Concerns About The Mavic Pro

[E92Vancouver]

I really like the Mavic and always buy the latest DJI product but am hesitant on this one for the following reasons:

1. Smaller so can't handle as high winds as the P4.
2. No landing gear making taking off and landing from uneven terrain and high grass harder. Plus no hand catches for situations like when you are on a boat or on uneven terrain.
3. Camera needs focusing. I can see myself getting shots that are out of focus because I didn't focus.
4. Narrower FOV compared to P4.
5. Folding legs. How many cycles until those ribbon cables break like they did on the old Motorola flip phones.
6. Folding props. Those hinge points on the props are weak points and high stress points. They carry the full weight of the craft and thrust of the motors. Loose a prop and it is complete hull damage and possible injury to bystanders. I am wary but love the compact design. I really do want one but have concerns.
7. Do the folding legs lock in place or is it a friction fit. Friction only would be bad.

Don't think I will be buying one on opening day. Would be great if they had a non folding prop option. Only takes seconds to take off and put on props.

 

[Raptorman]

The folding legs thing and the concern about flexing the cables is valid but if they use robot cable or high flex cable that should not be an issue. Typically, in applications like this where flexing of the wires is likely they use cable that has finer strand wires that tolerate flexing better. Face it, in robotic application the cables are being flexed all the time so they need to be able to handle it.

But, since the amount of flexing is limited my guess is DJI has not used robot cable -- OTH, I doubt that cables failures will be a common problem. Assuming the 5000 cycle number is valid and that the arms are cycled twice per flight location then if we imagine 4 flights per location then that would work out to about 10K flights or, say, 2500 hours. That's almost certainly 10 years or more for hobbyists and at least a few years for pros.


Brian

 

[E92Vancouver]

The folding legs thing and the concern about flexing the cables is valid but if they use robot cable or high flex cable that should not be an issue. Typically, in applications like this where flexing of the wires is likely they use cable that has finer strand wires that tolerate flexing better. Face it, in robotic application the cables are being flexed all the time so they need to be able to handle it.

But, since the amount of flexing is limited my guess is DJI has not used robot cable -- OTH, I doubt that cables failures will be a common problem. Assuming the 5000 cycle number is valid and that the arms are cycled twice per flight location then if we imagine 4 flights per location then that would work out to about 10K flights or, say, 2500 hours. That's almost certainly 10 years or more for hobbyists and at least a few years for pros.


Brian

I wonder if the folding legs actually have a lock mechanism or just stay in place from friction. Just added this point.

 

[Advexure]

All valid concerns. Will provide some insight on a few...

1. Unfolded size is not all that different from the P4, just not as tall. P4 handles very well in the wind.

2. Valid concern hence the discussion on another thread regarding the need for a nice landing pad for those odd situations.

3. Focusing is vital for high quality imaging, happy to have the ability to manual focus. Hasn't been a problem on other units that have the same feature. Focussing becomes second nature very quickly.

6. Folding Props from DJI have never been a problem. The larger units have all had them for years. Hundreds of flights on our S1000, S900 and now Matrice 600 and have never had a problem with folding props. I do understand those units are all running more than 4 props so if one goes out it can still airborne. It would be a slightly different situation going from 4 to 3 props on a Mavic.

Standard Props reduce portability and when the Mavic is made to be thrown in any bag and tag on the go you'd be running the risk of easily breaking standard props thrown into a bag.

Again, all valid concerns and good points you raise.

 

[E92Vancouver]

All valid concerns. Will provide some insight on a few...

1. Unfolded size is not all that different from the P4, just not as tall. P4 handles very well in the wind.

2. Valid concern hence the discussion on another thread regarding the need for a nice landing pad for those odd situations.

3. Focusing is vital for high quality imaging, happy to have the ability to manual focus. Hasn't been a problem on other units that have the same feature. Focussing becomes second nature very quickly.

