how does the image quality of the zoom compare with the pro?

[JaredReabow]

Curious to know if the zoom is a better value proposition?

 

[G Saunders]

The Mavic 2 Zoom gets all it can out of a small 1/2.3 inch sensor. Its got somewhat larger optics and real optical zoom so you can stand off or fly by farther away and get good imagery. It doesn't have a real, adjustable aperture so you're stuck or blessed with the extreme depth of focus depending on what you're trying to do.

The Pro has a full inch sensor, larger optics with no zoom, and it has a real aperture so if photography or videography is your goal you can work with the depth of focus.

When DJI put the Pro on sale at the end of last year I got one. When comparing 4K video from the Pro and Zoom on a big 4K monitor, I thought Wow! The Pro really is better. It gets lots more detail and texture.

When comparing the photos and video on a phone or in a web page, there's barely a discernible difference among a plain Pro, Mavic Mini, or either Mavic 2. If you're shooting for the web and not for full-sized 4K the scene and the pilot make more difference than the drone, IMHO.

Don't forget the Phantom 4 Pro. It has a large sensor, real aperture, _and_ a real shutter to minimize distortion for mapping or high-speed sports.

If you need to zoom, maybe to inspect towers or get the line of guests at an outdoor wedding feast, the M2 Zoom is sure worth it. While it's not quite as spectacular as a Pro, Phantom, or Inspire, it's excellent.

To get better than a Mavic 2 Pro or Phantom, get an Inspire 1 V2 or Inspire 2 with a Zenmuse X5 or better. These have relatively huge sensors and optics, take a full range of Olympus lenses, are the equivalent of a high-quality DSLR on a gimbal.

 

[BigAl07]

@G Saunders well written.

 

[Johnmcl7]

When comparing the Pro and the Zoom one of the most important parts is whether you're going to post process the raw files or not because this is where the real strength of the Pro lies. Comparing both cameras with automatic jpegs the Pro won't look much better (apart from high iso) but once you go into raw there's not much you can do with the Zoom's files (not a flaw of the Zoom, just an attribute of a very small sensor) however with the Pro there's a lot of detail you can pull out the shadow and highlight area. This is useful with drones as landscape shots will often have a bright sky and dark ground which push the dynamic range, the Pro can recover the detail in both even with a 21 shot panorama where stacking wouldn't be viable.

I keep seeing claims that the Pro's image quality advantage only shows if you're printing large or showing on a large display which just isn't true, the following shot is a panorama taken late evening when the ground is dark against the very bright sky due to the low sun and you can see even at a very small size how much detail the Pro can pull back (the Zoom or similar wouldn't be able to do this):

However I'm not saying no-one should buy the zoom and the flip side of the Pro's advantages in post processing mean if you don't post process raw files there's going to be much less of an advantage with the Pro while the Zoom has a noticeable advantage with its optical zoom which I don't think any of the new rival drones offer.

 

[Camino Ken]

I bought the pro over the zoom even though I shoot in fully automatic and do no post processing because I wanted a camera I could grow into as I learned (actually relearned) advanced photographic techniques.

 

[Phantomrain.org]

Curious to know if the zoom is a better value proposition?
[/QUOTE

Were a huge fan of the Zoom because of the Super Size Pictures !

There our so many benefits , and having the in house software is not only a time saver but allow us instant access to them.

This is just 1/6 of a crop of a super size picture , just amazing .

What we notice a lot with the drone is that we have know idea what we really captured in the Super Size Pictures until we look at them and find the best view and Crop .

If you looking to shoot more like a DSLR than you have to go with the Pro but for a fantastic and fast result , you cant do better.





You can see the rest of the Pictures at phantomrain.org

Gear to fly your Mavic in and out of the Storm
Coal

 

[iFly4U]

In the M2P vs M2Z discussion, it's horses for courses.

The optics package (lens and sensor) on the M2P is more geared to users who are accustomed to, or want to get into the complexities of, post-processing images and footage.

Post-processing 4K 10 bit H.265 on a computer that isn't up to the task is a PITA. Two minutes of 4K footage can quickly become half an hour of post-processing depending on LUT(s), filters, etc depending on the CPU, GPU, RAM, software, and other variables. To make post a joy, DaVinci Resolve, i7 CPU (minimum), 32Gb RAM, a good nVidia GPU with 8Gb RAM and some SSDs will make the work pleasurable. You could limp by on Shotcut on Ubuntu on an i3/i5 with 16 Gb RAM, older GPU and a little SSD as the work drive and an HDD for storage.

The M2Z gives the benefit of a zoom lens, and some cool tricks like dolly zoom, but with some loss of quality and potential by virtue of smaller optics and sensor.

In reference to bigger platforms in a previous comment, Inspire 2 with X5 and a swag of lenses is amazing, but it's a big aircraft and not suitable for all operations as it's big, loud and fast - not so good in tight quarters. IME, Inspire 2 with a pilot and a camera operator is superb, but that's a much larger investment.

M2x platform is more subtle and more portable, and less costly, hence bridging into mild pro use.

Bigger sensors and bigger optics of good or better quality will always win the quality question.

Swings and roundabouts.

Examine how you want to use the tool and what you expect it to deliver, and what additional supporting hardware and software you may need to make the most of what you're capturing. Also consider how you want to consume the output - many are happy with 1080p, some with 2.7K and some spit on 4K as 'amateur', but it's all about you and up to you.

Best of luck - i.