100MP and 25MP DNG please

[J-B]

I mostly use my drones for photography. I returned two copies of the Air 3S due to decentered wide-angle lenses. In the end, I gave up and decided to wait for the Mavic 4 Pro. It seems like I’ll have to play the lottery again and again if I want a new drone with good image quality.
When conditions and subject allow, shooting panoramas with the 70mm lens delivers fantastic results. Excellent detail and resolution. However, I also want to be able to use the wide lens.

At the moment, I’ve gone back to my old Mavic 2 Pro. A great copy with very good sharpness across the frame. It’s frustrating that I haven’t been able to upgrade to a newer drone without sacrificing that level of edge-to-edge sharpness and detail from the wide lens.

 

[gianlucaballoni]

I mostly use my drones for photography. I returned two copies of the Air 3S due to decentered wide-angle lenses. In the end, I gave up and decided to wait for the Mavic 4 Pro. It seems like I’ll have to play the lottery again and again if I want a new drone with good image quality.
When conditions and subject allow, shooting panoramas with the 70mm lens delivers fantastic results. Excellent detail and resolution. However, I also want to be able to use the wide lens.

At the moment, I’ve gone back to my old Mavic 2 Pro. A great copy with very good sharpness across the frame. It’s frustrating that I haven’t been able to upgrade to a newer drone without sacrificing that level of edge-to-edge sharpness and detail from the wide lens.

The nice thing, at least in my case, is that the off-center lenses have always been in the main camera. The 7x of the mavic 3, like the 3x of the air3 are perfect, they don't even have a minimum point of blur. This is strange, or it will be a coincidence. Now I will most likely take this mavic 4 pro and I am already terrified of trying the main camera, which is also the one, paradoxically, that should be the best. And then I think... isn't this bad publicity for Hasselblad too? Ok, they give the collaboration and don't supply components, but they print the name on it and I, if I were Hasselblad, known especially in the photography field, this thing of photographic quality compromised by units (many units!) with off-center lenses, I would discuss it with DJI, before continuing to brand their drones.

 

[Meta4]

if I were Hasselblad, .... I would discuss it with DJI, before continuing to brand their drones.

Perhaps you aren't aware that DJI own the majority stake in Hasselblad.

 

[SkySteve83]

Just watched a good review of the Mavic 4 on YouTube with some good comparisons from Tony Northrup.

 

[UAVquadman]

Just watched a good review of the Mavic 4 on YouTube with some good comparisons from Tony Northrup.

same here

 

[landscapetog]

much more detail captured. Nice

Just watched a good review of the Mavic 4 on YouTube with some good comparisons from Tony Northrup.

Way more detail captured than my M3 on all cameras.

This is great!

This is the first legit comparison I've seen between M3P and M4P. Same subject, same time, same location / angle.

 

[Filmarik]

In News section there is a guy PanoVolo who is not very happy with M4P photos by the sound of it. So many conflicting reports...

 

[UAVquadman]

much more detail captured. Nice

Way more detail captured than my M3 on all cameras.

This is great!

This is the first legit comparison I've seen between M3P and M4P. Same subject, same time, same location / angle.

the M3P has a 24mm and uses a 4/3 aspect ratio so it's better than the M4P if this is what you need. When I do video low over the ground there are objects to the side that will shop up better the the M3 and if I crash it in the ocean it will not be such a loss versus the M3 but I still ordered a M4P but will be extra careful with it.

 

[gianlucaballoni]

Perhaps you aren't aware that DJI own the majority stake in Hasselblad.

I didn't know this...so, never mind.