6. Folding Props from DJI have never been a problem. The larger units have all had them for years. Hundreds of flights on our S1000, S900 and now Matrice 600 and have never had a problem with folding props. I do understand those units are all running more than 4 props so if one goes out it can still airborne. It would be a slightly different situation going from 4 to 3 props on a Mavic.

Standard Props reduce portability and when the Mavic is made to be thrown in any bag and tag on the go you'd be running the risk of easily breaking standard props thrown into a bag.

Again, all valid concerns and good points you raise.

Interesting. Didn't know that DJI has used folding props on other larger models. A 4 rotor drone can't run on 3 motors if you lose a prop or motor.

 

[Advexure]

Interesting. Didn't know that DJI has used folding props on other larger models. A 4 rotor drone can't run on 3 motors if you lose a prop or motor.

I'm not an expert in this specific area when a motor or prop goes out on a quad but I have seen discussion that the FC can keep the quad level despite constant spinning for a controlled descent in the event you would go down one prop.

 

[LivinLarge]

I'm not an expert in this specific area when a motor or prop goes out on a quad but I have seen discussion that the FC can keep the quad level despite constant spinning for a controlled descent in the event you would go down one prop.

It has been demonstrated that it is technically possible to do a soft landing but no commercially available quad has this tech implemented. A patent has been applied for. At best, the quad will come down where it is without being able to fly home, so if you are over water or a mile away over woods, it is lost anyway.

It has been demonstrated that the Yuneec Typhoon H hexcopter can fly and land with one lost rotor.

 

[kmaluo]

I really like the Mavic and always buy the latest DJI product but am hesitant on this one for the following reasons:

1. Smaller so can't handle as high winds as the P4.
2. No landing gear making taking off and landing from uneven terrain and high grass harder. Plus no hand catches for situations like when you are on a boat or on uneven terrain.
3. Camera needs focusing. I can see myself getting shots that are out of focus because I didn't focus.
4. Narrower FOV compared to P4.
5. Folding legs. How many cycles until those ribbon cables break like they did on the old Motorola flip phones.
6. Folding props. Those hinge points on the props are weak points and high stress points. They carry the full weight of the craft and thrust of the motors. Loose a prop and it is complete hull damage and possible injury to bystanders. I am wary but love the compact design. I really do want one but have concerns.
7. Do the folding legs lock in place or is it a friction fit. Friction only would be bad.

Don't think I will be buying one on opening day. Would be great if they had a non folding prop option. Only takes seconds to take off and put on props.

1 false
2 hand catch it our use a landing pad
3 there may be an auto focus option soon, if not assign focus to a C button
4 pros and cons. I prefer the Mavic implementation
5 tested over 5000 cycles. Should last at LEAST that.
6 proven design and folding props will cause less damage on impact
7 more like tension than friction. Possible less damage on impact.

 

[Advexure]

It has been demonstrated that it is technically possible to do a soft landing but no commercially available quad has this tech implemented. A patent has been applied for. At best, the quad will come down where it is without being able to fly home, so if you are over water or a mile away over woods, it is lost anyway.

It has been demonstrated that the Yuneec Typhoon H hexcopter can fly and land with one lost rotor.

Thanks for sharing. Yes, that was the video that was posted where I saw discussion about this some time ago. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Raptorman]

It has been demonstrated that it is technically possible to do a soft landing but no commercially available quad has this tech implemented. A patent has been applied for. At best, the quad will come down where it is without being able to fly home, so if you are over water or a mile away over woods, it is lost anyway.

It has been demonstrated that the Yuneec Typhoon H hexcopter can fly and land with one lost rotor.

I crashed into a tree and lost 1.5 inches from the tip of one of the blades and was ale to bring it back and safely land 95 seconds later. Mind you the i1 was not flying well during this but it did make it. After replacing the bad prop all was well. Total cost for crashing into a tree was about $10USD.


