A2S and MA2 photo comparisons

[zentenk]

Do you have links to the originals? I looked in the dpreview sample galleries, and I didn't see any that were of the same subject.

These originals are from the poster abruzzopat in this thread. Just scroll up a little and you can see the links to the photos he uploaded to google drive.

 

[zentenk]

I agree, and if you look at the first photos you can see that in the flag, driveway, and trees. The driveway near the garage and the white portion of the flag in the MA2 photo is clipped whereas the A2S photo is not or is at least much better. The highlight in the trees also appears to be clipping the green channel in the MA2 photo. There is clearly more DR in the A2S photo.

For stills I would argue sharpness is more important than Dynamic Range. In the photos A2S never really catches up to the MA2 in sharpness until significant artifacts are introduced, this is using the Sharpness slider in Lightroom. And if you sharpen the MA2 just a little bit, the A2S is just way softer in terms of sharpness.

With stills you can take bracketed shots to compensate for the dynamic range, which I do for landscapes even on my sony full frame cameras which have something like 14 or 15 stops of DR. But sharpness, this isn't something you can really fix effectively in post. If a lens isn't sharp, it isn't sharp, you can't fix it later or take more shots to compensate for it.

This won't be a problem if you just upload to instagram but for prints or viewing in monitors, the A2S is really on the soft side it seems.

I'm not sure if I'm misinformed here or if the photos uploaded by abruzzopat are not good samples, but the conclusion I've got so far is that MA2 has a better camera for landscape photographers in good light despite a much smaller sensor. Everyone seems to be hyping up how much A2S is better but no one has discussed the fact the MA2 images are actually sharper and crisper.

In the DSLR and mirrorless market, when choosing a camera system (Canon, Sony, Nikon), the quality of the lenses available in the system is one of the biggest factors, which goes to show the importance of sharpness and quality lenses.

I wanted the A2S to be great for my needs (landscapes, cityscapes, etc.) but seems like they slapped a poop lens on that sensor... really quite disappointed.

 

[zentenk]

Just took some samples from Billy Kyle's new video that says how much better the A2S is compared to the MA2. The same samples can be downloaded from his video's description.

Pretty clear the MA2 is sharper... but on the video he keeps saying the A2S is "hands down better than the MA2". Not sure that's the case.

Granted, the 12MP version are worse than A2S, but the 48MP versions of the MA2 seems to be much better.

Left side is MA2 (24mm equiv. lens), right side is A2S (22.4mm equiv. lens).
Viewed in Lightroom
Sharpening set to 0 for both
MA2 200% crop, A2S 100% crop

 

[the-bunker]

You should watch this explanation from a well known pro photographer on the difference between detail & sharpness.

You don't always want your images to be super sharp, yet in the last few years we have been conditioned by manufacturers (particularly those making small sensors) to think that sharp is normal & anything less is bad.

Ultimately, it's up to you how you want your images to look & I'm not saying the A2S is better or worse than the MA2 - just different.
Personally, I hope DJI puts the MA2 sensor in a Mini 3 - that would make a good drone much better.
Since the Air size drone can now handle a 1in sensor, the only reason to buy an MA2 over the A2S is price, preference (or if you already have a MA2 then keep it & be happy) - imho of course.

 

[JustADude]

For stills I would argue sharpness is more important than Dynamic Range. In the photos A2S never really catches up to the MA2 in sharpness until significant artifacts are introduced, this is using the Sharpness slider in Lightroom. And if you sharpen the MA2 just a little bit, the A2S is just way softer in terms of sharpness.

Sharpness can easily be applied in post, but you can't recover blown highlights. You can reduce noise in shadows, but doing so will inevitably remove some detail. As a result, I'll take dynamic range all day.

You have to keep in mind that more pixels will give the perception of more sharpness. When you compare the samples from this thread on equal terms, the sharpness is closer than you think. Anyhow, I took the 2 DNG files from this thread and cropped them, and downsampled the MA2 file to match the same resolution as the A2S file. I did not adjust sharpness, contrast, etc. Adding a bit of contrast to the A2S file to match more closely with the MA2 file brings the sharpness level to essentially the same. I think you're chasing ghosts here.

 

[zentenk]

Sharpness can easily be applied in post, but you can't recover blown highlights. You can reduce noise in shadows, but doing so will inevitably remove some detail. As a result, I'll take dynamic range all day.

You have to keep in mind that more pixels will give the perception of more sharpness. When you compare the samples from this thread on equal terms, the sharpness is closer than you think. Anyhow, I took the 2 DNG files from this thread and cropped them, and downsampled the MA2 file to match the same resolution as the A2S file. I did not adjust sharpness, contrast, etc. Adding a bit of contrast to the A2S file to match more closely with the MA2 file brings the sharpness level to essentially the same. I think you're chasing ghosts here.