 

[Paul2660]

Over the years, I feel way too much attention has been placed on the DJI ownership of Hasselblad. If Hasselblad was making the camera, I would expect their raw software Phocus to support the Mavic 4 Pro at launch, it currently does not. And Phocus has always had very limited support for the Mavic 2 Pro, as only a few selected options within the software work. Hasselblad's HNCS, (Hasselblad Natural Color System) is a huge asset, and when you compare the output of the X1D or X2D MF cameras from Phocus and Lr, most times it's clear the Phocus can produce the best color. I only mention this because Phocus 3.8.5 (most current version on Mac) shows the camera as a Leica. Odds are this is due to the fact that the files are not yet fully supported by Phocus, but it does make you wonder as to who makes the camera.

As I understand it, Hasselblad has not made a MF lens for years either. Most of the V lenses were made by Fuji, and the X2D lenses have been made by Nitto and Panasonic. The latest XCD lens, the 75P, is 100% made in China (this is obvious due to recent huge price increase for just that lens vs. the rest of the XCD lineup). Hasselblad does seem to control the shutter as all their lenses have a leaf shutter inside of them, but as far as grinding the glass, I don't believe Hasselblad does that, as Leica, Nikon and Canon do. The optical quality of the XCD lenses is excellent and they are priced accordingly.

Thanks to Meta4 and Kaupokalda.com for providing the test shots.

From looking at the various images, and coming from the Mavic 2 Pro, which I have used for over 4? years now, I do see improvement. Just a few observations:
1. The images shot in low light are a vast improvement over what I get with the Mavic 2 Pro and 20MP images.
2. I actually prefer the 3:2 ration over 4:3
3. For Panos, the ability to rotate the camera to the vertical orientation is a huge improvement, something the
original Mavic could do.
4. Extended flight time a plus and speed to get to where you want to shoot.
5. The 100Mp images can fool you, especially if you are using a Mac Retina display (MacBook M1 and up) as this
LCD make all images look sharper. It's best to look at the files at 150% IMO, or even 200%, and here you will
start to see the effects of the quad bayer interpolation. Look at any of the straight edges on the buildings.
6. Sharpening the files after using ACR/Lr does help some, I used Topaz.
7. If all you are doing is uploading to the web, then any size works, but if you are going to print at 300 dpi, you
really need to look at the images at that dpi and again be aware that the retina high resolution screens will
always make the images look sharper. Look at them on a 30 inch NEC 2640 x 1440 or similar display at 100%
8. Interesting the 50MP output seems to hold up a bit better than the 100MP at least from the the tests provided.
A good comparison to look at are the fir trees on the Kaupokalda site, again look at them at 100% or higher and
look at the fine needle details.
9. In the 100MP images, the center is sharper, however I believe they were shot at F2.8, and I would like to see
more int he f4.5 to 5.6 range. The edges show softness at full view mainly in the trees, but adding sharpening
or down rezing to 50MP from 100MP can help.
10. Uprezing the 25Mp to 100MP, to my eyes is not as good as using the 100MP and slightly down rezing it.

Living in the U.S. odds are this drone will not be available for a while so I hope the rest of the world (with common sense) will continue to post images. I feel the Mavic 4 Pro is enough of an upgrade over the Mavic 2 Pro to justify the cost. I did not feel the same way about the Mavic 3 Pro, and stayed with the 2.

 

[SkySteve83]

I agree with this, and the new Mavic 4 can get you at max altitude (500M if less than 30 miles from an airport) in 50 seconds and a mile down range from that in one minute. With the longer battery life, that means a LOT more hang time on the subject which I really look forward to.

I feel 20MP is barely passible for pro use so going to 25MP with a properly collimated primary optic is going to make a big difference when you run the image through your processing regimen.

I think these drones are phenomenal tools for aerial image making and just absurdly good for aerial cine work. But they can not do everything which is why I still love to fly helicopters and high fixed wing aircraft for some projects. One recent year long project I wrapped up was for a regular ski area client. They wanted a very specific angle taken from about 12,000' feet up and there was no land based solution in which to launch a drone from. To make matters even more interesting, it had to be 4' feet tall by 36' feet wide and done twice from exactly the same place but one in Summer and one in Winter. I shot it from my friend's Cessna 210 high wing that has no struts and has retractable landing gear. I then I had to shoot frames for massive stitched pano with 100MPH winds with the camera lens sticking out the window. They came out fanstastic, shot with a Nikon Z9 and 135mm 1.8 Plena at F2.8.

