IDS Imaging GV-5280FA-M-GL Rev.1.2 alternative from Hikrobot
Hikrobot replacement options for the IDS Imaging GV-5280FA-M-GL Rev.1.2: the closest models, what differs (resolution, frame rate, interface, sensor) and what to check before switching.
Comparison with Hikrobot models
Hikrobot MV-CS050-10GM matches the GV-5280FA-M-GL Rev.1.2 on resolution, frame rate and interface.
Check before ordering:
Connector: RJ45 instead of GigE M12, screwable — the system has to be checked.
Frame height: 2048 instead of 2056 px (-0.39 %).
Frame rate: 24.2 instead of 24.7 fps (-2.02 %).
Frame width: 2448 instead of 2464 px (-0.65 %).
Software, SDK, connectors, mount and dimensions require a separate engineering check.
With the same lens and working distance, on the full frame, the field of view changes: -0.65 % in width, -0.39 % in height. A smaller image circle is required — part of the field the existing lens covers goes unused.
To confirm a model for your line, send: current lens, working distance, field of view, object speed, cable length and software.
The search threshold is met, but this is not a replacement without trade-offs.
Trade-offs to settle before you choose:
Connector: RJ45 instead of GigE M12, screwable — the system has to be checked.
Frame rate: 24.2 instead of 24.7 fps (-2.02 %).
Frame height: 2048 instead of 2056 px (-0.39 %).
Frame width: 2448 instead of 2464 px (-0.65 %).
With the same lens and working distance, on the full frame, the field of view changes: -0.65 % in width, -0.39 % in height. A smaller image circle is required — part of the field the existing lens covers goes unused.
The search threshold is met, but this is not a replacement without trade-offs.
Trade-offs to settle before you choose:
Connector: RJ45 instead of GigE M12, screwable — the system has to be checked.
Frame rate: 24.2 instead of 24.7 fps (-2.02 %).
Frame height: 2048 instead of 2056 px (-0.39 %).
Frame width: 2448 instead of 2464 px (-0.65 %).
With the same lens and working distance, on the full frame, the field of view changes: -0.65 % in width, -0.39 % in height. A smaller image circle is required — part of the field the existing lens covers goes unused.
The search threshold is met, but this is not a replacement without trade-offs.
Trade-offs to settle before you choose:
Frame height: 2048 instead of 2056 px (-0.39 %).
Frame width: 2448 instead of 2464 px (-0.65 %).
The sensor part number is not confirmed in this comparison: we compare by resolution, pixel size, frame or line rate and interface.
With the same lens and working distance, on the full frame, the field of view changes: -0.65 % in width, -0.39 % in height. A smaller image circle is required — part of the field the existing lens covers goes unused.
The search threshold is met, but this is not a replacement without trade-offs.
Trade-offs to settle before you choose:
Frame height: 2048 instead of 2056 px (-0.39 %).
Frame width: 2448 instead of 2464 px (-0.65 %).
The sensor part number is not confirmed in this comparison: we compare by resolution, pixel size, frame or line rate and interface.
With the same lens and working distance, on the full frame, the field of view changes: -0.65 % in width, -0.39 % in height. A smaller image circle is required — part of the field the existing lens covers goes unused.
The search threshold is met, but this is not a replacement without trade-offs.
Trade-offs to settle before you choose:
Frame height: 2048 instead of 2056 px (-0.39 %).
Frame width: 2448 instead of 2464 px (-0.65 %).
The sensor part number is not confirmed in this comparison: we compare by resolution, pixel size, frame or line rate and interface.
With the same lens and working distance, on the full frame, the field of view changes: -0.65 % in width, -0.39 % in height. A smaller image circle is required — part of the field the existing lens covers goes unused.
The search threshold is met, but this is not a replacement without trade-offs.
Trade-offs to settle before you choose:
Connector: RJ45 instead of GigE M12, screwable — the system has to be checked.
Frame rate: 24.5 instead of 24.7 fps (-0.81 %).
Frame height: 2048 instead of 2056 px (-0.39 %).
