Air 3 Mavic 3 comparison

[Crashdummytest]

You were just saying above the Mavic 3 Hasselblad camera was really poor. Yes dJI makes great drones.Drone camera optics are what is being discussed here not iphone cams,or handheld cameras.
Lol ,so I guess my question to you still remains.

It is poor compared to quality gear. One day you will probably know what I mean. Mavic 3 is still the best consumer camera drone I know of, don't get me wrong. It's about weight, cost, mass-production. Sony has a camera drone of better quality, allowing mirrorless cameras, but that's not consumer drone and the cost is high.

 

[AlanL]

I think most photographers has more than one camera. I think even the iPhone 12 camera competes well with the DJI Hasselblad. So what about an APS-C mirrorless or DSLR, or a full-frame with quality optics? That said: I love my Mavic 3. There are no better consumer drones.

If you want to get extremely serious about photo quality you could always build your own system. Phase One makes some nice UAS mountable cameras in the 100-150MP range although they don't list a price on their web site. Given what their other cameras cost I suspect if you have to ask you can't afford one. Hardly what you would call a consumer drone however.

Yes my DSLRs make the 24mm Hasselblad on my Mavic 3 and Mavic 3 Pro look kind of silly for image quality but my DSLRs don't fly very well

 

[old man mavic]

come on guys (and Gals) you cant expect a camera on a drone ,that costs less than most decent quality lenses on a DSLR to compete with each other ,if you want similar quality ,then you are entering the realms of professional drones ,and cameras with a price tag to match
in my opinion the word Pro ,used by DJI to differentiate their line up ,is not so much about the camera ,but more to do with the specs of the drone itself,in all fairness the pics that come out of these cameras, is actually pretty good ,considering what we owners do with them
i have nothing against comparing like for like ,but chalk and cheese ,forget it

 

[Crashdummytest]

If you want to get extremely serious about photo quality you could always build your own system. Phase One makes some nice UAS mountable cameras in the 100-150MP range although they don't list a price on their web site. Given what their other cameras cost I suspect if you have to ask you can't afford one. Hardly what you would call a consumer drone however.

Yes my DSLRs make the 24mm Hasselblad on my Mavic 3 and Mavic 3 Pro look kind of silly for image quality but my DSLRs don't fly very well

Exactly. I love my mavic3 though, it has 185 hours in the air so far.

 

[tlyons]

come on guys (and Gals) you cant expect a camera on a drone ,that costs less than most decent quality lenses on a DSLR to compete with each other ,if you want similar quality ,then you are entering the realms of professional drones ,and cameras with a price tag to match
in my opinion the word Pro ,used by DJI to differentiate their line up ,is not so much about the camera ,but more to do with the specs of the drone itself,in all fairness the pics that come out of these cameras, is actually pretty good ,considering what we owners do with them
i have nothing against comparing like for like ,but chalk and cheese ,forget it

But the photography point still stands; the primary purpose for a large sensor and aperture is 3:
1. Gather more light to improve signal to noise.
2. Allow for aperture control to control depth of field.
3. To (maybe) improve resolution by allowing for more pixels without making them so small they trash the SNR.

In plenty of light with a subject that doesn't need DOF control, small sensors can work great and good ones can produce results as good as a medium format sensor. Really. You see this all the time where numerous dumb magazine articles show the latest iPhone producing results as good as the latest $5k ILC. It's not fake; it's DOF control not required and lots of light.

As a photographer *would* say, it's all about light.

OTOH, if you need zoom control for framing a subject, low light performance, fast shutter speeds to capture action, super wide angles, close macro shots, fast shutter response, sophisticated AF, real DOF control, etc. you need an ILC. But what are you taking pictures of with a drone that would need any of that? (I do value improved low light performance.)

Pilot institute does a nice job reviewing drone cameras Air 3 vs Air 2 vs Mini 3 Pro vs Mavic 3:

What does that video tell you? At or above ISO1600 (meaning low light) the m43 from the Mavic 3 wins; to get the sharpness and excellent SNR the Mavic 3 has to be stopped down to f5.6 i.e. the performance has little to do with the sensor and is limited by the *lens* and at f5.6 the Hasselblad is better than the others; the Air 3 and the Mini 3 Pro are basically identical; and the differences are really, really minor for how most people will use a drone including that sometimes the Mini 3 Pro is actually sharpest.

