I find a NanoVNA is a far superior device for evaluating pretty much anything electronic, from antennas to inductors and caps, and even crystal filters, as well as IF's, and identifying and locating impedance anomalies in feedlines. And they work waaay up and waaay down in frequency. They are simply an unbeatable test instrument, and are FAR cheaper than simple antenna analyzers. Antenna analyzers have become a thing of the past, antiques. Hams just don't know it yet.
I have both, the mfj is a quick use dedicated device. And it is ok.... Obviously the vna is more versatile by design. Both have a place in the modern ham shack or on the test bench.
Mighty Fine Junk vs. state-of-the-art Chinesium! This is a showdown I'll actually watch. (especially since I've _wanted_ an MFJ tuner, but what I _have_ is a nanoVNA. ;)
Like many others I have both, the NanoVNA and the MFJ. I seem to have settled to a use pattern where the NanoVNA is driven by the PC for bench measurements. It is great as a way to keep records of plots derived from experiments. The MFJ is far more convenient to use outdoors (and easier to read) for antenna measurements. I am fortunate to have both, the MFJ was given to me by a friend, and has proven to be very useful. For most hams I suspect the NanoVNA is too complex to use and that the "antenna analysers" suit them better. Both need care particularly with HF antennas that can gather high levels of static charge in some situations. The capabilities of the NanoVNA make it rate very high in my list of ham radio bargains.
I have both and really when I just need a quick check of one of my antennas I still grab the 269 its simple, no frills and used it enough to know what to trust and what's kind of lying 👍 Now if I was going to do a deeper analysis of an antenna I'd probably grab the Nano VNA.
The Nano VNA is a great little instrument, but you get what you pay for. I found that the Nano VNA was much more subject to interference from other signals than the MFJ-269. An example, I was testing a six meter loop in my yard with the loop up about 15 feet. The nano VNA could not successfully test the loop having varying and incorrect results. The MFJ was able to test and allow me to adjust the loop problem free. There is a lot of value in the Nano VNA. I would recommend it for filter testing, etc. on your bench. For antennas my results were sometimes OK but other times not.
Thank you for your comment. Which version of nanoVNA were you using ? Mine is the nanoVNA-F which is inside a metal box ... that might help your concern.
I have the older MFJ model where I added a digital Freq display. I used it recently to chart the SWR from 10-80 on a newly erected EFHW. No collection of connectors to acquire and it was simple to complete my task.
I got the MFJ way back in the 90's. it was a wonderful tool to add to your ham gear 'toolbox' at that time. It is STILL a very useful, simple to use item. I also have a nanoVNA, it's awesome and more portable than the MFJ, with more graphical and more useful features. I take mine with me for portable ops. Both have their place in amateur radio.
the MFJ 269 B a versatile simple to use gadget! and its more accurate than it need to be, now years later i still use it building tank circuits, measuring coax stubbs, analyzing antennas, fault finding coax, reading input circuit values, building vhf yagi's was never easier, wanna play with hf mobile antennas ? never easier a device... Nano Vna ? ok , but do you really need one :)
Good first video, thank you. I hit the like and subscribe and look forward to your further "exploits". After watching a half-dozen of videos on the Nano VNA I'm going to pull the trigger on one. I'm an new ham and I just love testing "stuff" since I did that for over 20 years in the construction industry. This is way cleaner and less dangerous. As long as I don't get a hold of a live wire! 😵💫
I've still got the original 269 from when it was first released. MFJ lost an engineer and it was off the market for a long time. Got my nanoVNA-H for the stuff the 269 can't. With all the accessories for grid dip readings, the MFJ analyzer will continue to stay in my shack until one of my HAM sons steals it.
Great idea. There is a short embedded clip of the end result of making PL-259 calibration units. Since the objective is to approximate the coax attach point, making an Open requires no change to a new stock PL-259, and Short is dead easy; but the Load one requires a bit more care. Luckily, the nanoVNA isn't delivering much power, so you can go with the smallest resistors you can find to fit the space. Keeping the lead length as short as possible is important; as well as avoiding inductive resistors. My approach to zero in on 50 ohms was to sample a bunch of 1/8th watt 100 ohm resistors, testing them in pairs connected in parallel. I hope that helps, in lieu of a new video.
