Testo 875-1 pro&cons

Is anyone using them? Thanks,

Yup. I like it a lot, but Testo custormer service sux. Fortunately I was able to sort it out on my own after trying and failing to get customer service to help.

If you buy the 875-1 (not 875i-1) you will not have the digital camera (the one that takes regular pictures), and it will come with an SD memory card, and will not take SDHC cards. The SD card shipped with mine was cheap and soon fell apart, it was still usable but I wanted a spare. Nobody makes or sells SD cards anymore just SDHC, and SDHC cards are not recognized by my 875-1. I was able to get a bunch of SD cards second hand, so I have some spares now. 2G card is way more than you need, typically on one inspection I only use about 10 to 20 Megabytes, one image is 230 Kilobytes, a 64 Mb card is plenty, I remove and download all the images after an inspection.

If I was doing it again I would get the 875i-1, I am assuming it will take SDHC cards, but don’t know this for sure, it has a 33 mhz refresh rate vs 9 Mhz, no biggee as far as I am concerned, it has a wider temp range -30 to -350 C (875 is -20 to 280 C) this may not be an issue for home inspection though, it also has greater accuracy .05% to .08%, again not necessarily an issue, I would get it for the regular picture feature, but again, I also carry a digital camera.

Either 875’s specifications are way better than similar priced imagers from Flir & Fluke, especially resolution. Build quality and case is excellent, made in Germany, not China (not that anything is wrong with China :-))

The ‘upgrade’ to a higher resolution looks to me like a rip off, it is already installed in the imager, it just needs a code to unlock it so what am I paying more for? The upgrade only affects the output image, the one that is saved, not what you see on the LCD when you are using the imager on site. The standard images are fine as far as I am concerned, but you be the judge, I uploaded one for you to see. The software saves it about 1600 pixels, way pixelated, I shrink em to 320 and they look great in a report. Attachment was saved at 640 before uploading.



I use the 885-2 which takes images at 320x240 and with the super res brings them to 640x480.
You should definitely get the super res. upgrade on the 875-1. It becomes a marketing thing… If you can deliver crisper images than your competition, then you can bank on that.
Here is the drawback with Testo (I haven’t had to deal with the customer service yet), their software sucks. It’s heavy and slow.
Now, prior to spending $2k-$3k on a new cam, make sure you get the proper education. Once you have it, you might find out that a 160x120 cam doesn’t satisfy your needs/wants (thus the reason to pay for the super res. upgrade)
Good luck!

Do you also have to use their software to make the scan a usable .JPG?

Erik has a point about the integrated digital camera to show real image.
Here is what you can do if you have it

Wow, that palette span is bad!

Can you shrink that span a bunch and post it?

Yep, grabbed the wrong jpg

I took the infraspection building inspection course and all the free ones from Internachi and ITC (flir). After that as far as I am concerned 160 X 120 is enough but less is not. The saved images exported to jpg are saved at 1600, when reduced in photo software to 320 they are pretty good (see post 2 it was reduced to 640), and look fine in my reports.
As far as the upgrade goes, it will only affect the saved image, not what I see on the LCD when I am using the camera. What the upgrade actually does is take two images and merges and saves them as one, camera shake displaces the images slightly and software uses the shake to make a higher res image and save it on the card. It won’t work if you mount the camera on a tripod because there is no shake. I may break down and send them my 395(!!!) if I am ever feeling flush and foolish, but I am not expecting great things.
re the software, I only use it for the batch export to jpg, it is very fast and provides excellent results for building inspection reporting where the emphasis is on qualitative data.

Thank you for your comments.

Not a every compelling image if you ask me.