OTOH, in case you thought sensors don't matter, check out the clear improvement from Mini 2 to Mini 3 Pro:

Good luck!

 

[Droning on and on...]

The fact is, Mavic 3's are in use by professionals for commercial production. Even some movie production.

"Quality" is, in the end, subjective.

 

[tlyons]

The fact is, Mavic 3's are in use by professionals for commercial production. Even some movie production.

"Quality" is, in the end, subjective.

I agree.

As the Pilot Institute demonstrates in carefully controlled tests sharpness, dynamic range, chromatic aberration, distortion, signal to noise ratio, and color accuracy are objective metrics that can be measured. Collective feelings are often unaffected by real world metrics.

Me? I am too much of an engineer to give a darn about collective feelings. I like physics and tests and how it works for me. I want to get the best pictures possible on a hobbyist budget. The Pilot Institute test helps make my choice really obvious.

 

[Crashdummytest]

But the photography point still stands; the primary purpose for a large sensor and aperture is 3:
1. Gather more light to improve signal to noise.
2. Allow for aperture control to control depth of field.
3. To (maybe) improve resolution by allowing for more pixels without making them so small they trash the SNR.

In plenty of light with a subject that doesn't need DOF control, small sensors can work great and good ones can produce results as good as a medium format sensor. Really. You see this all the time where numerous dumb magazine articles show the latest iPhone producing results as good as the latest $5k ILC. It's not fake; it's DOF control not required and lots of light.

As a photographer *would* say, it's all about light.

OTOH, if you need zoom control for framing a subject, low light performance, fast shutter speeds to capture action, super wide angles, close macro shots, fast shutter response, sophisticated AF, real DOF control, etc. you need an ILC. But what are you taking pictures of with a drone that would need any of that? (I do value improved low light performance.)

Pilot institute does a nice job reviewing drone cameras Air 3 vs Air 2 vs Mini 3 Pro vs Mavic 3:

What does that video tell you? At or above ISO1600 (meaning low light) the m43 from the Mavic 3 wins; to get the sharpness and excellent SNR the Mavic 3 has to be stopped down to f5.6 i.e. the performance has little to do with the sensor and is limited by the *lens* and at f5.6 the Hasselblad is better than the others; the Air 3 and the Mini 3 Pro are basically identical; and the differences are really, really minor for how most people will use a drone including that sometimes the Mini 3 Pro is actually sharpest.

OTOH, in case you thought sensors don't matter, check out the clear improvement from Mini 2 to Mini 3 Pro:

Good luck!

You are right about that. If I can avoid using a drone I will. I do love the M3 Hasselblad but would of course want to send up a full-frame with interchangeable optics. I think any photographer would want to, sooner or later. So far that is impractical and too expensive.

 

[Wreckhunter]

But the photography point still stands; the primary purpose for a large sensor and aperture is 3:
1. Gather more light to improve signal to noise.
2. Allow for aperture control to control depth of field.
3. To (maybe) improve resolution by allowing for more pixels without making them so small they trash the SNR.

In plenty of light with a subject that doesn't need DOF control, small sensors can work great and good ones can produce results as good as a medium format sensor. Really. You see this all the time where numerous dumb magazine articles show the latest iPhone producing results as good as the latest $5k ILC. It's not fake; it's DOF control not required and lots of light.

As a photographer *would* say, it's all about light.

OTOH, if you need zoom control for framing a subject, low light performance, fast shutter speeds to capture action, super wide angles, close macro shots, fast shutter response, sophisticated AF, real DOF control, etc. you need an ILC. But what are you taking pictures of with a drone that would need any of that? (I do value improved low light performance.)

Pilot institute does a nice job reviewing drone cameras Air 3 vs Air 2 vs Mini 3 Pro vs Mavic 3:

What does that video tell you? At or above ISO1600 (meaning low light) the m43 from the Mavic 3 wins; to get the sharpness and excellent SNR the Mavic 3 has to be stopped down to f5.6 i.e. the performance has little to do with the sensor and is limited by the *lens* and at f5.6 the Hasselblad is better than the others; the Air 3 and the Mini 3 Pro are basically identical; and the differences are really, really minor for how most people will use a drone including that sometimes the Mini 3 Pro is actually sharpest.

