- Clippertoday
- Compare
- QooCam 3 vs QooCam EGO
Kandao QooCam 3 vs Kandao QooCam EGO
What QooCam 3 does better (4) and where QooCam EGO wins (3) — every spec side by side.
vs
7.7Photo5.2
Dimensions
Size comparison
QooCam 3QooCam EGO
| QooCam 3 | QooCam EGO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Height | 82.7 mm | 52.8 mm | +29.9 mm |
| Width | 71.5 mm | 94 mm | −22.5 mm |
| Depth | 26.6 mm | 22 mm | +4.6 mm |
| Weight | 201 g | 160 g | +41 g |
Drawn to the same scale from the official dimensions (front and side).
Why is QooCam 3 better than QooCam EGO?
- Max video resolution5.7K vs 1080p
- Max field of view360° vs 79°4.6×
- Battery capacity1,600 mAh vs 1,340 mAh+19%
- Aperturef/1.6 vs f/1.8+12%
Why is QooCam EGO better than QooCam 3?
- Weight201 g vs 160 g+26%
- Main screen size1.9″ vs 2.54″+34%
- Depth26.6 mm vs 22 mm+21%
Specifications
Side by side
| Design & durability | ||
| Weight | 201 g | 160 g |
| Width | 71.5 mm | 94 mm |
| Height | 82.7 mm | 52.8 mm |
| Depth | 26.6 mm | 22 mm |
| Waterproof without case | 10 m | — |
| Ingress protection | IP68 | — |
| Min operating temperature | 0 °C | — |
| Max operating temperature | 40 °C | — |
| Video | ||
| Max video resolution | 5.7K | 1080p |
| 4K frame rate (max) | 60 fps | — |
| Max frame rate (slow motion) | 60 fps | 60 fps |
| H.265 / HEVC | — | Yes |
| Sensor & photo | ||
| Sensor size | 1/1.55" | — |
| Sensor size (optical format) | 0.64″ | — |
| Photo resolution | 6 MP | — |
| Aperture | f/1.6 | f/1.8 |
| Max field of view | 360° | 79° |
| RAW photos | Yes | Yes |
| Stabilisation | ||
| Stabilisation system | Gyroskopischer Bildstabilisator | 6-Achsen Stabilisation |
| Electronic image stabilisation | Yes | Yes |
| Screens | ||
| Main screen size | 1.9″ | 2.54″ |
| Touchscreen | Yes | Yes |
| Battery | ||
| Battery capacity | 1,600 mAh | 1,340 mAh |
| Battery life (recording) | 50 min | — |
| Connectivity | ||
| Wi-Fi | Yes | Yes |
| Bluetooth | Yes | — |
| Webcam mode | Yes | — |
| Storage & features | ||
| microSD card slot | — | Yes |