I own both of these testers. I think the learning curve is steeper on the Nano VNA. I am more likely to use my MFJ more frequently since is just plain stupid simple to check for SWR. No Need to re-calibrate between changing bands. The drawback to the MFJ is the steep price. The Pro of using the Nano VNA is there is so many more functions. You can even use it to tune Duplexors for repeaters.
The nanoVNA is a nice tool, but I would prefer to MFJ if I use it outdoors. It's difficult to read the measurements from a TFT under the sun. An antenna analyzer is good enough for tuning an antenna at most of the time out of your radio shack. Since the nanoVNA has two ports, it is a complicated RF tool for tuning LPFs, BPFs at your electronic workbench. For doing such things, it now overwhelms the performances of an antenna analyzer for the far most in the old days.
Thank you for your perspective & comments. I find the larger screen size of the nanoVNA-F helps when the sun is too strong. Plus, its ability to do in-field storage of measurements allows you the option to view the results on a PC screen later if the sun was too strong to view the detail. But I have to agree that if all you need is a quick VSWR indication, the MFJ wins.
IMO, the nano vna doesn't need to be calibrated by band. I have mine calibrated for a set of bands, i.e., from 80-10 and from 6 to 70cm. I can then recall that calibration, and from within that calibration i can call up specific bands and get a useable and helpful view of the antenna on the frequency of choice. I have only done the calibrations once, and kept them stored. No major need to recalibrate often, but it doesnt hurt. Overall, both the new and old tech work great, though they represent different needs. Great video!
My friend spends three times the amount of time fiddling with his Nano for a particular antenna tasks than I spend with my Rig Expert but maybe he's just really slow at it.
How important is calibration if all you are interested in is finding the lowest SWR and not the absolute values? For example adjusting the length of my antenna to have the lowest SWR for where I am transmitting at.
@@cache4pat Do you use or know about nanovnasaver. I've tried to download this tool for my computer and I get directed to github and at that site can't five the nanovnasaver.
IMO, you need both a vna for its capabilities vs price, why not? And its great for testing and tuning traps, filters, baluns etc.. However, if you work with antennas at all, you need a dedicated antenna analyzer. The MFJ 259/269's are good solid instruments with long history. But they dont do graphing, so multiband antennas are harder to test. The Rigexpert is a great tool but if you want over 30mhz they get very expensive.. Anyway, Great Video!!! Thanks !
How much would it really affect the results if you did the calibration at the sma connectors and did not recalibrate for the foot long piece of coax and additional connectors? I'm considering that in the real world you will have some length of coax, 10, 20, 50, or more feet long, between the antenna analyzer or nano--VNA. So, what difference does that extra foot make? I understand that whatever the SWR is at the antenna, losses in the coax or other feed line will always make it look better. But, in most cases it is not practical to take the measurement at the antenna.
Now you have the NanoVNA you can measure return loss rather than the clunky and uninformative VSWR. It presents the same information in a much more informative way. First thing to do with it is screw on some connector savers and never take them off. At some point there will be damage and you just put on a new saver. The alternative is a wrecked NanoVNA.
I stored my mfj269C in the closet. It's been there for sometime. Thought it was a safe place to store it. I got it out yesterday the power switch was stuck in the on position and by turning it on and off finally was free to turn on and off. The unit needs to be sent back for repairs its non functioning? I'm still waiting on FMJ so I can send it out. Any chance there's another place to send to for repairs? If I new the nano would be a better choice and could trust it I would just switch to the VNA
Have you calibrated the VNA properly for the same point of measurement. For example, if you are referring to the Transceiver's VSWR meter, you need to calibrate the VNA for the point your antenna enters your radio, with the same calibration unit connector type as your coax. This point is mentioned in the video.
It is not out of the question that your nanoVNA is defective. I have always gotten a close correlation between my transceiver, the MFJ, and the nanoVNA. Sorry it's not working out for you.
@@cache4pat np. Don't take it as the be all answer. If you're using a decent video editor, the filter should come as standard. If not, time for a pass filter on your mic?
