A new NanoVNA-F just arrived for my ham club today. We already have several NanoVNA's of different manufacture and are happy with their performance but some of the members wanted a unit with a larger display and the NanoVNA-F is currently the only option. Here are some quick observations as a long time NanoVNA-H user
I only learned since the unit arrived that after a QSLT calibration is performed, there is approximately a 0.4 dB offset when an s21 measurement is performed. Seems that until the firmware is corrected, you have to use one of your save locations to store a separate through calibration to get rid of the offset. I'm not sure why this bug is just now being reported by the user community.
The current firmware for the NanoVNA outpaces the NanoVNA-F. I wasn't aware TDR measurements and impedance in the R format are not available. Measurement range extension to 1500 MHz has also not yet been implemented. I haven't verified it, but it has been reported that screenshot capture to the device Udrive or via console command is also not available. I'm sure over time most of these issues and others will be addressed, but currently the NanoVNA-F team seems to put more effort into promoting its other products (such as the demo board) than delivering requested firmware updates.
Since my eyesight is still fine I don't have any problems with the NanoVNA-H's 2.8" screen size, especially on the units that we have upgraded to hugen's 0.4.0AA large font firmware. I'll leave the NanoVNA-F to our club members who just want to use the unit as a VSWR analyzer, at least until the firmware catches up with the NanoVNA-H. Rune's NanoVNA-saver application adds a lot of the missing firmware capability but I tend to use my NanoVNA disconnected from a computer for most of my measurements. Some features or the NanoVNA-F, such as screenshot capability, will not be available in a future NanoVNA-saver update unless the NanoVNA-F developers add the required code to their firmware.
In my opinion the 4.3" display size, larger battery and metal case are nice, but I was expecting more on the firmware side for 3x what we paid for the NanoVNA-H. I hope the NanoVNA-F firmware developer's start responding to user requests for worthwhile firmware extensions. Their current response has been - its in the works or to be patient. The NanoVNA-F specific C# application that was promised at launch has still not been delivered. Thankfully Rune was able to convince them to modify their command line prompt so that the majority of the NanoVNA-Saver commands work with the NanoVNA-F.
Maybe hugen, edy555, QRP and the rest of the fine NanoVNA-H firmware developers have spoiled me.
- Herb
