The way I see it, the Rigol doesn't really hit that bang for the buck sweet spot in terms of digital functionality.
This means, for digital work, the two best candidates in the list are the SDS-2104X+, and the GDS-1054B. The Siglent because its zoom mode is excellent (which takes care of the on-screen decoding issue), you can build your own digital pod for it if you need additional digital channels, and its screen is higher resolution than the Rigol's, thus making zoom mode that much more effective. The Instek decodes the entirety of the capture, so you can zoom in and out and move around to your heart's content and the decoded values will show up properly. The Instek is also very fast, making for a pleasant experience.
So the way I see it is this: if finances aren't really a major concern, then get the SDS-2104X+ and call it a day. If finances are a major concern, then get the Instek.
So far, the advice I have been getting was that for digital work, get the MSO5000 and for more of analog work (and if I have the money to spend), get the SDS2104X+. Why do you recommend the SDS2104X+ over the MSO5000 ? (Apart from : "screen is higher resolution than the Rigol's, thus making zoom mode that much more effective")
Well, my thinking was that you could build your own digital pod and thus get 16 additional digital channels. But the price difference between the Siglent and the Rigol would probably pay for a digital pod for the Rigol, so I guess that's not much of a difference after all.
Now, zoom mode on the Rigol might be as effective as it is on the Siglent, but I can't say one way or the other on that. I
can say that it's highly effective on the Siglent. It is very well implemented, and is essentially a first class citizen on the scope.
Also : "The Siglent because its zoom mode is excellent (which takes care of the on-screen decoding issue)" --> Isn't this applicable for the SDS1104X-E as well when doing protocol decoding ?
No. The much more limited screen real estate of the 1104X-E means that zoom mode isn't anything like as effective there as it is on the 2104X+. Believe me, I know this because I own both. Zoom mode just isn't implemented as well on the 1104X-E. Just as one example of the difference, you can't use the mask test in zoom mode on the 1104X-E. You can on the 2104X+. If you've got a repeating digital signal that is occasionally malfunctioning, the mask test will make it possible to stop the scope when the malfunctioning signal shows itself. If the size of the capture needed to properly get everything you need (e.g., if you need to decode some other part of the problematic signal) is too large to reasonably build a mask, then the 1104X-E just won't be usable in that situation. But the 2104X+ will, because you can enter zoom mode, move to the part of the capture you want to build your mask against, start the mask test, and when the scope automatically stops due to the mask test being violated, you can then view other portions of the capture to see what preceded the problem.
That's just an example, but it illustrates the limits of zoom mode as implemented on the 1104X-E that aren't there on the 2104X+. Screen real estate is also a major advantage on the 2104X+ over the 1104X-E. Put simply, you have as much real estate in the 2104X+ zoom mode section as you have on the
entire screen of the 1104X-E. It appears the same is true of the MSO5000 compared with the 1104X-E.
Now, I did err in one regard. The Rigol MSO5000 and the Siglent SDS2104X+ both have screens of the same resolution. So you get the same resolution advantage either way. And in looking at zoom mode photos for the MSO5000, it appears its zoom mode is dimensionally about the same as the 2104X+.
If the zoom mode is implemented in the MSO5000 as well as it is in the SDS2104X+, then I can't think of any real advantage the Siglent would have over the Rigol for digital work. I don't know what decoding options are available, but I think both scopes provide plenty for the kind of digital work you're likely to do.
I agree it would be worth the difference if the features were going to be used. But it's unclear how much, if any, real analog he's going to be doing, and whether the nature of that analog work will require frequency domain analysis.
I can afford the SDS2104X+. The fact that I'll be paying around 460 USD more, say, when compared to someone from the US, does hurt.
I think that I'll be primarily using digital in the near future because I mostly work on micro-controllers and sensors right now. At the same time, another reason to get a scope is also that I have started getting back into electronics in general. I am doing some self study and hopefully would get better along the way.
The ideal scenario for me is to get an SDS-1104X-E (I felt that this was the best fit to handle digital and analog at the price point). Then sell it IF/WHEN I need to upgrade and then find the best scope at that point in time. The problem is that, I am certain that I'll not be able to sell it at a decent price. Which was why I was considering spending extra to get one that is decent enough to last quite a while. One with a basic inbuilt AWG preferably so that I don't have to invest in a stand-alone AWG right away. And here we are : MSO5000 vs the SDS2104X+.
Well, in the end it's actually a tough choice.
If it's between the 1104X-E and the Instek, I'd go for the Instek in a heartbeat. I happen to own one of those as well, so I know from experience how they compare, and for digital work, the Instek clearly wins.
If it's between the MSO5000 and the SDS2104X+, honestly, it's too close to call. I just don't have any experience with the MSO5000 so I can't reasonably opine as to how well it works for doing digital work. I
can say that the SDS2104X+ works quite well for digital work. I suspect the Rigol will as well.
Frankly, I think you'll wind up being quite happy with any of these. About the only thing I can recommend is going over the MSO5000 thread and the SDS-2000X+ threads
carefully. Look over the complaints about each. If the complaints about the MSO5000 aren't enough to dissuade you then that's probably what I'd wind up going for. Unless you're planning on getting into low-noise measurements or something like that, I expect the noisy frontend of the Rigol won't be enough to prevent you from making good use of it in the analog domain.
Oh, and if you see a comment from me complaining about the unresponsiveness of the SDS-2104X+ front panel, it turns out that I had a hardware problem with the scope's timebase encoder, and that basically invalidates my prior experience in terms of the responsiveness of the UI. I'll have to gain more experience with the scope before I can definitively say anything about that.