OTOH, in case you thought sensors don't matter, check out the clear improvement from Mini 2 to Mini 3 Pro:

Good luck!

Why do people keep comparing the Air 3 to the mini 3 pro.The sensors may be the same size but it is different technology
being used in the Air 3.Pretty simple here goes you have three series of dji consumer drones.
1. Mini 3 Series
2. Air 3 series
3. Mavic 3 Series.
And their capability follows in that order,its not rocket science.

 

[tlyons]

Why do people keep comparing the Air 3 to the mini 3 pro.The sensors may be the same size but it is different technology
being used in the Air 3.Pretty simple here goes you have three series of dji consumer drones.
1. Mini 3 Series
2. Air 3 series
3. Mavic 3 Series.
And their capability follows in that order,its not rocket science.

I agree. It's not rocket science. But I'm guessing you didn't watch the video titled Air 3 Review? If you have a moment and could follow the link (it goes straight to 20:30 for the comparison among the 4 drones), maybe you could note among the many test comparison shots the one that says to you the Air 3 is "different technology" and presumably better than the Mini 3? If you have a little more time, note the ones that, to you, are fundamentally identical.

Good Luck and Happy Drone Flights!

 

[Wreckhunter]

I agree. It's not rocket science. But I'm guessing you didn't watch the video titled Air 3 Review? If you have a moment and could follow the link (it goes straight to 20:30 for the comparison among the 4 drones), maybe you could note among the many test comparison shots the one that says to you the Air 3 is "different technology" and presumably better than the Mini 3? If you have a little more time, note the ones that, to you, are fundamentally identical.

Good Luck and Happy Drone Flights!

I do not have much faith in his reviews as he leans more toward the rules and regulations part of drones.As I am interested in
the regular consumer that has purchased the Air 3 and has compared it to if they also own the Air2S,Mavic 3 classic,or
Mavic 3 pro.Cameras.Leaving the mini 3 pro out of it.
Have a good day

 

[WildcatDave]

I have had the Air3 since launch and I can tell you the ONLY area it disappoints is with photos. Once you're at 100% or beyond, if the lighting conditions outside are not optimal you will have excess noise in the image and once you try to remove the noise the image will get soft. Ive tried every way JPG, RAW in Lightroom. The Image is fine when viewing on your phone or iPad, but when you put on a larger accurate screen like a Retina iMac for editing you see how degraded the image actually is compared to the Mavic 20MP Hasselblad Cameras.

I am a Photographer and having both the Mavic 3 Classic and the Air 3, The Air 3 is considerably worse with photos.
Videos are fine and maybe that's why I see so many people say how good the videos are, but if you want to see how the photos really look put them on a larger screen for editing.

Just my findings and what I have been working with for the last 2 weeks.

I think this is a fair assessment, and to be expected considering the sensor size difference. If you're someone that shoots in lower light you're either going to have to deal with noise reduction and softer images or slightly noisy images. You have to determine if you're shooting this for clients and they will notice the difference or need the quality difference or you're shooting this for your own uses and some noise is acceptable. And finally you'll have to determine what your output is. If you're expecting people to look at it on normal size computer screens or print large etc. All of these affect how noise is presented.

These comments weren't meant for the original poster but anyone trying to make this determination specifically.

 

[SmilingOgre]

I don't buy in on the marketing buzz word "pro" in any fashion. Professional simply means people are getting paid for what they do. Watching todays reality shows e.g. Deadliest catch, North woods law, Expedition this that and the other, Dirtiest jobs, etc., where camera operators video like me i.e. one man camera operators, I'm not at all impressed with the images presented. If my images looked that bad I would sell my equipment. This goes for both "ground" and arial shots. Some of the footage looks like it was shot on an old super 8 camcorder.

I don't expect a drone with a dedicated camera to produce the 4;4;4 12bit raw that my cinema cameras will produce. Having said that, I can successfully cut a four second clip from my M3C with footage from cinema cameras without embarrassment. d-log gives me just enough "wiggle room" to get "close enough" for documentary work.