DJI Osmo Nano vs. Insta360 Go Ultra: A New Tiny Camera War
An in-depth comparison of the new DJI Osmo Nano and the Insta360 Go Ultra. Will DJI's comeback kid dethrone the tiny titan of modular cameras?
The Tiny Camera Showdown: DJI's Revenge is Here
The world of action cameras is buzzing again. Insta360 has just launched its impressive GO Ultra, a tiny powerhouse that promises big things. But the wait is over—a challenger has officially arrived. A ghost from DJI's past, reborn: the DJI Osmo Nano. As a long-time DJI fanatic, this isn't just another product release for me; it's a redemption story finally realized.
Before we dive into the specs, let's compare these two titans head-to-head.
| Spec | DJI Osmo Nano | Insta360 GO Ultra |
|---|---|---|
| Screen | 1.96 inches OLED
Resolution: 314×556
Brightness: 800 cd/㎡ | 2.5 inches Flip Touchscreen (Action Pod) |
| Microphones | 2 | 1 |
| Weight | 52 g (Camera)
72 g (Vision Dock) | 52.9 g (GO Ultra)
108.5 g (Action Pod) |
| Dimensions | 57.3×29.5×28 mm (Camera, L×W×H)
59.1×42.2×22.3 mm (Vision Dock, L×W×H) | 46×45.7×18.3 mm (GO Ultra)
70.4×48.8×33.3 mm (Action Pod, folded) |
| Sensor | 1/1.3-inch CMOS | 1/1.28-inch CMOS |
| Aperture | f/2.8 | f/2.85 |
| ISO Range | 100-25600 | 100-6400 |
| FOV | 143° | 156° (14.27 mm Lens) |
| Photo Resolution | 4:3, 6880 × 5160 (35 MP) | 4:3, 8192 × 6144 (50 MP)
16:9, 8192 × 4608 (37 MP)
4:3, 4096 × 3072 (12 MP)
16:9, 4096 × 2304 (9 MP) |
| Video Resolution | 4K (16:9): 3840×2160 @60fps
4K (4:3): 3840×2880 @50fps
Slow Motion: 4K@120fps, 1080p@240fps | 4K: 3840×2160 @60/50/30/25/24fps
2.7K: 2720×1530 @60/50/30/25/24fps
1080p: 1920×1080 @240/200/120/100/60/50/30/25/24fps |
| Video Bitrate | 120 Mbps | 180 Mbps |
| Video Codec | H.265 | H.264/H.265 |
| Log Profile | 10-bit D-Log M | Not supported |
| Video Format | MP4 (H.265) | MP4 (H.264/H.265) |
| Audio Recording | 48 kHz 16-bit; AAC | 48 kHz 32-bit; AAC |
| Stabilization | RockSteady 3.0, HorizonBalancing | FlowState Stabilization, 360º horizon lock |
| Waterproof | 10 m underwater (Camera)
IPX4 splashproof (Vision Pod) | 10 m underwater (GO Ultra)
IPX4 splashproof (Action Pod) |
| Battery | 530 mAh (Camera)
1300 mAh (Vision Dock) | 500 mAh (GO Ultra)
1450 mAh (Action Pod) |
| Operating Time | 90 mins (Camera)
200 mins (with Vision Dock) | 70 mins (GO Ultra, 1080p/24fps)
200 mins (with Pod, 1080p/24fps) |
| Charge Time | 15 mins to 80% (Vision Dock); 60 mins to 100% (with Vision Dock) | 12 mins to 80%; 20 mins to 100% (GO Ultra)
18 mins to 80%; 40 mins to 100% (Action Pod) |
| Storage | Built-in 64GB/128GB
External microSD up to 1 TB | External microSD up to 2 TB |
| Wi‑Fi | Wi-Fi 6 (802.11 ax) | Wi-Fi 6 (802.11 a/b/n/ac/ax); 2.4/5 GHz (GO Ultra)
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11 b/g/n/ax); 2.4 GHz (Action Pod) |
| Bluetooth | BLE 5.1 | BLE 5.4 |
| Ports | USB-C 3.1 | USB-C 2.0 |
| App Support | DJI Mimo | Insta360 App |
| Pre-recording | 5/10/15/30 s; 1/2/5 mins | — |
Want to Compare More Cameras?
