Runcam Nano 3 vs. BetaFPV C01 Pro
• Chris
In this article I am going to compare the BetaFPV C01 Pro versus the Runcam Nano 3.
First of all, the Runcam Nano 3 is not really a Nano sized cam - it has no enclosure and no M2 mounting holes - I am not entirely sure why Runcam decided to go with this confusing naming scheme here.
Both cams are bare PCB’s with the lens attached to it - basically the same style that you know from most AIO systems, just without a VTX.
Both cams have relatively similar specs:
| BetaFPV C01 Pro | Runcam Nano 3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Weight | 1.69g | 1.1g |
| Size | 12.1x15.5x15mm | 14x14x16mm |
| Connector | JST 0.8 | ? |
| TVL | 1200 | 800 |
| Power | 3.3V - 6V | 3V - 5.5V |
| Price | $14.99 | $19.99 |
They are both 1/3” CMOS, NTSC, 4:3 FPV cameras. Both come with a 2.1mm lens. Both are plug and play, so there are no settings to be adjusted. Both are intended to be used on builds where weight is absolutely critical.
As you can see from the chart, both cams can be powered directly from a 1S battery, I would still recommend powering them from a clean 5V source.
BetaFPV C01 Pro
The BetaFPV C01 Pro has been designed as a drop in replacement for the BeeBrain brushless Whoop. The connector fits the plug on the flight-controller without modifications.
The cam also comes with its own canopy and cam mount to be used with this canopy - canopy and mount weighing in at 1.5g. As of right now you cannot get the canopy separately, but I am sure BetaFPV is working on that. That being said, this canopy seems to be from a slightly thicker material than the BetaFPV canopies usually are. In my tests the canopy held up pretty well, but it definitely is not indestructible, so having the option to swap it would really be great.
Runcam Nano 3
I am not entirely sure what kind of connector the Runcam Nano 3 comes with. It definitely has a 0.8mm pitch, but it is not the same connector that the C01 Pro comes with (If you know what kind of connector this is and where it is supposed to directly plug into, please let me know).
The lens has an very interesting form factor - nothing I have ever seen on a whoop cam before.
The PCB on this one is very thin, maybe half the thickness of the BetaFPV C01 Pro PCB. This has been done in order to safe as much weight as possible. Hopefully it is not bad for longevity - but only time will tell that (So far I have not seen anyone having an issue with that).
Test-footage
I compiled a video with test footage of both cams side by side, so that you can decide for yourself which one you like best.
Conclusion
I personally like the image quality of the Runcam Nano 3 way better, especially in the low light conditions on the LED track. This is quite surprising to me, since I would have expected the image of the C01 Pro (with more TVL and a bigger lens) to be better.
The field of view is also significantly bigger on the Runcam Nano 3.
The big benefit of the BetaFPV C01 Pro is, that you can simply plug it into your BeeBrain flight controller - if this is what you are looking for and are willing to accept a slightly worse image, then go for this one.
In all other cases, I would highly recommend to get the Runcam Nano 3 instead - even if it means that you have to pay $5.0 more.
Chris is a Vienna based software developer. In his spare time he enjoys reviewing tech gear, ripping quads of all sizes and making stuff.
Learn more about Chris, the gear he uses and follow him on social media: