How does the Qoocam EGO’s video quality compare to that of a 360 camera or a VR180 camera? I compared the EGO’s video quality to Insta360 One RS and Lenovo Mirage.
Yesterday, Kandao officially released the Qoocam EGO, a 3D camera that surprised many 360 camera users. It is the first non-360 3D camera from a 360 camera company that was known for producing 3D 360 and VR 180 cameras. It seemed that Kandao was stepping backward.
Although Kandao’s move was surprising, I thought that upon reflection, it could make sense. When producing photos and videos for VR headsets, the typical choice is a 360 camera because it enables the user to look anywhere around the video in a VR headset. However, consumer 360 cameras have a catch — because they have a 360 degree field of view, they have fewer pixels per degree and less detail than even a mediocre smartphone.
There are professional 360 cameras that do offer higher resolution but they are large, heavy, often with a complicated workflow, and they cost thousands of dollars.
Compared to these alternatives, Qoocam EGO arguably offers the best of both worlds: it is as detailed as a professional 360 camera, while also being as compact and affordable as a consumer 360 camera. In my review, I said that the Qoocam EGO had better image quality than any consumer 360 camera as of May 2022 and has similar detail as a professional 360 camera (when comparing videos from the same distance and same field of view). However, several viewers said that the EGO’s video quality was disappointing, and some viewers even said it was worse than a 360 camera.
To address doubts about the Qoocam EGO’s video quality, I compared it with a 360 camera and a VR180 camera. For the 360 camera, I chose the popular Insta360 One RS. For the VR180 camera, I used the Lenovo Mirage.
On paper, this might not seem fair to the Qoocam EGO. The Qoocam EGO has a resolution of 1920 x 1080 per eye, while Lenovo Mirage has 4K resolution, and the Insta360 One RS has 5.7k resolution. Although the Mirage and One RS videos have higher nominal resolution, they also have much wider field of view. The Mirage has a 180-degree field of view, while the One RS has a 360 degree field of view. The EGO, on the other hand only has about an 80 degree field of view diagonally, so on paper, the EGO has more pixels per degree.
But of course, we should test this out in the real world to see if this it really does have more detail. To test resolution, I used a bottle with text on it. I took videos of the bottle with the three cameras from the same distance, using the same stand. You can see the drastic difference in field of view between these cameras.
I then zoomed in to the text on the bottle to about the same field of view:
The results are unequivocal. The lowest amount of detail is the Lenovo Mirage, which has a 4K resolution with a 180-degree stereoscopic field of view. Next, the Insta360 One RS has a monoscopic 360 degree field of view, but has a 5.7k resolution which is about two times higher than the resolution of the Lenovo Mirage. (Note: I didn’t test the Insta360 EVO here, but a 5.7K VR180 camera would have similar detail as a monoscopic 360 camera.) The Qoocam EGO has an unremarkable 1080p resolution, but its field of view is much smaller and therefore it has far more pixels per degree and thus far more detail.
I don’t have a lot of experience with professional 360 cameras but I would estimate that Qoocam EGO has about as much detail as a professional 8K 360 camera, for a consumer camera price. The question now is, would VR headset users prefer the EGO’s higher resolution 3D video or would they prefer lower resolution video with a 180 degree or 360 degree field of view? We’ll have to wait and see.
Where to buy:
Lenovo Mirage (out of stock)
Thanks for using these affiliate links at no extra cost to you so I can do more tests and reviews.