Check out our full, interactive camera comparison tool to see how these and other models stack up.
Go to Full Comparison PageA Tale of Fire and Ice: The Action 2 Saga
To understand why the Osmo Nano is such a big deal, we need to rewind a few years to DJI's ambitious, yet flawed, Action 2. It was a beautiful disaster. The modular, magnetic design was revolutionary, a brilliant concept that promised ultimate flexibility. You could snap off the core camera unit and stick it anywhere.
But there was a fatal flaw: it got hot. Dangerously hot. The tiny camera module, when detached from its battery/screen base, had abysmal thermal management. It would overheat and shut down within minutes of recording 4K video. The battery life was a joke. It was a classic case of brilliant engineering undermined by a single, critical oversight. DJI, the king of drones, had stumbled.
Insta360 saw the opening. While DJI was dealing with the fallout, Insta360 doubled down on the tiny camera concept with their GO series. They made a crucial trade-off with the GO 3: they used a smaller CMOS sensor. This meant sacrificing some image quality and low-light performance, but it solved the thermal nightmare. The GO 3 was a success because it was reliable. It delivered on the promise of a tiny, mount-anywhere camera without the fiery drama. They played it safe, and they won that round.
2025: The Rematch We've Been Waiting For
Fast forward to today. Technology has evolved. Battery chemistry is better, and thermal dissipation technology has made leaps. The stage is set for a rematch. Insta360 has fired the first shot with the GO Ultra, featuring a larger 1/1.28" sensor and 4K/60fps video. It's a solid upgrade, the logical next step.
But the DJI Osmo Nano has landed, and it's... complicated. DJI has taken the core concept of the Action 2 and attempted to re-engineer it from the ground up. They're not just aiming to compete; they're aiming to reclaim their honor. But have they really learned from their past mistakes? Let me share what I've discovered after talking to some serious video creators who've been testing both cameras.
The Image Quality Showdown: What Real Creators Found
Here's where things get interesting. Both cameras use flagship-level sensors—the Nano shares the same 1/1.3" sensor from the Action 5 Pro, while the GO Ultra uses the 1/1.28" sensor from the X5. On paper, they're nearly identical. But in practice?
Daylight Performance: A Matter of Taste
The GO Ultra generally produces sharper, more detailed footage in good lighting. Colors are rich and vibrant, with what some creators describe as a subtle "beauty filter" effect—everything looks slightly brighter with a warm tint. It's Instagram-ready straight out of the camera.
The Nano, on the other hand, shoots more realistic colors but can look a bit darker and less flattering in comparison. It's more neutral, more "pro"—but that also means it requires more work in post if you want that pop.
Night Mode: Where DJI Strikes Back
This is where my DJI bias gets validated. The Nano absolutely crushes the GO Ultra in low light. Footage is noticeably brighter and cleaner, with better dynamic range and less blown-out backgrounds. The GO Ultra has improved over previous generations, but night shooting remains its Achilles' heel—you'll see visible smearing and artifacts that the Nano simply doesn't have.
The Pro Card: 10-bit D-Log M
Here's the kicker for serious creators: the Nano supports 10-bit D-Log M and can shoot up to 4K 120fps. The GO Ultra maxes out at 4K 60fps and has no log profile (though it does offer HDR). If you're someone who color grades or wants to match footage with DJI drones, this is huge. If you just want to shoot and share, the GO Ultra's punchier straight-out-of-camera look might actually be preferable.
The Elephant in the Room: Heat Management
Okay, here comes the part that hurts to admit. Remember how I said DJI learned from the Action 2's thermal disaster? Well... they learned some things.
The Nano's architecture puts all the processing power in the tiny main camera body. And guess what? It gets hot. Really hot.
Real-World Thermal Tests:
- 4K 60fps: The Nano stopped recording in less than 15 minutes due to overheating. Fifteen. Minutes.
- 4K 30fps: At high bitrate with Wi-Fi on (25°C environment), it lasted about 38 minutes in split mode, 31 minutes combined. Better, but still limiting.
- The Danger Zone: Heat concentrates below the lens area, potentially reaching over 50°C. Once it overheats, even dropping to 1080p might trigger shutdowns faster on subsequent attempts.
