thedroneracingengineer
patreon
Initial feedback on the Runcam Split
🕑 Added 2017-06-22 02:34:17 +0000 UTC Hi Patrons!I know many of you are eagerly waiting for my review of the Runcam Split. The full review is coming! I just finished writing an email with initial feedback to Runcam, and I thought you would enjoy if I shared it with you.
PLEASE UNDERSTAND that this is raw feedback and it does not represent the totatlity of my opinion on this product. The goal of this is to help Runcam make the product better, so it focuses very much on nit-picky negatives. There are many positive things which I simply didn't mention. Still, I thought you would enjoy seeing the kind of raw feedback that vendors get from me when they send a product for review.
---
- The locking SD card slot is very good, assuming it retains the card. I haven't flown yet to verify if it pops open. Slide-in SD card slots can cause lost SD card in a crash. So this is a good improvement.
- The locking SD card holder needs room for the door to flip open. On many builds, there is not enough room. Either a board is above the Split (such as the FC) or the top plate is close to the Split. I am not sure whether the locking SD card slot is actually the best. Maybe it would be better to use a slide-in SD card slot, which will give more flexibility in where the Split is mounted. This is a tough call because the locking SD card slot on the Split is truly an improvement, but it also has a cost.
- The WiFi module has electronic components on back. When I plug it in to the Split, the electronic components touch the USB port on the FC.
- The WiFi module is difficult or impossible to install on some frames because other components are in the way. Could the WiFi module be provided with a wire header instead of pins?
- I am VERY HAPPY that I can use the USB on the Split to download footage without removing the card.
- The camera FOV on the Split is different from the FOV of other cameras, like Swift and Eagle. I mounted the Split in my QAV-R, and even when I install it in the front set of mounting holes, I can see the front standoffs in the HD cam. I think this is because the lens is shorter on the Split than on the Swift etc. One solution is to use a narrower FOV lens, but this is a bad solution. Narrower FOV is worse for FPV flying. Not sure what the best solution should be though...The Split has a bracket that lets it mount in a standard 1177 style space. Maybe the bracket could be modified to move the Split forwards so that the front of its lens was closer to where a Swift would be? Then the full FOV could be maintained without seeing props or standoffs in the HD cam view.
Comments
Vicky FU
Hey Joshua,we wonder if you can review one affordable action camera also for FPV racing?
irlmarc
I was in the middle of modding a RotorX HD cam when this product dropped. I swore I would never buy rotorX again, I should be listened. We are excited to get our sub250 fleet HD
Have you seen the Foxeer Box 4K camera. It looks like it would be review worthy.
Joshua Bardwell
I do agree that HD action cams tend to have a super wide field of view. But I think the camera placement also has something to do with it. We are used to HD cams being up above the top deck. I wonder if this same problem happened with some of those frames that used to be sold, that placed the HD cam on the center-line and the FPV cam up top.
EliteGeek
It looks like a really fair pro and con list to me. Initially I was not excited about this product. But it's growing on me. I hope it does well because I really feel like this is just the first generation and it will improve dramatically very quickly.
Joshua Bardwell
For 3" builds and smaller, this is a game-changer. Even some light 4" builds like the Leggero could benefit. In fact, I originally wanted to put this in the Leggero 4", but it uses a 4-in-1 ESC and there is no room in the stack to fit the Split.
The lens must be just a wider field of view, from my experience with dash cams (we produce) that would be the most likely scenario.
Joshua Bardwell
No more so than any other camera. Right now, the mounting bracket centers the Split camera on the mounting holes. So the mounting holes of the Split are in the same place that the mounting holes of a Swift would be. But since the Split is shorter than a Swift, its lens is further back. What I'm suggesting is to move the lens forward so it's in the same place as a Swift. So it should not be any more exposed to damage than a Swift.
Im really conflicted about this product but for some builds I can see it being really useful, e.g. DQuad obsession. Really interested to see the practical effect if any on flight time.
On point 6. Would moving the camera forward too much put it at risk of damage during unplanned flight termination.
Joshua Bardwell
I was able to manipulate it with a flat-head screwdriver tip. It doesn't have to swing all the way open to engage and disengage. It would be really troublesome if it weren't possible to download the content via USB.
I saw the card locking mechanism and thought "awesome" and then realized the only the ZMR250 has space enough to open it. Perhaps a push in with a screw or split pin or clip that would go over the end of the card?