@@MoseleyJaguar I haven't checked PowerDirector for post audio processing tools, before looking for physical external solutions. Thx for commenting, now I know I have something to fix.
Thank you for your comment. I understand your point of view. It was 'that effort' I was drawing attention to; contrasted to the nanoVNA's "payoff", if you needed an extra level of detail.
How stupid of me. I thought a "shoot out" was going to be a side by side comparison of the two devices. You know, like how EVERYONE else uses the term. Took me until I was 75% into the video to learn the title was click bait.
I am sorry that you feel this way. It was intended to help my HAM colleges decide which Antenna Analyzer they might want to consider using. My video notes that neither device "Won", over the the other; and that the MFJ might be seen as much easier to use in the field.
I find a NanoVNA is a far superior device for evaluating pretty much anything electronic, from antennas to inductors and caps, and even crystal filters, as well as IF's, and identifying and locating impedance anomalies in feedlines. And they work waaay up and waaay down in frequency. They are simply an unbeatable test instrument, and are FAR cheaper than simple antenna analyzers. Antenna analyzers have become a thing of the past, antiques. Hams just don't know it yet.
when I got a Nano I got rid of MFJ. MFJ can't see the whole band in ONE visual representation. VNA best tool so far W9DLP
I have both, the mfj is a quick use dedicated device. And it is ok....
Obviously the vna is more versatile by design. Both have a place in the modern ham shack or on the test bench.
Mighty Fine Junk vs. state-of-the-art Chinesium! This is a showdown I'll actually watch. (especially since I've _wanted_ an MFJ tuner, but what I _have_ is a nanoVNA. ;)
Like many others I have both, the NanoVNA and the MFJ. I seem to have settled to a use pattern where the NanoVNA is driven by the PC for bench measurements. It is great as a way to keep records of plots derived from experiments. The MFJ is far more convenient to use outdoors (and easier to read) for antenna measurements. I am fortunate to have both, the MFJ was given to me by a friend, and has proven to be very useful. For most hams I suspect the NanoVNA is too complex to use and that the "antenna analysers" suit them better. Both need care particularly with HF antennas that can gather high levels of static charge in some situations. The capabilities of the NanoVNA make it rate very high in my list of ham radio bargains.
I have both and really when I just need a quick check of one of my antennas I still grab the 269 its simple, no frills and used it enough to know what to trust and what's kind of lying 👍 Now if I was going to do a deeper analysis of an antenna I'd probably grab the Nano VNA.
The Nano VNA is a great little instrument, but you get what you pay for. I found that the Nano VNA was much more subject to interference from other signals than the MFJ-269. An example, I was testing a six meter loop in my yard with the loop up about 15 feet. The nano VNA could not successfully test the loop having varying and incorrect results. The MFJ was able to test and allow me to adjust the loop problem free. There is a lot of value in the Nano VNA. I would recommend it for filter testing, etc. on your bench. For antennas my results were sometimes OK but other times not.
Thank you for your comment. Which version of nanoVNA were you using ? Mine is the nanoVNA-F which is inside a metal box ... that might help your concern.
ill stick with my 259. simple no frills. it JUST WORKS..
I do not find it to be very accurate
I have the older MFJ model where I added a digital Freq display. I used it recently to chart the SWR from 10-80 on a newly erected EFHW. No collection of connectors to acquire and it was simple to complete my task.
Thank you very well presented.
Very good explanation sir. Great video.
HUZZAH! VA3PAF! Thank You Sir! From ~ Russell KE7QXR!
I got the MFJ way back in the 90's. it was a wonderful tool to add to your ham gear 'toolbox' at that time. It is STILL a very useful, simple to use item.
I also have a nanoVNA, it's awesome and more portable than the MFJ, with more graphical and more useful features. I take mine with me for
portable ops.