The GO Ultra, by contrast, handles heat brilliantly:
- 4K 60fps: Over 30 minutes before any heat issues—double the Nano's endurance.
- 4K 30fps: A whopping 1 hour 50 minutes until the battery died, no overheating. The body gets hot, but it keeps recording.
This is the brutal truth: if you need long, continuous recording, the GO Ultra is the clear winner. The Nano is fantastic for short bursts and quick captures, but extended sessions? That's where the ghost of the Action 2 still haunts DJI.
The Storage Workflow Problem Nobody Talks About
Here's another critical difference that affects your daily workflow: how you actually get your footage off the camera.
The Nano stores footage on internal memory (64GB or 128GB) in the main camera body. To get it out, you either:
- Connect the main body via USB-C (fast), or
- Copy it internally to a microSD card in the transmission module (slow and clunky)
Oh, and here's the kicker: when you detach the camera from the screen module for remote shooting, the screen unit can't play back any stored footage. The processing power is all in the camera body.
The GO Ultra uses a removable TF card directly in the camera body. Shoot on a big card, pop it out, plug it into your computer. Done. It's the traditional workflow we all know, and it's simply more convenient for quick data management.
Form Factor: Stick vs. Cube
The physical shape matters more than you'd think. The GO Ultra's square/cube design offers better grip for some users, but its smooth, glossy surface can be slippery. You also need to check that the light indicator faces up for correct orientation during blind shooting.
The Nano's stick-style design is more intuitive—you can tell orientation by touch. It fits better in tight spaces and sits more stably on flat surfaces. Plus, it has anti-slip material that feels more secure in hand.
For selfies and monitoring, though, the GO Ultra wins with its larger, adjustable flip screen. The Nano's screen is smaller and uses a double-sided magnetic system to flip for selfie view—functional, but less elegant.
My Verdict: The Bittersweet Truth
Okay, confession time. I went into this wanting the Nano to be the triumphant return story. I wanted DJI to have learned from the Action 2 disaster and delivered the perfect tiny camera. And in many ways, they did deliver something impressive.
The Nano is significantly more affordable than the GO Ultra—that's huge for budget-conscious creators. The low-light performance is genuinely superior. The 10-bit D-Log M and 4K 120fps are pro-level features that the GO Ultra simply can't match. And if you're already invested in the DJI ecosystem (drones, mics, existing Action accessories), the Nano slots in perfectly.
But I can't ignore the elephant—or rather, the furnace—in the room. The overheating issue is real, and it's serious. Less than 15 minutes at 4K 60fps? That's not a minor inconvenience; it's a fundamental limitation that will affect how you shoot. DJI improved on the Action 2, but they didn't solve the thermal problem. They just made it... less bad.
And then there's the storage workflow. The internal memory system is clunky. The fact that the screen module can't play back footage when detached is genuinely frustrating. These are quality-of-life issues that add up.
Here's how I'd break down the decision:
Choose the Insta360 GO Ultra if:
- You need reliable, long-form continuous recording
- You value a simple, fast data workflow (removable card)
- The larger flip screen matters for your shooting style
- You want footage that looks great straight out of camera
- Reliability and "it just works" matter more than absolute image quality
Choose the DJI Osmo Nano if:
- Budget is a primary concern (it's much cheaper)
- Low-light performance is critical for your work
- You need pro features like 10-bit D-Log M and 4K 120fps
- Your shoots are mostly short clips and burst recording
- You're already in the DJI ecosystem and want seamless integration
- Direct audio input from DJI Mic 2/3 is important
As a DJI fan, I'm proud of what they've accomplished with the Nano. It's a serious camera with genuine strengths. But as someone who values honest reviews, I have to admit: Insta360 built the more reliable, user-friendly tiny camera. They learned from DJI's mistakes and prioritized thermal management and workflow over pushing absolute specs.
The Nano is the exciting choice—it's bold, it's ambitious, it has that DJI innovation DNA. But the GO Ultra is the smart choice for most people.
DJI is back, but they're not quite the king yet. This battle is closer than I wanted to admit, and Insta360 still holds the crown for overall usability. The redemption story continues, but it's not finished.