The resulting file is 4GB and reveals details as small as one inch from miles away. Drones just can't to that.

Sounds like a great project! I print very large, which is why it's frustrating to use prosumer drones. I used to fly a 210 and loved it, but I have always done my aerial work from helicopters, before the era of drones, and still do if a drone doesn't cut it. The dominance in video use of drones has put still photography to the back burner.

4) You can almost always equal / exceed 35mm digital or even MF digital output quality by spending a bit of time using exposure bracketing + stitching

Sorry but the images I'm seeing from my M3 and the new M4, (from uploaded samples), are not even close to what my Sonys or Fuji GFX produce. Detail and dynamic range are levels above, even with bracketed shots on the Mavic. I've shot lots of M4/3 cameras over the years, and there is no comparison with 50+MP 35mm and medium format still cameras for detail and DR.

I do agree with your other points, but image quality trumps everything else in the work I need to produce.

 

[SkySteve83]

Sounds like a great project! I print very large, which is why it's frustrating to use prosumer drones. I used to fly a 210 and loved it, but I have always done my aerial work from helicopters, before the era of drones, and still do if a drone doesn't cut it. The dominance in video use of drones has put still photography to the back burner.

Sorry but the images I'm seeing from my M3 and the new M4, (from uploaded samples), are not even close to what my Sonys or Fuji GFX produce. Detail and dynamic range are levels above, even with bracketed shots on the Mavic. I've shot lots of M4/3 cameras over the years, and there is no comparison with 50+MP 35mm and medium format still cameras for detail and DR.

I do agree with your other points, but image quality trumps everything else in the work I need to produce. I'll still be using the Mavic and hope to get the latest, and hope for the best but don't expect it to come close to my ground level shots.

 

[Filmarik]

Over the years, I feel way too much attention has been placed on the DJI ownership of Hasselblad. If Hasselblad was making the camera, I would expect their raw software Phocus to support the Mavic 4 Pro at launch, it currently does not. And Phocus has always had very limited support for the Mavic 2 Pro, as only a few selected options within the software work. Hasselblad's HNCS, (Hasselblad Natural Color System) is a huge asset, and when you compare the output of the X1D or X2D MF cameras from Phocus and Lr, most times it's clear the Phocus can produce the best color. I only mention this because Phocus 3.8.5 (most current version on Mac) shows the camera as a Leica. Odds are this is due to the fact that the files are not yet fully supported by Phocus, but it does make you wonder as to who makes the camera.

As I understand it, Hasselblad has not made a MF lens for years either. Most of the V lenses were made by Fuji, and the X2D lenses have been made by Nitto and Panasonic. The latest XCD lens, the 75P, is 100% made in China (this is obvious due to recent huge price increase for just that lens vs. the rest of the XCD lineup). Hasselblad does seem to control the shutter as all their lenses have a leaf shutter inside of them, but as far as grinding the glass, I don't believe Hasselblad does that, as Leica, Nikon and Canon do. The optical quality of the XCD lenses is excellent and they are priced accordingly.

Thanks to Meta4 and Kaupokalda.com for providing the test shots.

