So the thought crossed my mind recently that it would be great to have a fairly heavy duty camera that could withstand the rough and tumble of a long weekend hike. I wanted something small, light, of decent quality, and at an affordable price. Well I found the pseudo-perfect camera. Enter the Akaso EK7000 or what I like to call: The FoPro. At $45 dollars with free shipping from Amazon, the FoPro comes with tons of accessories including a remote control shutter button, a wrist strap, a micro USB cable, two batteries, a charger, a waterproof case with a spare backing plate, and an assortment of different mounting brackets for all sorts of things (32 GB microSD not included). It is mind boggling to think how a company could even make pennies manufacturing all of this, package everything, and shipping it out to arrive on my doorstep for $45. All while paying the behemoth middleman.
Upon pulling the camera out of the box, my first reaction was that this was a quality item….sort of. After removing the waterproof casing (which does work flawlessly), I noticed how light, and not the good light, but the cheap light, the camera itself actually felt. I popped in one of the proprietary batteries (good luck finding one at your local Walmart) and turned the camera on. The menu features were surprisingly simple as there wasn’t a whole lot to the software itself. Want video camera? Hit the up button. Want still camera? Hit the down button. After playing with the camera for 15-20 minutes and getting a feel for some of the features (rapid fire, timer, and I would say etc, but that’s kind of it), I plugged it up to my computer to download my trial pictures. Again, the software was recognized immediately and very easy to use.
It’s hard not to compare this FoPro to your typical cell phone camera, so to take the path more travelled, I am going to compare this FoPro to my price gouging-ly expensive LG V50 ThinQ (approximately $1000 new). Fair fight, huh.
For starters, The cell phone (with case) weighs in at 8.2oz whereas the FoPro (with waterproof case) is a mere 3.9oz, so that’s a win. The FoPro does not have any zoom features whatsoever. Point for ThinQ. Qualities of both video and still picture on the FoPro are lacking, but not when price is considered. The FoPro boasts a max still photo resolution of 12 megapixels at 4608x2592 dimension versus the ThinQ’s 4032x3024 with a 12 megapixel resolution as well. Point for FoPro? Nope. For reasons unknown (especially to a point and click photographer like myself), one camera’s 12 megapixels does not equal the other camera’s 12 megapixels.
When looking at a picture taken on the FoPro, it is as if it has had a SnapChat filter applied to cover imperfections or blemishes. Teenagers will love this thing. Also, if you look closely at the comparison photos, you’ll notice a slight fish eye effect (Baltimore may not be the best at constructing and repairing roads, but I assure you they know how to make straight street lights).
Files sizes come in at seven megabytes per pic on the ThinQ, while the FoPro is around two megabytes.
As far as video goes, on the body of the camera it boldly says “4K ULTRA HD”. I’m gonna go with that being a stretch. It sounds pretty on paper, but the video resolution looks dated, like the quality was of a late 90s DVD, but not as bad as a VHS. Of course, the ThinQ is HD DVD quality and looks perfect on a TV screen. Point for ThinQ. What I was amazed with was the waterproof case on the FoPro. I filled a pitcher of water and proceeded to dunk the camera into the pitcher while filming my wife who stared (correctly) at me as if I was some kid with a new toy. The case showed no signs of leaking and claims to be good to 30M or 98.4252 feet for you American/British divers out there who want to test the limits underwater. Also, the hard plastic is drop resistant and feels like it could take a fairly sizable tumble without damaging the camera. Drop the ThinQ and you’re out $250 (or 5.55555 FoPros) just to replace a screen. Point FoPro.
I have a feeling that the ISO of this camera is like 10 (who’s been reading Google since a few paragraphs ago??) as it does require a lot of light to make a decent video. The footage does look grainy and possibly could be better under a bright sunny day.
All in all, it really isn’t bad. It just requires the owner to repeat in his head that the camera cost $45. I do feel that most people will use this as the small happy snapper that does videos and pictures (even underwater), which is exactly what it was intended for. Don’t expect expensive results from a cheap camera, and at $45 I don’t think you’re at a loss.
www.50StateHighPoints.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com