detectors.
A true understanding of how an IR camera sees things and how to draw out sub-surface temperature cannot be communicated in little sound bites and short post on this forum. Your going to have to get some training. Please get some training before you buy an IR camera.
It reveals a character flaw when someone buys a cheap camera while they are so driven to get into thermal imaging, but will not take the time to research what they really need to find hidden defects in a building inspection. You cannot save a fool from himself.