From looking at the various images, and coming from the Mavic 2 Pro, which I have used for over 4? years now, I do see improvement. Just a few observations:
1. The images shot in low light are a vast improvement over what I get with the Mavic 2 Pro and 20MP images.
2. I actually prefer the 3:2 ration over 4:3
3. For Panos, the ability to rotate the camera to the vertical orientation is a huge improvement, something the
original Mavic could do.
4. Extended flight time a plus and speed to get to where you want to shoot.
5. The 100Mp images can fool you, especially if you are using a Mac Retina display (MacBook M1 and up) as this
LCD make all images look sharper. It's best to look at the files at 150% IMO, or even 200%, and here you will
start to see the effects of the quad bayer interpolation. Look at any of the straight edges on the buildings.
6. Sharpening the files after using ACR/Lr does help some, I used Topaz.
7. If all you are doing is uploading to the web, then any size works, but if you are going to print at 300 dpi, you
really need to look at the images at that dpi and again be aware that the retina high resolution screens will
always make the images look sharper. Look at them on a 30 inch NEC 2640 x 1440 or similar display at 100%
8. Interesting the 50MP output seems to hold up a bit better than the 100MP at least from the the tests provided.
A good comparison to look at are the fir trees on the Kaupokalda site, again look at them at 100% or higher and
look at the fine needle details.
9. In the 100MP images, the center is sharper, however I believe they were shot at F2.8, and I would like to see
more int he f4.5 to 5.6 range. The edges show softness at full view mainly in the trees, but adding sharpening
or down rezing to 50MP from 100MP can help.
10. Uprezing the 25Mp to 100MP, to my eyes is not as good as using the 100MP and slightly down rezing it.

Living in the U.S. odds are this drone will not be available for a while so I hope the rest of the world (with common sense) will continue to post images. I feel the Mavic 4 Pro is enough of an upgrade over the Mavic 2 Pro to justify the cost. I did not feel the same way about the Mavic 3 Pro, and stayed with the 2.

I agree with all your observations. The point #7. about Retina display on MacBook Pro you are are 100% spot on. Everything looks so sharp at 100%. I use for my day to day work PC with Eizo 24" display with 1920x1200 resolution and it represents the sharpness of photos more realistically at 100% to what comes out of printer.

I personally prefer the natural look of how the M3P 20MP sensor renders fine detail over the QB digital overprocessed mushy output from the M4P. By saying that the extra dynamic range and 14 bit color depth in 25M mode makes the DNG files from the M4P "ritcher and denser" for lack of a better word which allows them to be pushed further during processing.

 

[landscapetog]

Sounds like a great project! I print very large, which is why it's frustrating to use prosumer drones. I used to fly a 210 and loved it, but I have always done my aerial work from helicopters, before the era of drones, and still do if a drone doesn't cut it. The dominance in video use of drones has put still photography to the back burner.

Sorry but the images I'm seeing from my M3 and the new M4, (from uploaded samples), are not even close to what my Sonys or Fuji GFX produce. Detail and dynamic range are levels above, even with bracketed shots on the Mavic. I've shot lots of M4/3 cameras over the years, and there is no comparison with 50+MP 35mm and medium format still cameras for detail and DR.

I do agree with your other points, but image quality trumps everything else in the work I need to produce.

I didn't see you mention stitching in your workflow?

It's very easy to stitch with the drone and the results are a lot better than doing it handheld with my Sonys.

 

[SkySteve83]

I didn't see you mention stitching in your workflow?

It's very easy to stitch with the drone and the results are a lot better than doing it handheld with my Sonys.

I don't understand how stitching would help me with a horizontal format? The only stitching I've ever done has been with shift lenses in vertical mode, so you end up with 20-28mm equivalent horizontal images from three vertical captures. The M4 seems usable in that regard, with its vertical mode at least for static objects. That looks exciting to me.

I'm also wondering if my Mavic 3 Pro (the original model) has a lens that is subpar. Many or you posting how great their images are, and I'm looking at shots that are occasionally unusable from softness. I do get quite a few frames that are very sharp, although not on the edges. f5.6 seems to work best in bright light, but at 2.8, of course, the corners are poor. I'm also finding that even with bracketing exposures, which I always shoot, I get very limited dynamic range even in darkest or lightest frames for my magic hour shots. The 7-shot bracket available on the M4 should help that. But overall, the lack of MP in the M3 is just a personal frustration after working all day processing and editing my 100MP medium format images, trying to work on 20MP m4/3 images is just plain frustrating.

