2 Pro Vs. Air 2

[sar104]

The video above seems to back up my statement that the 48MP images are jpg.

I have no idea what is in all these videos - all I can tell you is that the camera generates 48 MP raw images according both to the specifications and the test images that I've downloaded.

 

[sar104]

Both. Needs a lot of light and obviously you can't crop in all the way to a 12mp area of the photo and get a result anywhere near what you would get taking a 12mp photo of the same area, but yes you can crop in substantially and get good results. Would be a lot less useful if only jpg.

Right - but the observation that the M2P camera is significantly better is based on comparing full images from both cameras, not whether cropping the 48 MP images can produce useful results, which clearly it can.

 

[Jiggleman]

So "better" is relative to each person. Both the M2P and MA2 have their strengths and weaknesses. For photos, given the limited knowledge that we have so far (and comparing images on youtube doesn't really count) I'd give the edge to the M2P because like mentioned before, sensor size makes a huge difference in image quality. Can you get a high quality image from the MA2, of course you can, given the right conditions. However I believe the larger sensor gives you more flexibility in getting a good clean picture.

Video wise, unless you need 4K60 or 1080/120/240 then again, quality wise I'd give the edge to the M2P, because of 10-bit mode. However, shooting 4k in 10-bit requires quite a bit of processing power for post production to get that quality. So again, for flexibility, M2P wins, however, for convenience and speed to get a nice video up without too much work, I'd say the MA2 is better.

As a hobbyist photographer for almost 20 years (and owner of a M2P), there are a lot of factors that go beyond specs. What are you doing with your photos/videos? Social media? Billboard? TV ad? For most people, getting a good enough image with minimal post process is what you're looking for. And the MA2 checks both of those boxes at a lower price.

So really, it just depends on your needs.

 

[Peterson]

A reasonable person would not expect that DJI would produce a new drone that is superior to its already existing drone at a much lower cost. That would not make sense. Why kill the cash cow? What does make sense is a new drone that has manufacturing and technical improvements over previously released drones that may/may not be incorporated into the new version of the MP2 or other upgraded designs.

 

[sar104]

So "better" is relative to each person. Both the M2P and MA2 have their strengths and weaknesses. For photos, given the limited knowledge that we have so far (and comparing images on youtube doesn't really count) I'd give the edge to the M2P because like mentioned before, sensor size makes a huge difference in image quality. Can you get a high quality image from the MA2, of course you can, given the right conditions. However I believe the larger sensor gives you more flexibility in getting a good clean picture.

Video wise, unless you need 4K60 or 1080/120/240 then again, quality wise I'd give the edge to the M2P, because of 10-bit mode. However, shooting 4k in 10-bit requires quite a bit of processing power for post production to get that quality. So again, for flexibility, M2P wins, however, for convenience and speed to get a nice video up without too much work, I'd say the MA2 is better.

As a hobbyist photographer for almost 20 years (and owner of a M2P), there are a lot of factors that go beyond specs. What are you doing with your photos/videos? Social media? Billboard? TV ad? For most people, getting a good enough image with minimal post process is what you're looking for. And the MA2 checks both of those boxes at a lower price.

So really, it just depends on your needs.

Note that there are number of full-resolution MA2 images that you can download from tests, so the comments so far are not all just from watching YT videos.

 

[Jiggleman]

Note that there are number of full-resolution MA2 images that you can download from tests, so the comments so far are not all just from watching YT videos.

I was just referring to the original YT video in the post.

Just curious if any of them are controlled tests comparing the 2 drones image quality?

 

[sar104]

Just curious if any of them are controlled tests comparing the 2 drones image quality?

Not that I've seen. But the quality of the MA2 DNGs was pretty apparent.

 

[Jiggleman]

Not that I've seen. But the quality of the MA2 DNGs was pretty apparent.

I don't disagree with you there. In the right condition, you can get an amazing picture out of small sensors. Cell phones have proven that already (even without all the computational stuff). For me, my full frame Sony camera can get me shots that I can never capture on my iPhone. However in certain conditions, I cannot tell the difference between the two. Its just about flexibility. A larger sensor typically gives me more flexibility.

I'm not knocking the MA2. If I didn't already own the M2P, I would have pre-ordered the MA2, as its good enough for me at the right price.

 

[sar104]

I don't disagree with you there. In the right condition, you can get an amazing picture out of small sensors. Cell phones have proven that already (even without all the computational stuff). For me, my full frame Sony camera can get me shots that I can never capture on my iPhone. However in certain conditions, I cannot tell the difference between the two. Its just about flexibility. A larger sensor typically gives me more flexibility.

I'm not knocking the MA2. If I didn't already own the M2P, I would have pre-ordered the MA2, as its good enough for me at the right price.

Just to be clear - when I said the "quality of the MA2 DNGs was pretty apparent", I meant the lack of quality. They were noisy and soft, but did process down to a reasonable 12 MP image though.

 

[Hiflyer808]

Right - but the observation that the M2P camera is significantly better is based on comparing full images from both cameras, not whether cropping the 48 MP images can produce useful results, which clearly it can.

