Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

GoPro Hero 3 Action Camera Will Give You 4K for $400

By - Source: GoPro | B 15 comments

A lot of resolutions for little money.

GoPro just announced a rather enticing addition to its action camera series. The Hero 3 Black Edition is the new flagship model and boasts 4K (4096x2160) recording capability at 12 fps - for $400.

Sure, it is just a helmet camera, but if you are currently looking for a 4K video camera, you are typically looking for a professional camera at a price tag of $5,000 and up. The Black Edition camera can also record at 2.7K, 1440p/48 fps, 1080p/60 fps, 720p/120 fps, and 848x480/240 fps - and run in simultaneous video/photo mode with a 12 MP still camera. It comes with integrated Wi-Fi, support for microSD cards up to 64 GB, as well as a remote.

If you don't need the 4K capability, GoPro also offers a 1080p/30 fps camera with a 11 MP still camera for $300, as well as a 1080p/30 fps model with a 5 MP still camera.

 

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Display 15 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 7 Hide
    Hupiscratch , October 18, 2012 8:36 AM
    May my wallet have it's soul forgiven!
  • -1 Hide
    EDVINASM , October 18, 2012 9:23 AM
    I will sell my wallet's soul and place my one on deposit. Pity it is coming only now, I am heading for holidays within a month :-( It seems like a really good buy though. Me just hopes GoPro Hero HD2 will go down in price, might snatch that one 8-)
  • -7 Hide
    latosha poindexter , October 18, 2012 9:29 AM
    If you don't need the 4K capability, GoPro also offers a 1080p/30 fps camera with a 11 MP still camera for $300, as well as a 1080p/30 fps model with a 5 MP still camera.



  • 7 Hide
    memadmax , October 18, 2012 9:38 AM
    My wife is gonna be angry with me....
  • 5 Hide
    kensingtron , October 18, 2012 10:33 AM
    1080p at 6fps is fine. But 12fps for the 4k... Can someone please tell me why this is ok?
  • -4 Hide
    EDVINASM , October 18, 2012 10:44 AM
    Kensingtron1080p at 6fps is fine. But 12fps for the 4k... Can someone please tell me why this is ok?


    4k at anything over 10fps is ok because the camera is the size of matches box and has no decent cooling, with 4k at 25/30fps it would give some serious issues even if it could produce that. So 10+ fps is very decent. Obviously depending on bitrates it produces. If you look even at DSLR or M43 camera 1080p @ 60fps would cost you well over $/€ 1000 and would be too big to wear it in any form. Plus, you can take this badboy under water and it has WiFi as standard!
    I am personally going for White edition since it still has WiFi ant 720p @ 60fps for half the price.
  • -1 Hide
    Anonymous , October 18, 2012 11:13 AM
    That is one nuts Camera. If only I had the expendable income right now, but I spent it all on a Sony A77 and a few lenses :( . Well Xmas is coming :) 
  • 3 Hide
    Achoo22 , October 18, 2012 11:35 AM
    I think that most of the blame for calling this a "4k" device falls not on the seller, but on Tom's. I have nothing against this camera line - many of my motorcycling buddies use them regularly - but, calling stuff like this "4k" is going to water down the term until it is no more meaningful than "4g." There are plenty of camera manufacturers out there already making cheap 8MP cameras, and they are all going to jump on the bandwagon if this product is successfully positioned as a 4k device. The net result is going to be a lot of fragmentation and dissatisfaction when "real" 4k devices start shipping in a couple of years.
  • -3 Hide
    officeguy , October 18, 2012 11:43 AM
    Most people cant watch 4k since the TV's aren't cheap or widely available. There is no point getting this camera yet (except for the lower resolution). Maybe in a year or two from now it would be more useful.
  • 2 Hide
    santiagoanders , October 18, 2012 1:21 PM
    Yeah really. Not a single 4k display for under 10 grand, so why wouldn't you put out more for higher fps on the camera?
  • 3 Hide
    CaedenV , October 18, 2012 1:46 PM
    officeguyMost people cant watch 4k since the TV's aren't cheap or widely available. There is no point getting this camera yet (except for the lower resolution). Maybe in a year or two from now it would be more useful.

    2 reasons to get this.
    1) pulling photos from the video
    2) oversampeling for 1080p video

    Besides, 4K TVs are getting the general high end release this year, and will only get more affordable as time goes on.
  • 1 Hide
    alidan , October 18, 2012 4:52 PM
    ok. lets look at it this way.

    i wont condemn it without seeing footage, taken at any of those resolutions.

    but 4k at 12fps... those pictures better be sharp, i just looked it up, 4k is roughly 8mp. so any single frame could be a decent picture if you take it out of the shot... lets say you want to capture your kids sporting event. if the camera is good enough, you could shoot 4k (12 8mp pictures a second) instead of hoping you can take that 1 picture at the right time.

    but thats not what im looking at and likeing. 720p at 120fps... if that camera can focus well... this would be awesome...

    but like i said, it all depends on the quality of the camea... and something that small and cheap... im calling bs on the quality aspect, it just wont be there for serious use, but be decent for where ever a small camera and only a small camera can fit.
  • 0 Hide
    razor512 , October 18, 2012 7:25 PM
    the 2.7K is useful but the 4K is just useless for the most part. I have worked with go pro cameras and the main issue is they never offer true 1080p video as it cant resolve 1080p worth of detail. Furthermore if you correct for the lens distortion, then you end up with a sub 720P video.

    If it can opffer close to 2.7K worth of detail at 30FPS, then there is a chance that after applying correction I can get a good looking 1080p video without having to scale down to 720p

    PS no current 4K camera can actually offer 4K worth of detail, for example if you have a raw file from a hassleblad camera, take a 40+ megapixeel image from it and scale it down to around 12 megapixels or 4K, then compare/ look for what the smallest piece of detail you can see in 4K RED footage.

    If a nearly $50,000 camera cant fully do 4K then we have to figure out how close does the go proget to it's 4K advertisement.
  • 0 Hide
    alidan , October 19, 2012 12:44 PM
    Razor512the 2.7K is useful but the 4K is just useless for the most part. I have worked with go pro cameras and the main issue is they never offer true 1080p video as it cant resolve 1080p worth of detail. Furthermore if you correct for the lens distortion, then you end up with a sub 720P video.If it can opffer close to 2.7K worth of detail at 30FPS, then there is a chance that after applying correction I can get a good looking 1080p video without having to scale down to 720pPS no current 4K camera can actually offer 4K worth of detail, for example if you have a raw file from a hassleblad camera, take a 40+ megapixeel image from it and scale it down to around 12 megapixels or 4K, then compare/ look for what the smallest piece of detail you can see in 4K RED footage. If a nearly $50,000 camera cant fully do 4K then we have to figure out how close does the go proget to it's 4K advertisement.


    i would love to see red and a hq dslr 40mp reduced to 4k quality comparison. there any images for that online?
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , December 5, 2012 1:14 AM
    its not 12fps -> its 12mp (mega pixels)

    its 60 fps compared to the 30fps on the sliver and white edition models