Both have their place in amateur radio.
the MFJ 269 B a versatile simple to use gadget! and its more accurate than it need to be, now years later i still use it building tank circuits, measuring coax stubbs, analyzing antennas, fault finding coax, reading input circuit values, building vhf yagi's was never easier, wanna play with hf mobile antennas ? never easier a device... Nano Vna ? ok , but do you really need one :)
非常有趣的视频。在2015年的时候，我买了MFJ 269用于RFID 天线的测试。现在使用nanoVNA进行测试。都是非常好的工具。但是今天能够看到这个视频，真的是出乎意料，以为MFJ269已经消失在大家的眼中了。
Good first video, thank you. I hit the like and subscribe and look forward to your further "exploits". After watching a half-dozen of videos on the Nano VNA I'm going to pull the trigger on one. I'm an new ham and I just love testing "stuff" since I did that for over 20 years in the construction industry. This is way cleaner and less dangerous. As long as I don't get a hold of a live wire! 😵💫
Thank you for this overview
I've still got the original 269 from when it was first released. MFJ lost an engineer and it was off the market for a long time.
Got my nanoVNA-H for the stuff the 269 can't.
With all the accessories for grid dip readings, the MFJ analyzer will continue to stay in my shack until one of my HAM sons steals it.
Thank you for your comments.
It would be great if you did a video on how to make the open, short,and closed calibration caps for the pl 259 that you used. Thanks for the video!
Great idea. There is a short embedded clip of the end result of making PL-259 calibration units. Since the objective is to approximate the coax attach point, making an Open requires no change to a new stock PL-259, and Short is dead easy; but the Load one requires a bit more care. Luckily, the nanoVNA isn't delivering much power, so you can go with the smallest resistors you can find to fit the space. Keeping the lead length as short as possible is important; as well as avoiding inductive resistors. My approach to zero in on 50 ohms was to sample a bunch of 1/8th watt 100 ohm resistors, testing them in pairs connected in parallel. I hope that helps, in lieu of a new video.
@Exploring Stuff Thanks!
Thanks for your video.
just got the VNA-H it was under a hundred dollars and latest firmware
I own both of these testers. I think the learning curve is steeper on the Nano VNA. I am more likely to use my MFJ more frequently since is just plain stupid simple to check for SWR. No Need to re-calibrate between changing bands. The drawback to the MFJ is the steep price. The Pro of using the Nano VNA is there is so many more functions. You can even use it to tune Duplexors for repeaters.
Awesome observation .... Thx
The nanoVNA is a nice tool, but I would prefer to MFJ if I use it outdoors. It's difficult to read the measurements from a TFT under the sun. An antenna analyzer is good enough for tuning an antenna at most of the time out of your radio shack. Since the nanoVNA has two ports, it is a complicated RF tool for tuning LPFs, BPFs at your electronic workbench. For doing such things, it now overwhelms the performances of an antenna analyzer for the far most in the old days.
Thank you for your perspective & comments. I find the larger screen size of the nanoVNA-F helps when the sun is too strong. Plus, its ability to do in-field storage of measurements allows you the option to view the results on a PC screen later if the sun was too strong to view the detail. But I have to agree that if all you need is a quick VSWR indication, the MFJ wins.
I agree if your a average Ham like me the MFJ does all you need. If your
an antenna engineer get a VNA.
My MFJ 259 has lasted for over 20 years and counting. My NanoVNA lasted six months. And the MFJ doesn't need calibration every five minutes.
I am getting great performance out of both... my MFJ from 2014, when I purchased it used, and my nanoVNA-F since 2020.
IMO, the nano vna doesn't need to be calibrated by band. I have mine calibrated for a set of bands, i.e., from 80-10 and from 6 to 70cm. I can then recall that calibration, and from within that calibration i can call up specific bands and get a useable and helpful view of the antenna on the frequency of choice. I have only done the calibrations once, and kept them stored. No major need to recalibrate often, but it doesnt hurt.
Overall, both the new and old tech work great, though they represent different needs.
Great video!
Great point. Thank you.
Why do all MFJ products look like they were made in someone's garage?
My friend spends three times the amount of time fiddling with his Nano for a particular antenna tasks than I spend with my Rig Expert but maybe he's just really slow at it.
How important is calibration if all you are interested in is finding the lowest SWR and not the absolute values? For example adjusting the length of my antenna to have the lowest SWR for where I am transmitting at.
