Flir M232 versus Sionyx Nightwave

[Tripsdad]

I purchased a Flir M232 taking advantage of WM's Black Friday specials but saw this short review of the Sionyx Nightwave on Boating Mag which had me wondering which would be more beneficial. We go out to dinner at least once a week in season and although we have radar the small unlit buoys in the bay are difficult to pickup in any kind of chop so I thought I would add the Flir as another tool to be more comfortable boating at night. I know that the Flir and Sionyx use different technologies but the big difference I see other than price (Flir $2750, Sionyx $1595) is the Field of Vision with Flir showing 24 degrees and Sionix at 44 degrees. Below are links to both as well as the Boating review of the Sionyx.

FLIR M232 Compact Pan/Tilt Marine Thermal Camera | Teledyne FLIR
https://www.sionyx.com/products/nightwave
https://www.bestmarineelectronics.c...ultra-low-light-camera-test/?primary_k=129267

Does any one have any experience the Flir and/or Sionyx and what would you recommend?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Skybolt]

I purchased a Flir M232 taking advantage of WM's Black Friday specials but saw this short review of the Sionyx Nightwave on Boating Mag which had me wondering which would be more beneficial. We go out to dinner at least once a week in season and although we have radar the small unlit buoys in the bay are difficult to pickup in any kind of chop so I thought I would add the Flir as another tool to be more comfortable boating at night. I know that the Flir and Sionyx use different technologies but the big difference I see other than price (Flir $2750, Sionyx $1595) is the Field of Vision with Flir showing 24 degrees and Sionix at 44 degrees. Below are links to both as well as the Boating review of the Sionyx.

FLIR M232 Compact Pan/Tilt Marine Thermal Camera | Teledyne FLIR
https://www.sionyx.com/products/nightwave
https://www.bestmarineelectronics.c...ultra-low-light-camera-test/?primary_k=129267

Does any one have any experience the Flir and/or Sionyx and what would you recommend?

Thanks in advance.

@alnav has a FLIR I believe and can answer more detailed questions. But with regard to FLIR, that is supported by both Raymarine and Garmin. Al has Garmin MFD's I believe and can comment on the Garmin support.

But the Sionyx isn't supported by any MFD yet. I spoke with them directly as they claim it is supported, but when questioned, they said it is supported through the external video input and no direct control is supported.

From what I have researched, the FLIR is the only way to go. Although the price point of the Sionyx is very tempting.

 

[alnav]

@alnav has a FLIR I believe and can answer more detailed questions. But with regard to FLIR, that is supported by bother Raymarine and Garmin. Al has Garmin MFD's I believe and can comment on the Garmin support.

But the Sionyx isn't supported by any MFD yet. I spoke with them directly as they claim it is supported, but when questioned, they said it is supported through the external video input and no direct control is supported.

From what I have researched, the FLIR is the only way to go. Although the price point of the Sionyx is very tempting.

I have the FLIR M300C which is actually a color camera with low light capability, which is more akin to the Sionyx you are looking at than the M232, which is an IR camera. The M300C and the Sionyx will work best up to the point of complete darkness or against targets that are emitting even the slightest amount of light. I figured I would use a visible light camera more than thermal and have been happy with the FLIR. The Garmin integration with FLIR has been improving since I installed and I'm looking for even more; the Raymarine existing integration is very impressive. I think with a stand-alone like the Sionyx you would have to dedicate an operator to do scans and look for targets; too hard for the helmsman IMO.

 

[Tripsdad]

@alnav has a FLIR I believe and can answer more detailed questions. But with regard to FLIR, that is supported by bother Raymarine and Garmin. Al has Garmin MFD's I believe and can comment on the Garmin support.

But the Sionyx isn't supported by any MFD yet. I spoke with them directly as they claim it is supported, but when questioned, they said it is supported through the external video input and no direct control is supported.

From what I have researched, the FLIR is the only way to go. Although the price point of the Sionyx is very tempting.

