Mavic 3 Pro - new 7X telephone camera - first impressions

[SkywalkerFeng]

I just received a RAW file shot with the new 7X telephoto camera, from a friend who owns M3P. He is not exactly a photographer, and the image was underexposed by ~1.5 stops.

I imported the RAW file into Lightroom. With a bit of post-processing, the final image is more than satisfying. It looks sharp and detailed, even when zoomed in 200%. Exposure latitude is quite decent, lots of details are revealed in the shadow area.

Although still the same sensor, the redesigned optical lens does bring a noticeable improvement in image quality.


RAW v.s. Processed (zoomed in 100%):


RAW v.s. Processed (zoomed in 200%):

 

[KS-6]

Now if DJI would update the FW to where we can stitch with both the 3X and 7X cams, that would be greeaaaat.

 

[GFields]

Thanks for sharing

 

[lookpoland]

Właśnie otrzymałem plik RAW wykonany nowym teleobiektywem 7X od znajomego, który jest właścicielem M3P. Nie jest dokładnie fotografem, a zdjęcie było niedoświetlone o ~1,5 stopnia.

Zaimportowałem plik RAW do Lightrooma. Przy odrobinie obróbki końcowej ostateczny obraz jest więcej niż satysfakcjonujący. Wygląda ostro i szczegółowo, nawet przy powiększeniu 200%. Tolerancja ekspozycji jest całkiem przyzwoita, dużo detali ujawnia się w cieniu.

Chociaż wciąż ten sam czujnik, przeprojektowany obiektyw optyczny przynosi zauważalną poprawę jakości obrazu.


RAW vs przetworzone (powiększenie w 100%):
View attachment 163525

RAW vs przetworzone (powiększenie w 200%):
View attachment 163527

Can I please DNG to download?

 

[SkywalkerFeng]

Can I please DNG to download?

DJI_20230427190428_0081_D.DNG

drive.google.com

 

[AlanL]

Thanks for letting us play with the .DNG file.

It does look pretty good in LR. DxO won't play with it and spits it out saying it can't be processed:



Looks like those of us used to working with DxO PureRAW might have to wait a bit for them to set up profiles for the Mavic 3 Pro.

That said the image does look very good even without that processing step.

 

[dmcgrew]

This is a 200% crop with Lightroom's new AI Denoise applied. Holy crap.

 

[AlanL]

This is a 200% crop with Lightroom's new AI Denoise applied. Holy crap.

I got a similar result with Topaz PhotoAI. This looks a lot cleaner than the 7x on mine.

 

[KS-6]

I got a similar result with Topaz PhotoAI. This looks a lot cleaner than the 7x on mine.

I just compared too, more resolution overall, far less sharpening needed to get good micro-contrast. I am looking forward to getting this!

 

[SkywalkerFeng]

Thanks for letting us play with the .DNG file.

It does look pretty good in LR. DxO won't play with it and spits it out saying it can't be processed:

View attachment 163675

Looks like those of us used to working with DxO PureRAW might have to wait a bit for them to set up profiles for the Mavic 3 Pro.

That said the image does look very good even without that processing step.

On a side note, both ACR and DxO can now decode the DNG file from M3P's main camera, but DxO does a much batter job at lens distortion correction. From comparison, you will get 5%-10% more usable space from decoded image, especially towards four corners.

 

[SkywalkerFeng]

I just compared too, more resolution overall, far less sharpening needed to get good micro-contrast. I am looking forward to getting this!

This is a 200% crop with Lightroom's new AI Denoise applied. Holy crap.

The image quality upgrade is indeed quite significant. Even a 1/2 inch sensor can work some miracle with a good quality lens. I am surprised DJI didn't spend more time talk about the improvement in their press release.

 

[AlanL]

On a side note, both ACR and DxO can now decode the DNG file from M3P's main camera, but DxO does a much batter job at lens distortion correction. From comparison, you will get 5%-10% more usable space from decoded image, especially towards four corners.

DxO PureRAW balked at processing the 7x DNG file we were playing with. I tried both version 2 as well as version 3. The error message is up in post #6. DxO is almost always my first choice for cleaning up a RAW image from all of my cameras.

 

[Jonathan Atkin]

I just received a RAW file shot with the new 7X telephoto camera, from a friend who owns M3P. He is not exactly a photographer, and the image was underexposed by ~1.5 stops.

I imported the RAW file into Lightroom. With a bit of post-processing, the final image is more than satisfying. It looks sharp and detailed, even when zoomed in 200%. Exposure latitude is quite decent, lots of details are revealed in the shadow area.

Although still the same sensor, the redesigned optical lens does bring a noticeable improvement in image quality.


RAW v.s. Processed (zoomed in 100%):
View attachment 163525

RAW v.s. Processed (zoomed in 200%):
View attachment 163527

Hi there. I am flying the Mavic 2 Pro and the Mavic 3 Classic. I did not opt for the tele configuration. The quality of the raw file from the Mavic2 Pro to the Mavic 3 Classic is incremental. But I've not done a side by side flight with both drones, at the same aperture to accurately assess the edge sharpness, noise, etc. Mavic 2Pro is in itself amazing and my 13" X 19" standard prints processed in LR are sharp. I have not used Denoise with drone images yet, but it does wonders with 35mm 50megabyte files from the Canon 5DSr. Topaz and DXO have been compared by several reviewers. DXO seems to be the preferred choice over Topaz, and LR Denoise is as good as Topaz according to several reviewers. But we are splitting hairs probably. DJI has effectively forgotten still photographers, going with the asumption that everyone on Earth wants to do video and nothing else. When my clients install large video screens in their lobbies, they will want video clips rather than 40X 60 prints. LOL...

 

[ddublu]

Side note: What is with the mile-long file names that can't be shortened?

 

[AlanL]

Side note: What is with the mile-long file names that can't be shortened?

They included a full time/date stamp into the name. Not my primary preference but it does guaranty unique file names as opposed to the counters that didn't have enough digits prior to this......

 

[ddublu]

They included a full time/date stamp into the name. Not my primary preference but it does guaranty unique file names as opposed to the counters that didn't have enough digits prior to this......

I see that but it would nice to make it optional.

 

[Filmarik]

This is a 200% crop with Lightroom's new AI Denoise applied. Holy crap.

It is pretty amazing IQ from a 1/2" sensor camera with a 166mm lens and all of that on a small drone!!! Technology has certainly come a long way!! As for the LR de-noising, I am personally not a huge fan of "de-noising" which almost always results in a watercolor like look. I rather see a bit of a digital noise reminiscent of a film grain. I downloaded the DNG file and processed it in CaptureOne with my own settings and the result is truly spectacular, all considering.

 

[AirStag]

Thanks for letting us play with the .DNG file.

It does look pretty good in LR. DxO won't play with it and spits it out saying it can't be processed:

View attachment 163675

Looks like those of us used to working with DxO PureRAW might have to wait a bit for them to set up profiles for the Mavic 3 Pro.

That said the image does look very good even without that processing step.

Has DxO worked with DNGs from other Mavics?

 

[AlanL]

Has DxO worked with DNGs from other Mavics?

Yes - I used DxO with DNGs from a Mavic Air 2, a Mavic 3 (both lenses), and it does work with the 24mm DNGs from the Mavic 3 Pro. The sensors/lens combinations for the 70mm and 166mm camera systems are new so I'm not surprised those won't work yet.

 

[isdoo]

I see that but it would nice to make it optional

There is an option to customise the name under settings.

Not tried it yet however.