The observation I was referring to was that the m2p was a far better "drone" for photographers, not that the camera itself was better. The camera itself is of course substantially better with the iris controls and the sensor size giving you better dr and light sensitivity. But the 48mp option on the A2 does give a photographer more flexibility with composition and enlargement size (when using raw files and with good lighting conditions), so, the m2p is better but not "far" better for photographers.

 

[sar104]

The observation I was referring to was that the m2p was a far better "drone" for photographers, not that the camera itself was better. The camera itself is of course substantially better with the iris controls and the sensor size giving you better dr and light sensitivity. But the 48mp option on the A2 does give a photographer more flexibility with composition and enlargement size (when using raw files and with good lighting conditions), so, the m2p is better but not "far" better for photographers.

I completely agree with that assessment - I was only referring to the camera. Overall the MA2 looks like it will be an excellent model for many users.

 

[Happyonmyhill]

I just don’t see the debate here... they are 2 drones from the same manufacturer. DJI didn’t just release a drone that is better than the one that is 2x as much $. Like yes, on paper, 4k60 and 48mp photos look great, but the 1 inch sensor is still going to give the a2 a run for its money on those specs. They are 2 totally different drones aimed at 2 different markets, that sometimes may overlap but still have seperate followings.

Now I am a huge fan of the a2, I just sold off my M1P to upgrade to it. I see it as a prime fulfillment of my needs. As a recreational pilot mainly but doing the occasional commercial gig, I feel like it has just the right mix of consumer and prosumer grade features.


Everyone on here has different circumstances and opinions an uses, so I can’t say that there is a real winner here. All i have observed is that the MA2 is a heck of a drone for 800 bucks.

Couldn’t agree more. Clearly you get more if you’re willing to pay for features you need. I own a Sony A7lll ($2k body) I don’t need the AR ($3,500 body). Essentially you get faster FPS and a few extra goodies but since I don’t shoot pro sports I don’t NEED super high FPS. I’m happy w/5 FPS on my A7. It just boils down to how much you are willing to pay for the extra features. Honestly I’m pretty happy with the image quality of my Mini! I bot the MA2 for the better range and weight for wind and I’m sure the pic/vid will be better too.

 

[waynesi]

From source (Chinese)
Photo 1 - Mavic Air 1 (left) vs Mavic Air 2 (right)
Photo 2 - Mavic 2 Pro (left) vs Mavic Air 2 (right)

 

[Ron Caballero CAP]

As a former instructor of digital cameras as the Junior College level, I previously wrote a response on this topic. One thing I neglected to mention, about high MP, applies when you want to crop down to a small image far away. In that case, after the crop, the number of pixels in the cropped image will be much lower than in the original.

Attached, again, is the document I attached previously. There are three more attachments of value. Of greater importance than the number of MP is the sensor size. As I wrote previously, the larger sensor has more room for any number of pixels thus creating a better image. One of the attachments describes that.

Anyone who would like more information, please feel free to contact me. Also, I have a twelve part class, for general photography, that I condensed into three, with many handouts, in case anyone/school is interested.

 

[Ron Caballero CAP]

P.S. Take a close look at the photos above. IT IS OBVIOUS that the "1200" (lower pixels) photo IS MUCH BETTER than any of the others, particularly the "4800."

QED

 

[swooshdave]

P.S. Take a close look at the photos above. IT IS OBVIOUS that the "1200" (lower pixels) photo IS MUCH BETTER than any of the others, particularly the "4800."

QED

Are you sure about that? There's a ton of noise in the mids. Especially along the top of the wall and the top of the embankment.

 

[Ron Caballero CAP]

What I see are 1) the greater detail in the patterned wall and circular forms at the base and 2) a blurring of the concrete on the deck, not unlike the blurring of a waterfall.

 

[swooshdave]

What I see are 1) the greater detail in the patterned wall and circular forms at the base and 2) a blurring of the concrete on the deck, not unlike the blurring of a waterfall.

I think you are mistaking 1) detail for noise and 2) blurring for detail.



(600%) There is color banding in the concrete, concert does not have color banding (I can make out some reds and greens). These are noise artifacts.



Concrete is typically uniform in color.

I'll take the 4800 over the 1200 all day long. More detail and more color accurate.

Taking images from the web and analyzing them is not ideal, what you really want are the raw files. But these seem good enough for an internet discussion (polite argument).

 

[Ron Caballero CAP]

As you wish. I am just trying to share what learned and experienced. Upon further examination, I agree with you...there IS noise. One more question: In my experience, noise is more a function of ISO. 100 or 200 ISO should have little, if any, noise. Those photos do not appear to have been shot in bright daylight. What ISO was used?

 

[swooshdave]

As you wish. I am just trying to share what learned and experienced. Upon further examination, I agree with you...there IS noise. One more question: In my experience, noise is more a function of ISO. 100 or 200 ISO should have little, if any, noise. Those photos do not appear to have been shot in bright daylight. What ISO was used?

Unfortunately there is very little chance we’ll know more about the photos than what was presented.

For a while there was an issue with sensors of the same size with different resolutions in which the higher resolution sensors would not produce images that were as good as the smaller sensors.

I think that is changing now. People are learning how to take advantage of the higher density in different ways.

I saw one review that talked about the MA2 sensor being able to capture multiple HDR images in one capture(!). Basically adjoining pixels would capture different exposures. I need to go back and review this again. I might not have it understood correctly.