Thanks Orlando

 

[Tripsdad]

I have the FLIR M300C which is actually a color camera with low light capability, which is more akin to the Sionyx you are looking at than the M232, which is an IR camera. The M300C and the Sionyx will work best up to the point of complete darkness or against targets that are emitting even the slightest amount of light. I figured I would use a visible light camera more than thermal and have been happy with the FLIR. The Garmin integration with FLIR has been improving since I installed and I'm looking for even more; the Raymarine existing integration is very impressive. I think with a stand-alone like the Sionyx you would have to dedicate an operator to do scans and look for targets; too hard for the helmsman IMO.

Al,
I appreciate the quick response. Integration is important to me so Flir wins there and I think the thermal M232 will give me what I’m looking for.
As I get older my night vision is not as good as it was and although I’m comfortable navigating with the Garmin Fantom radar, having the Flir will enhance my situational awareness.
Thanks.

 

[Irie308]

We have a m232 integrated with our Garmin and I’m very happy with it. No experience with the Sionyx so can’t speak to it. The fir has some great features which are further enhanced if you have a raymarine mfd. I can tell you that the scan feature and the target tracking is a great feature of the flir. The fact that flir integrates with the radar and can track Marpa and ais targets makes night travel that much safer. Another feature of the IR is watching for lobster pots when running into setting sunlight. The pic is not high res but it truly is seeing in the dark.

 

[Tripsdad]

We have a m232 integrated with our Garmin and I’m very happy with it. No experience with the Sionyx so can’t speak to it. The fir has some great features which are further enhanced if you have a raymarine mfd. I can tell you that the scan feature and the target tracking is a great feature of the flir. The fact that flir integrates with the radar and can track Marpa and ais targets makes night travel that much safer. Another feature of the IR is watching for lobster pots when running into setting sunlight. The pic is not high res but it truly is seeing in the dark.

Thanks for the reply. Does the Flir integrate with Garmin Radar and is the scan and target tracking available as well? I was under the impression that these features were only available with Raymarine.

 

[Irie308]

Thanks for the reply. Does the Flir integrate with Garmin Radar and is the scan and target tracking available as well? I was under the impression that these features were only available with Raymarine.

Yes this was updated on one of their releases over the summer.
Tracking is achieved via ais or marpa so radar has to be active.

 

[Tripsdad]

Good to know.

Thanks

 

[b_arrington]

@alnav has a FLIR I believe and can answer more detailed questions. But with regard to FLIR, that is supported by both Raymarine and Garmin. Al has Garmin MFD's I believe and can comment on the Garmin support.

But the Sionyx isn't supported by any MFD yet. I spoke with them directly as they claim it is supported, but when questioned, they said it is supported through the external video input and no direct control is supported.

From what I have researched, the FLIR is the only way to go. Although the price point of the Sionyx is very tempting.

There’s really no “integration” needed for the Nightwave. As far as the MFD sees it, it’s a video feed. Nightwave is a fixed point camera. It doesn’t pan/tilt like the FLIR models so there’s literally nothing to control - it acts like a camera in the engine room.

I think low light cameras have more real-world use cases for boating. They have higher resolution and faster refresh rates because thermal is artificially restricted for to ITAR military arms export rules. To me, the edge use cases for thermal are not very common for recreational boaters and not worth the expense.

Now what FLIR does have is PTZ and slew to cue radar integration. Those are compelling. What I would love to see is Sionyx make a version of their Nightwave with PTZ, slew to cue, and object detection. In the last course of my Masters degree, I did a project where I did and end-to-end proposal for that exact product, from the market demand, competition, development cost, breakeven points, and marketing plan. I priced it out at $2200-$2600. It would be a great product that really hits a gap in the market.

Concept

Market Space

 

[Skybolt]

There’s really no “integration” needed for the Nightwave. As far as the MFD sees it, it’s a video feed. Nightwave is a fixed point camera. It doesn’t pan/tilt like the FLIR models so there’s literally nothing to control - it acts like a camera in the engine room. ...