Frame width: 2448 instead of 2464 px (-0.65 %).
The sensor part number is not confirmed in this comparison: we compare by resolution, pixel size, frame or line rate and interface.
With the same lens and working distance, on the full frame, the field of view changes: -0.65 % in width, -0.39 % in height. A smaller image circle is required — part of the field the existing lens covers goes unused.
The search threshold is met, but this is not a replacement without trade-offs.
Trade-offs to settle before you choose:
Connector: RJ45 instead of GigE M12, screwable — the system has to be checked.
Frame rate: 24.4 instead of 24.7 fps (-1.21 %).
Frame height: 2048 instead of 2056 px (-0.39 %).
Frame width: 2448 instead of 2464 px (-0.65 %).
The sensor part number is not confirmed in this comparison: we compare by resolution, pixel size, frame or line rate and interface.
With the same lens and working distance, on the full frame, the field of view changes: -0.65 % in width, -0.39 % in height. A smaller image circle is required — part of the field the existing lens covers goes unused.
The search threshold is met, but this is not a replacement without trade-offs.
Trade-offs to settle before you choose:
Connector: RJ45 instead of GigE M12, screwable — the system has to be checked.
Frame rate: 24 instead of 24.7 fps (-2.83 %).
Frame height: 2048 instead of 2056 px (-0.39 %).
Frame width: 2448 instead of 2464 px (-0.65 %).
The sensor part number is not confirmed in this comparison: we compare by resolution, pixel size, frame or line rate and interface.
With the same lens and working distance, on the full frame, the field of view changes: -0.65 % in width, -0.39 % in height. A smaller image circle is required — part of the field the existing lens covers goes unused.
The search threshold is met, but this is not a replacement without trade-offs.
Trade-offs to settle before you choose:
Connector: RJ45 instead of GigE M12, screwable — the system has to be checked.
Frame rate: 24.2 instead of 24.7 fps (-2.02 %).
Pixel size, X: 3.4 instead of 3.45 µm (-1.45 %); the field of view will change with the same lens.
Pixel size, Y: 3.4 instead of 3.45 µm (-1.45 %); the field of view will change with the same lens.
Frame height: 2048 instead of 2056 px (-0.39 %).
Frame width: 2448 instead of 2464 px (-0.65 %).
With the same lens and working distance, on the full frame, the field of view changes: -2.09 % in width, -1.83 % in height. A smaller image circle is required — part of the field the existing lens covers goes unused.
The search threshold is met, but this is not a replacement without trade-offs.
Trade-offs to settle before you choose:
Connector: RJ45 instead of GigE M12, screwable — the system has to be checked.
Frame rate: 23 instead of 24.7 fps (-6.88 %).
Frame height: 2048 instead of 2056 px (-0.39 %).
Frame width: 2448 instead of 2464 px (-0.65 %).
The sensor part number is not confirmed in this comparison: we compare by resolution, pixel size, frame or line rate and interface.
With the same lens and working distance, on the full frame, the field of view changes: -0.65 % in width, -0.39 % in height. A smaller image circle is required — part of the field the existing lens covers goes unused.
The search threshold is met, but this is not a replacement without trade-offs.
Trade-offs to settle before you choose:
Connector: RJ45 instead of GigE M12, screwable — the system has to be checked.
Frame rate: 22.7 instead of 24.7 fps (-8.1 %).
Pixel size, X: 3.2 instead of 3.45 µm (-7.25 %); the field of view will change with the same lens.
Pixel size, Y: 3.2 instead of 3.45 µm (-7.25 %); the field of view will change with the same lens.
Frame height: 2048 instead of 2056 px (-0.39 %).
With the same lens and working distance, on the full frame, the field of view changes: -2.43 % in width, -7.61 % in height. A smaller image circle is required — part of the field the existing lens covers goes unused.
Scope of the comparison. The comparison covers only the specifications listed, taken from published sources. It is not a statement of compatibility or interchangeability. Third-party names and trademarks are used solely to identify the products being compared; the rights to them belong to their respective owners. Software, SDK, connectors, mount and dimensions require a separate engineering check.