Brian

 

[LivinLarge]

The problem for a quad is that with one rotor lost, you can only use two for lift. Trying to use power on the third rotor will flip the quad. You have only half the lift available that the quad was designed for. Secondly, the two remaining rotors are opposite each other and are rotating in the same direction. You have no control over yaw. The quad will spin continuously.
With half power and continuous rotation, it is not realistic to expect controlled flight. At best you will get an upright descent at a speed that won't totally destroy the aircraft.
By comparison, a hex or octocopter will still have a higher percentage of lift available as well as yaw control.

 

[botasky]

1. Smaller so can't handle as high winds as the P4.
3. Camera needs focusing. I can see myself getting shots that are out of focus because I didn't focus.
4. Narrower FOV compared to P4.

My opinion as a filmmaker

3.It's a good thing that I can focus the camera, I can't count how many times I wish I could focus the gopro to anything close to the camera, also with more telephoto lens focusing is critical because the longer the lens makes depth of field more shallow, things that are out of focus become more noticeable which bring us to another point
4.I prefer narrower FOV because I can stay stay further to the action safer to everyone, also it is easier to get "cinematic" shot all of DJI's line up that gear toward professional do have narrower fov (Inspire 1, X5, X5R)

 

[Deckyon]

#1 has been proven false, actually. A few times over. The guys at "My First Drone" took a leaf blower to the P4 and MP, and the MP was easily the winner. Sure, the P4 has stronger motors, however the extra weight and more wind resistance, meant more movement in the wind than the sleeker MP, regardless of motor power. Search it on YouTube, easy to find.

#2 is also not a concern. Get a folding pad (I will be using a photo white/grey card, personally) or just grab it from the air.

#3 as a film maker (not just landscape shooter) will be a great boon, especially with Tripod Mode! No further need to lug hundreds of pounds of track to do a slide on a subject. Being able to show DoF while close to the camera will be a definite boon!

#4 is also a great boon for shooting films. I dont have to get as close to a subject to have more of the frame filled up. And if I need wider shots, I go higher.

#5,6,7 have been addressed. My personal thoughts are that I will be ready for the next drone long before these wear out.

 

[scott rand]

I'm not really worried about any issues with the Mavic. One thing we have to remember, is us drone owners usually move up to the "new drone" when they get announced and released. This will not be the last Mavic released. So just like people did with the DJI1 and moved to the 2 or 3, they will move from the Mavic 1 to the 2 or 3, a year or two later.

 

[fakbik]

So I think the lens's fov is a hilarious topic I keep seeing posted. Yes the difference is significant but if this was standard photograhy and you were using primes, I would tell you zoom out with your feet. Now I wonder how you could apply that same advice to a flying drone that presumably has the ability to freely move around across 3 axises. It's mind boggling!

On a serious note, it's going to generally be a non issue unless you exclusively film indoors in tiny rooms. The compression difference is not going to be significant at all. If you do notice it, you'll probably need to be zoomed in, it is something to use to your advantage, assuming you did what you need to do with any quality camera (focus).

 

[LivinLarge]

So I think the lens's fov is a hilarious topic I keep seeing posted. Yes the difference is significant but if this was standard photograhy and you were using primes, I would tell you zoom out with your feet. Now I wonder how you could apply that same advice to a flying drone that presumably has the ability to freely move around across 3 axises. It's mind boggling!

On a serious note, it's going to generally be a non issue unless you exclusively film indoors in tiny rooms. The compression difference is not going to be significant at all. If you do notice it, you'll probably need to be zoomed in, it is something to use to your advantage, assuming you did what you need to do with any quality camera (focus).

What if you are at maximum altitude (400 feet?) You cannot just go higher to get farther away. Another concern might be visibility. If you need to get a wider view but are already at the limits of of being able to see the aircraft, then you would have to fly out beyond LOS to get the shot. For still shots, I suppose you could take multiple photos and stitch them together, but this would not be possible for video.