Have you check out the SSA-2N NanoVNA-V2 it has the larger 239 type connectors
Nope
@@cache4pat Do you use or know about nanovnasaver. I've tried to download this tool for my computer and I get directed to github and at that site can't five the nanovnasaver.
IMO, you need both a vna for its capabilities vs price, why not? And its great for testing and tuning traps, filters, baluns etc..
However, if you work with antennas at all, you need a dedicated antenna analyzer.
The MFJ 259/269's are good solid instruments with long history. But they dont do graphing, so multiband antennas are harder to test.
The Rigexpert is a great tool but if you want over 30mhz they get very expensive..
Anyway, Great Video!!! Thanks !
Thank you :)
How much would it really affect the results if you did the calibration at the sma connectors and did not recalibrate for the foot long piece of coax and additional connectors? I'm considering that in the real world you will have some length of coax, 10, 20, 50, or more feet long, between the antenna analyzer or nano--VNA. So, what difference does that extra foot make?
I understand that whatever the SWR is at the antenna, losses in the coax or other feed line will always make it look better. But, in most cases it is not practical to take the measurement at the antenna.
Now you have the NanoVNA you can measure return loss rather than the clunky and uninformative VSWR. It presents the same information in a much more informative way. First thing to do with it is screw on some connector savers and never take them off. At some point there will be damage and you just put on a new saver. The alternative is a wrecked NanoVNA.
I stored my mfj269C in the closet. It's been there for sometime. Thought it was a safe place to store it. I got it out yesterday the power switch was stuck in the on position and by turning it on and off finally was free to turn on and off. The unit needs to be sent back for repairs its non functioning? I'm still waiting on FMJ so I can send it out. Any chance there's another place to send to for repairs? If I new the nano would be a better choice and could trust it I would just switch to the VNA
Sorry, I have no idea about any alternate repair location, other than the manufacturer.
My nanovna shows that my swr is 1.93 while the swr meter shows 1.01 for match so which is right?
The swr meter just shows the swr only?
Have you calibrated the VNA properly for the same point of measurement. For example, if you are referring to the Transceiver's VSWR meter, you need to calibrate the VNA for the point your antenna enters your radio, with the same calibration unit connector type as your coax. This point is mentioned in the video.
@@cache4pat I calibrate the vna 144 to 148 mhz . The nanovna showed 1.93 and the vswr showed flat match. Don't know if I should trust the vna
It is not out of the question that your nanoVNA is defective. I have always gotten a close correlation between my transceiver, the MFJ, and the nanoVNA. Sorry it's not working out for you.
you need a 60Hz filter on your mic
Thx .... I was wondering what that was ...
@@cache4pat np. Don't take it as the be all answer. If you're using a decent video editor, the filter should come as standard. If not, time for a pass filter on your mic?
@@MoseleyJaguar I haven't checked PowerDirector for post audio processing tools, before looking for physical external solutions. Thx for commenting, now I know I have something to fix.
@@cache4pat no worries. Not an attack on your channel, just trying to help another RUclipsr! Good HAM content is hard to find.
Good video but this was more of a how-to than a shootout.
Agreed
i would be done before you set the band usin my 259. hahahahaha iam out
Thank you for your comment. I understand your point of view. It was 'that effort' I was drawing attention to; contrasted to the nanoVNA's "payoff", if you needed an extra level of detail.
Comparing these 2 technologies is like comparing a Sony Walkman with a modern smartphone. Pointless Non-starter!
How stupid of me. I thought a "shoot out" was going to be a side by side comparison of the two devices. You know, like how EVERYONE else uses the term. Took me until I was 75% into the video to learn the title was click bait.
Not a shootout
It started out to be, but the evidence suggested there was no clear winner .... both are great.
this is a fail as far as i see it,its more of a how to use and setup a vna Not a shootout!,akin to clickbait,missleading title at the very least!.
I am sorry that you feel this way. It was intended to help my HAM colleges decide which Antenna Analyzer they might want to consider using. My video notes that neither device "Won", over the the other; and that the MFJ might be seen as much easier to use in the field.
Do you want your money back, Paul? Maybe YOU should make a shootout video since you're so disappointed.