Advice for a novice drone operator looking for best stills image quality.

[Bussty]

Hi there

I don't yet own a drone but are looking at getting one. My sole driver is stills landscape photography. I currently use an Olympus EM-1 Mark 2 and some pretty sharp lenses and am really looking to get close to that quality but from the air.

I was really excited when I heard about the Mavic 2 Pro and was pretty much ready to fork out the New Zealand $2600+ as soon as it was announced.

However I waited and have now seen RAW files plus the massive amount of reviews on the Mavic 2 Pro and no longer very keen. I am worried if I buy this drone the quality difference compared with my Digital Camera will be too much and I will be disappointed.

One thing that has really grabbed my attention is the leak of the possible Phantom 5 and the photo of the interchangeable lenses. As you probably all know it's pretty hard to make a bad standard prime lens and my thinking is if the leak is real that we could be looking at a paradigmal change in image quality and sharpness if just only from a lens optical point of view.

I know we are just guessing but my real question to the drone community here is do you think my logic is valid or flawed?

Many thanks for your comments

Cheers

Andrew

 

[parkgt]

The form factor is still something that does not interest me at all. If i wanted a Phantom I would have one, it doesn't matter to me what the P5 has I won't own one.

 

[Meta4]

I currently use an Olympus EM-1 Mark 2 and some pretty sharp lenses and am really looking to get close to that quality but from the air.
However I waited and have now seen RAW files plus the massive amount of reviews on the Mavic 2 Pro and no longer very keen. I am worried if I buy this drone the quality difference compared with my Digital Camera will be too much and I will be disappointed.

Did you see this review? Drone diaries: the 2018 DJI Mavic 2 Pro review
It's a bit better than most.
Even if it's a little less of a camera, a drone will get to viewpoints that your Olympus can't.The Olympus might be good but it can't help you shoot like this:
Kuula | Share 360/VR photos and build virtual tours!

One thing that has really grabbed my attention is the leak of the possible Phantom 5 and the photo of the interchangeable lenses.

We first saw images of the possible Phantom 5 back in November last year.
It might arrive next week or perhaps it might never go on sale.
The M2 and P4 pro will take great photos already.

 

[noosaguy]

Hi there

I don't yet own a drone but are looking at getting one. My sole driver is stills landscape photography. I currently use an Olympus EM-1 Mark 2 and some pretty sharp lenses and am really looking to get close to that quality but from the air.

I was really excited when I heard about the Mavic 2 Pro and was pretty much ready to fork out the New Zealand $2600+ as soon as it was announced.

However I waited and have now seen RAW files plus the massive amount of reviews on the Mavic 2 Pro and no longer very keen. I am worried if I buy this drone the quality difference compared with my Digital Camera will be too much and I will be disappointed.

One thing that has really grabbed my attention is the leak of the possible Phantom 5 and the photo of the interchangeable lenses. As you probably all know it's pretty hard to make a bad standard prime lens and my thinking is if the leak is real that we could be looking at a paradigmal change in image quality and sharpness if just only from a lens optical point of view.

I know we are just guessing but my real question to the drone community here is do you think my logic is valid or flawed?

Many thanks for your comments

Cheers

Andrew

Hi Andrew, you might say I have many, many years experience in photography. I was a press photographer in my 30's and in my 40's opened and operated a large commercial photography studio for more than two decades. I'm currently vice president and competition secretary of our regions camera club and have won many national photography awards. (I'm not trying to impress you I'm simply letting you know that my opinions and observations come from many years of experience). My current equipment consists of a Canon EOS 5D III, Canon EOS 80D, Canon Powershot G1X III and 8 or 9 'L' series lenses.

But here's my considered opinion on the mavic 2 pro. I've only had it for a week now and it's my first drone. I'm not particularly interested in video and this is the first drone to get my full attention. It is just so versatile (by versatile I mean convenience, portability and image quality). I can pack it up and easily carry it with my other camera gear whilst I'm travelling and the image quality is very, very good. If I resort to pixel peeping I can see minor compromises DJI have made but the only people that pixel peep are... well I guess they're pixel peepers. So far I'm extremely happy with the limited results I've achieved but I know when I get to know it better I'll achieve fabulous results. Perhaps the knockers are looking at standard JPEG's (I don't ever shoot JPEG), but properly processed in Lightroom and Photoshop, I know I'll be able to produce award winning images.

The image below isn't from my M2P it was taken a couple of months ago with my 80D out of a chartered helicopter. The point is though, the charter cost me $700 and I reckon I could have achieved that easily with the M2P for nothing.