Maybe the newer 3-lens models improved the sensors, firmware, or optics?

 

[Paul2660]

For Pano's with the M2 Pro, I first tried them manually, but since you can't rotate the lens to the vertical, I found most times I did not like the overall completed image. Plus there tended to be slight issues with the horizon with my drones, in that as you manually panned, the horizontal changed. Most times not enough that ptgui could not get a solution.

For the past two years, I just use the 9 shot internal pano feature on the M2 Pro, I assume the M4 Pro has something similar. Capturing in jpg and dng. Since you can't use both exposure brackets and pano mode at the same time, I just take two 9 shot panos, one exposed for sky/sun etc and one exposed for the foreground if I am in mixed lighting.
The drone does a very good job of taking 9 shots that easily line up later in post, and many times I just use the jpg created panos. With the 9 shot horizontal, you get enough sky and you can still crop into the overall image to select
the look of the pano you want. With the manual process moving only horizontal you are much more limited. And trying to do a 9 shot mode manually for me is just too much work and takes too much battery.

The biggest issue you will have with manual panos, (at least from my experience), is the issues of lens cast and vignetting in the corners. Lr and C1 get rid of most of the vignetting, but sometimes you still see lines in the created pano where the edges could not be blended, whereas if created by the drone (9 shot) you never see this. With C1, you can use the LCC process to remove both the light fall off and color cast and it works quite well, Lr not so. All you really need is one set of LCC captures at the various apertures you use. It's easy enough to get these with the drone on a static platform.

Phocus IMO does the best job overall with the issues of color cast and light fall off, however I am just not big fan of that software as it's so out of date with tools (masking, interface, etc). But Phocus does support the M2 pro raw, which is not true of the M4 Pro raw (at least yet).

Paul

 

[Filmarik]

I don't understand how stitching would help me with a horizontal format? The only stitching I've ever done has been with shift lenses in vertical mode, so you end up with 20-28mm equivalent horizontal images from three vertical captures. The M4 seems usable in that regard, with its vertical mode at least for static objects. That looks exciting to me.

I'm also wondering if my Mavic 3 Pro (the original model) has a lens that is subpar. Many or you posting how great their images are, and I'm looking at shots that are occasionally unusable from softness. I do get quite a few frames that are very sharp, although not on the edges. f5.6 seems to work best in bright light, but at 2.8, of course, the corners are poor. I'm also finding that even with bracketing exposures, which I always shoot, I get very limited dynamic range even in darkest or lightest frames for my magic hour shots. The 7-shot bracket available on the M4 should help that. But overall, the lack of MP in the M3 is just a personal frustration after working all day processing and editing my 100MP medium format images, trying to work on 20MP m4/3 images is just plain frustrating.

Maybe the newer 3-lens models improved the sensors, firmware, or optics?

From what I've read and seen so far and despite my criticism of some aspects of IQ (nitpicking to most..) I reckon that M4P chould be a valuable addition to your photo gear. Stitching in vertical mode even if just 3 shots in 25MP mode would provide you with resolution closer to what you are used to work with from your MF gear. For shooting static subjects which I believe is mostly what you do there should only be benefits from stitching multiple shots. I am looking forward to seeing your architectural samples and reading your thought when you will be finaly able to get the M4P if that is what you decide to do eventually.

 

[SkySteve83]

From what I've read and seen so far and despite my criticism of some aspects of IQ (nitpicking to most..) I reckon that M4P chould be a valuable addition to your photo gear. Stitching in vertical mode even if just 3 shots in 25MP mode would provide you with resolution closer to what you are used to work with from your MF gear. For shooting static subjects which I believe is mostly what you do there should only be benefits from stitching multiple shots. I am looking forward to seeing your architectural samples and reading your thought when you will be finaly able to get the M4P if that is what you decide to do eventually.

Here in the states, by the time we are able to purchase it, if ever, I should have enough info about it to make a decision.