If you look/quote one paragraph further in my post, I already mentioned you can basically mitigate any issues relating to DR by taking bracketed shots. And when drones are in the air with such wide angle lenses on a 3-axis gimbal, it's as if you're shooting with a tripod all the time, which makes bracketing dead easy. But you can’t add too much sharpness without introducing artifacts, so I would definitely take sharpness over DR (for the use case of stills, not videos).

Adding contrast to the A2S file actually adds a little bit a sharpness. Sharpening is basically detecting edges and adding contrast to the edges, adding contrast to the overall image adds some contrast to the edges as well, essentially sharpening the image a bit. However, despite this, the down sampled MA2 still looks sharper than the A2S, especially around the bricks.

That said, my point is, for still images, the MA2 produces equal or marginally sharper images at a lower price. It also has more resolution for landscape photographers to work with, especially for larger prints. You can up sample the A2S images and I doubt you would get better results than the MA2.

Seems to me everyone has blindly bought into the 1 inch sensor marketing hype without actually comparing the images and not willing to entertain the possibility that the old one is better for some use cases, which in this case is landscape photography (I don't think there are landscape photographers out there who think sharper is not better).

Seems this is an unpopular opinion around these parts, but I'm just trying to find as much information as I can to make an informed decision on whether to get the A2S or MA2 for my specific use case.

 

[JustADude]

If you look/quote one paragraph further in my post, I already mentioned you can basically mitigate any issues relating to DR by taking bracketed shots. And when drones are in the air with such wide angle lenses on a 3-axis gimbal, it's as if you're shooting with a tripod all the time, which makes bracketing dead easy. But you can’t add too much sharpness without introducing artifacts, so I would definitely take sharpness over DR (for the use case of stills, not videos).

Adding contrast to the A2S file actually adds a little bit a sharpness. Sharpening is basically detecting edges and adding contrast to the edges, adding contrast to the overall image adds some contrast to the edges as well, essentially sharpening the image a bit. However, despite this, the down sampled MA2 still looks sharper than the A2S, especially around the bricks.

That said, my point is, for still images, the MA2 produces equal or marginally sharper images at a lower price. It also has more resolution for landscape photographers to work with, especially for larger prints. You can up sample the A2S images and I doubt you would get better results than the MA2.

Seems to me everyone has blindly bought into the 1 inch sensor marketing hype without actually comparing the images and not willing to entertain the possibility that the old one is better for some use cases, which in this case is landscape photography (I don't think there are landscape photographers out there who think sharper is not better).

Seems this is an unpopular opinion around these parts, but I'm just trying to find as much information as I can to make an informed decision on whether to get the A2S or MA2 for my specific use case.

The cost argument is the only argument that makes any sense to me. I just don't see any difference in completely processed images from both cameras except with shadows and highlights. I would need to see additional detail/resolution in the MA2 shots for that not to be true, and I just don't. I am not getting artifacts or excessive halos from the A2S shots to get an equally sharp image. A simple contrast adjustment makes them equal in sharpness when working with the same resolution images before adding any additional sharpness. The detail is exactly the same. I didn't try upsampling the A2S image to that of the MA2 image, but I have a hard time believing DJI's algorithm for producing a 48mp image can't be matched. Faking higher resolution images through software is something that's been done with photography ever since the beginning of digital images. As far as I am concerned, it really comes down to whether the simpler workflow of the A2S is worth the extra $200 for a photo-only user.

I did no such thing. I bought an MA2 and used it for 2 weeks prior to returning it for the A2S. As I said above, I don't find the MA2 images to be superior to the A2S and actually found the opposite to be true. My needs are different though. I bought the A2S primarily for video where lost shadow and highlight detail can't be obtained by bracketing a couple of images. I think it's offensive to assume that everyone is blindly making purchases and you are the only one to make an informed opinion.

I don't think there is anything unpopular at all about trying to collect information to make an informed decision. In fact, I thought all I was doing was just providing information to you and others on your comparison. I didn't see your original comparison as valid and took the time to address a few things I thought were important enough to call out for the benefit of everyone. If it didn't come across that way then I apologize.

 

[JustADude]

Adding contrast to the A2S file actually adds a little bit a sharpness. Sharpening is basically detecting edges and adding contrast to the edges, adding contrast to the overall image adds some contrast to the edges as well, essentially sharpening the image a bit. However, despite this, the down sampled MA2 still looks sharper than the A2S, especially around the bricks.

That said, my point is, for still images, the MA2 produces equal or marginally sharper images at a lower price. It also has more resolution for landscape photographers to work with, especially for larger prints. You can up sample the A2S images and I doubt you would get better results than the MA2.

Which side is the A2S and which is the MA2? Both images are the exact same crops, same resolution (1 resized to match the other), both were given an s-curve adjustment, same sharpness applied to each, and slight color adjustments were made to provide a similar output.

To my eye, both are adequately sharp especially when viewing the final JPGs. To pick either based on that alone is fool's gold.