- Clippertoday
- Compare
- X3.2 vs AC4K 120
Lamax X3.2 vs Renkforce AC4K 120
What X3.2 does better (4) and where AC4K 120 wins (3) — every spec side by side.
Dimensions
Size comparison
X3.2AC4K 120
| X3.2 | AC4K 120 | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Height | 44 mm | 41 mm | +3 mm |
| Width | 60 mm | 59 mm | +1 mm |
| Depth | 33 mm | 24.5 mm | +8.5 mm |
| Weight | 65 g | 64 g | +1 g |
Drawn to the same scale from the official dimensions (front and side).
Why is X3.2 better than AC4K 120?
- Max frame rate (slow motion)120 fps vs 10 fps12×
- Photo resolution12 MP vs 2 MP6×
- Battery capacity1,200 mAh vs 900 mAh+33%
- Waterproof with housing40 m vs 30 m+33%
Why is AC4K 120 better than X3.2?
- Max video resolution2.7K vs 4K
- Battery life (recording)135 min vs 180 min+33%
- Depth33 mm vs 24.5 mm+35%
Specifications
Side by side
| Design & durability | ||
| Weight | 65 g | 64 g |
| Width | 60 mm | 59 mm |
| Height | 44 mm | 41 mm |
| Depth | 33 mm | 24.5 mm |
| Waterproof without case | — | 0 m |
| Waterproof with housing | 40 m | 30 m |
| Ingress protection | — | IP68 |
| Video | ||
| Max video resolution | 2.7K | 4K |
| 4K frame rate (max) | — | 10 fps |
| Max frame rate (slow motion) | 120 fps | 10 fps |
| Timelapse / hyperlapse | Yes | Yes |
| Sensor & photo | ||
| Photo resolution | 12 MP | 2 MP |
| Max field of view | — | 140° |
| Stabilisation | ||
| Electronic image stabilisation | — | Yes |
| Screens | ||
| Main screen size | 2″ | 2″ |
| Battery | ||
| Battery capacity | 1,200 mAh | 900 mAh |
| Battery life (recording) | 135 min | 180 min |
| Connectivity | ||
| Wi-Fi | Yes | Yes |
| Webcam mode | — | Yes |
| Storage & features | ||
| microSD card slot | Yes | Yes |
| Max memory card | 128 GB | — |
