Testing a $150 8k Video Camera | Does It Suck?
Check out my full video HERE
This post contains affiliate links. If you click and make a purchase, I may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Thanks for your support!
Introduction
We’ve all seen those suspiciously cheap “8K” camcorders on Amazon boasting eye-popping specs for a fraction of the cost of a real cinema camera. Curiosity finally got the best of me, so I took the plunge and bought one for about $150. This camera claimed 8K video resolution, 64-megapixel photos, Wi-Fi, IR night vision, and came bundled with tons of accessories. On paper, it’s a dream deal.
But how does it actually perform when put side-by-side with known cameras? Let’s find out if this “8K” camera is actually worth your time or if it’s just another misleading marketing gimmick.
Unboxing & First Impressions
Inside the box, I found:
- The camcorder itself
- Two batteries
- USB-C cable and charger
- A microphone attachment
- A remote control
- A 32GB SD card
- A carry bag
At first glance, it’s more kit than you’d expect at $150. The camera feels mostly plastic, but slightly sturdier than the cheaper $50 camcorder I tested previously. The included mic and remote are nice touches. Still, no recognizable brand name—just generic “8K Ultra HD.”
Initial Thoughts:
- Build quality: Slightly better than ultra-cheap models, but still quite plasticky.
- Promised specs: 8K at 15 fps, 6K at 30 fps, “64MP” photos, IR night vision, Wi-Fi, etc.
Video Quality: Hard Truths
The camera’s marquee feature is 8K recording. But a deeper look reveals it only does 8K at 15 fps, which results in extremely choppy footage—practically unusable for any normal scenario. Even 6K at 30 fps turned out soft, noisy, and lacked the crisp detail “6K” implies.
Testing Against Real Cameras:
- Sony A7S III (around $3,000): Unsurprisingly, the A7S III’s 4K footage crushes the so-called “8K” camcorder. Colors, sharpness, dynamic range—no contest.
- Sony NEX-5R (around $150): Even this older, 1080p-only Sony mirrorless camera provided clearer, more detailed, and more pleasing video than the “8K” camcorder. It’s a stark reminder that resolution claims mean nothing without quality.
Verdict on Video:
The “8K” or even “6K” modes are marketing fluff. The footage looks worse than what a decent smartphone or a used $150 1080p mirrorless camera can produce.
Photo and Other Features
The camera claims 64-megapixel stills, but these are almost certainly digitally upscaled. Don’t expect sharp, detailed images. Your smartphone likely outperforms this device in every photographic scenario.
IR Night Vision:
Surprisingly, the IR night vision works decently in complete darkness—about 10-12 ft of effective range. If you need a cheap IR camera for some reason, this might be a silver lining.
Microphone & Remote:
The external mic and remote are nice features in theory. However, the audio from the included mic, while slightly better than the internal mic, still doesn’t approach the quality you’d get from a standard camera brand’s entry-level shotgun mic.
Wi-Fi & Other Claims:
The camera advertises Wi-Fi and webcam usage. While these features exist, the overall image quality and reliability issues overshadow these minor perks.
Comparing to Other Options
For $150, you’re in range of many used cameras from reputable brands. For example, a used Sony NEX-5R plus a kit lens yields far better 1080p video and photos. Or consider saving a bit more for a decent used DSLR that also outclasses this camcorder in image quality and user experience.
Modern smartphones, even budget models, produce cleaner, more stable, and more reliable footage and photos. Unless you specifically want a certain low-quality, retro aesthetic, this camcorder fails to deliver.
Who Might It Be For?
- Kids or Beginners With Zero Expectations: If you’re okay with a toy-like camera just for fun, it could be a novelty item.
- Nostalgia or Lo-Fi Projects: Maybe you’re going for a dated, low-res look. This might add a unique style.
Who Should Avoid It:
- Anyone Wanting True 4K/8K Quality: You’ll be disappointed.
- Serious Creators: Even at $150, your money is better spent on used gear from known brands or simply using your smartphone.
Final Thoughts
The $150 “8K” camcorder from Amazon is a case study in misleading marketing. Yes, it’s cheap and loaded with specs on paper, but the real-world footage is lackluster. It can’t compete with a used mirrorless camera or even a decent phone.