Actually there is integration as there app supports quite a few adjustments that I would think are needed in changing light levels. And since I last spoke with them, they are only now supporting multiple connections. Meaning app and MFD.

https://www.sionyx.com/pages/app

 

[b_arrington]

Actually there is integration as there app supports quite a few adjustments that I would think are needed in changing light levels. And since I last spoke with them, they are only now supporting multiple connections. Meaning app and MFD.

https://www.sionyx.com/pages/app

Sure there is a need to made adjustments to the camera. As of now it’s handled via a Sionyx app as you said. But that eliminates the need for direct control via the MFD. as far as the MFD in concerned it’s just receiving a standard video feed.

From a design perspective it’s easier and makes sense. You build one interface that is universal without having to create a deep integration with multiple 3rd party vendors. Maybe it’s a bit more cumbersome for the user to have to use a smart phone app vs the mfd, but it likely helped get the product to market.

 

[Skybolt]

Sure there is a need to made adjustments to the camera. As of now it’s handled via a Sionyx app as you said. But that eliminates the need for direct control via the MFD. as far as the MFD in concerned it’s just receiving a standard video feed. ...

Not sure it makes any sense to spend that kind of money and not have integration like the FLIR has. I am sure this camera is a little better, but for just visual input there are many outdoor camera's that could be used for hundreds less and integrate with any MFD that has an external video input like this does. The specs on that camera are not that impressive. If it supported AIS and MARPA targets even without MFD integration that would be something.

I understand the price point, but your not getting a whole lot for your money, IMO. I also can understand not getting a FLIR because of the expense.

 

[Tripsdad]

There’s really no “integration” needed for the Nightwave. As far as the MFD sees it, it’s a video feed. Nightwave is a fixed point camera. It doesn’t pan/tilt like the FLIR models so there’s literally nothing to control - it acts like a camera in the engine room.

I think low light cameras have more real-world use cases for boating. They have higher resolution and faster refresh rates because thermal is artificially restricted for to ITAR military arms export rules. To me, the edge use cases for thermal are not very common for recreational boaters and not worth the expense.

Now what FLIR does have is PTZ and slew to cue radar integration. Those are compelling. What I would love to see is Sionyx make a version of their Nightwave with PTZ, slew to cue, and object detection. In the last course of my Masters degree, I did a project where I did and end-to-end proposal for that exact product, from the market demand, competition, development cost, breakeven points, and marketing plan. I priced it out at $2200-$2600. It would be a great product that really hits a gap in the market.

Concept
View attachment 138115
Market Space
View attachment 138114

Hi Brad,

All good points and worth consideration. With WM's Black Friday sale and the 5X Rewards the M232 ended up costing just over $2200 which brings it more in line with the Sionyx.

I agree about the edge use cases for thermal not being very common for recreational boaters and while these might be more "nice to have" rather than necessary equipment, to me it's just one more tool to get us home safely.

Thanks.

 

[b_arrington]

Hi Brad,

All good points and worth consideration. With WM's Black Friday sale and the 5X Rewards the M232 ended up costing just over $2200 which brings it more in line with the Sionyx.

I agree about the edge use cases for thermal not being very common for recreational boaters and while these might be more "nice to have" rather than necessary equipment, to me it's just one more tool to get us home safely.

Thanks.

At $2200, that's much more reasonable. I might even consider it at that price. Normal list is $3500, which to me is too much for what it provides.

I have the same thought about the purpose of a low light camera - something to help me get home. Last couple times I was out after dark I was having a really hard time picking out the nav markers. I would have liked something so I could see them while at hull speed to about 15 mph.

 

[b_arrington]

Not sure it makes any sense to spend that kind of money and not have integration like the FLIR has. I am sure this camera is a little better, but for just visual input there are many outdoor camera's that could be used for hundreds less and integrate with any MFD that has an external video input like this does. The specs on that camera are not that impressive. If it supported AIS and MARPA targets even without MFD integration that would be something.

I understand the price point, but your not getting a whole lot for your money, IMO. I also can understand not getting a FLIR because of the expense.

I've looked at a number of comparisons between available camera tech and the Sionyx, plus real-world images from users. The imagery from users is really impressive, basically turning night into a full-color day. It's also fully marinized, which is not an easy task.

To my way of thinking, supporting AIS or MARPA on a fixed camera has limited value. A much greater benefit comes into play when the camera has PTZ and you can enable slew-to-cue and tracking. Until then, I'd rather not pay the additional development cost for a marginal improvement.

As I said in my reply to Rob, I've been having a lot of trouble pickout out channel markers at night. It might be because I now have a pilothouse and the glass impairs things a bit. To me the real use case for night vision tech is a fairly low speeds, to be able to avoid objects, see other boats in front of you, and safely find channel markers. This is where a low visible light camera provides good value. The Sionyx will pick out a man-sized object at 150 meters in near moonless light. That's plenty for this use case. Is it going to see is total darkness like a FLIR? No, but I'd say that's an edge case. If you need that a FLIR is excellent - but there's a price to pay. I think at $1500 the Sionyx provides compelling images, for a price much more reasonable that even the lowest FLIR units, and provides a sizeable increases in night time boating safety. Where I would not by a FLIR, I would buy a Sionyx.

Interestingly, in my Systems Engineering class where I did my product on a new Sionyx camera, there was a review panel that included a former Army attack helicopter pilot that is also a boater. He thought my class project was actually real and wanted to help me bring it to market. There were 3 other boaters on the panel and they all said FLIR is overpriced for the functionality.

 

[Tripsdad]

At $2200, that's much more reasonable. I might even consider it at that price. Normal list is $3500, which to me is too much for what it provides.

I have the same thought about the purpose of a low light camera - something to help me get home. Last couple times I was out after dark I was having a really hard time picking out the nav markers. I would have liked something so I could see them while at hull speed to about 15 mph.

I'm not sure I would have gotten the Flir if I was paying list price and while I think it will be helpful I do like the ability of the Sionyx or low light cameras in general to see targets low planing speed.

 

[Skybolt]

@b_arrington I totally agree that FLIR is over priced for what brings to the table. But for better night vision of markers and such, I am not sold on camera tech. either. I like the radar overlay for that as the chart shows where it thinks it should be and the overlay displays it where it actually is.

Total night vision in color is something to think about, if the integration got better and they add PTZ functionality.

 

[ttmott]

Wouldn't you guys agree that the camera's field of view is a critical determinant in PTZ?
FLIR's advantage is their capability in the IR spectrum but the manufacturing of the collector is still very expensive and consequently any entry level camera has a very narrow field of view. The defense component of FLIR is ITAR restricted but I'm not aware anything in their commercial lineup is. Can you illustrate what you mean by ITAR restrictions?

@b_arrington - I also have difficulty seeing things at low light conditions and rely on the radar, charts, and spot lighting to pickup the markers in the channels around here. I was coming into what we call the Barge Canal (westward) and it was pitch black following the charts and verifying with radar, depth, and illuminating the markers. A sailboat was anchored dead center in the entry of the Barge Canal without any lighting; I almost hit that boat. Spooks me to think about it today. That is when I first noticed my Garmin Fantom radar was failing - It didn't paint the boat at all but the surrounding land mass' were still shown. I put my spotlight on to see the barges that normally anchor there and that is when the sailboat mast reflected right in front of the boat - 6 knots and then reverse with significant throttle.
So, I wouldn't make things even more complicated having to switch between screens to see the HDMI feed or having to focus on a separate smart device in conjunction with monitoring Radar, Charts, and depth. My take is I would rather have IR integration with the radar and charts even though considerably more expensive....

 

[Skybolt]

I will say, all good points being made here. I too have issues at night and prefer not to navigate at night. But, like Tom I also have a memory of a similar situation and it scared the crap out of me. And why I had that radar thread that the both of you commented in. I would get one of these camera's if the integration was better. To Tom's point, juggling between screens is not the way to go. We're getting close with operational integration, but not quite there yet. JMO.