 

[Bussty]

Hi Andrew, you might say I have many, many years experience in photography. I was a press photographer in my 30's and in my 40's opened and operated a large commercial photography studio for more than two decades. I'm currently vice president and competition secretary of our regions camera club and have won many national photography awards. (I'm not trying to impress you I'm simply letting you know that my opinions and observations come from many years of experience). My current equipment consists of a Canon EOS 5D III, Canon EOS 80D, Canon Powershot G1X III and 8 or 9 'L' series lenses.

But here's my considered opinion on the mavic 2 pro. I've only had it for a week now and it's my first drone. I'm not particularly interested in video and this is the first drone to get my full attention. It is just so versatile (by versatile I mean convenience, portability and image quality). I can pack it up and easily carry it with my other camera gear whilst I'm travelling and the image quality is very, very good. If I resort to pixel peeping I can see minor compromises DJI have made but the only people that pixel peep are... well I guess they're pixel peepers. So far I'm extremely happy with the limited results I've achieved but I know when I get to know it better I'll achieve fabulous results. Perhaps the knockers are looking at standard JPEG's (I don't ever shoot JPEG), but properly processed in Lightroom and Photoshop, I know I'll be able to produce award winning images.

The image below isn't from my M2P it was taken a couple of months ago with my 80D out of a chartered helicopter. The point is though, the charter cost me $700 and I reckon I could have achieved that easily with the M2P for nothing.
View attachment 47499

Thanks so much for your comments and that is a great shot by the way and exudes quality. I'm picking some post process off RAW and I certainly wouldn't expect that straight out of a M2P but say you had have taken it with a M2P and post processed from a RAW image, as a percentage if you like, how close would you come to replicating?

 

[noosaguy]

Exactly, or at least close enough 99% of viewers wouldn't notice. Where you would notice is in higher ISO images especially if dragging detail out of shadows. But a lot of that can be controlled in post processing too. The only thing I've notices at this stage (early on) is a slight softness in the corners occasionally. I haven't done enough work with it though to say precisely. Being a first drone, my first week has been spent on more mundane things like trying to keep it in the air.

 

[Bussty]

Thanks Meta4, yes I did come across that review early on and I think yes you are right as much as I want the Olympus to get up there and do the job at altitude it could be a long long time coming. So I might just have to make a small comprise in ultimate final quality but gain a whole lot more in the viewpoint I can now make images.

 

[Bussty]

The form factor is still something that does not interest me at all. If i wanted a Phantom I would have one, it doesn't matter to me what the P5 has i won't own one.

Yes I must admit this single factor weighs heavy in the back of my mind. I could be hiking quite some ways to get the images I am imagining with a drone and the thought of lugging a P4 or mythical P5 certainly takes the fun out of it a little!

 

[Bussty]

Exactly, or at least close enough 99% of viewers wouldn't notice. Where you would notice is in higher ISO images especially if dragging detail out of shadows. But a lot of that can be controlled in post processing too. The only thing I've notices at this stage (early on) is a slight softness in the corners occasionally. I haven't done enough work with it though to say precisely. Being a first drone, my first week has been spent on more mundane things like trying to keep it in the air.

Lol yes this is an intrepidation I have too

 

[Johnnynxn]

Hey Nosa guy,
I too have 30 + yrs as a news photog/ editor and have my first drone and am trying to start a new business in CT.

 

[neggy]

OK , 99% of your commercial work is going to be real estate and such, that will be compressed to **** and put on a website. Very little of it is going to be large format prints.

I shoot in JPEG, since I don't have Photoshop or Lightroom. If I did I know I could do better with my MP.

I print 16 x 20 all the time, with no distortion or pixelation.

I have gone as large as 24 x 36 and it was a **** good print if I say so myself.

This was not the best picture I took on this flight, I have close ups where you can see the grain in the wood.

This was printed 24 x 36 and is hanging in the church office.

If you would like the original picture in JPEG so you can print it and see what the Mavic is capable of I'd be happy to email it to you so you can play with it..

 

[SteveCA]

I have been a lifelong landscape photographer and owner of some of the finest still cameras and optics in addition to several drones including the Mavic 2 pro. I’ve had the new mavic for three weeks now and have tested it in low light, and high dynamic range scenes. The camera cannot be compared to my full frame nikons with stellar optics but it can get shots that the nikons can’t. The dynamic range is pretty good but not 14 stops like my nikons. The sharpness is good enough for just about any type of aerial landscape photography, edges included. The ability to pull out shadows is surprisingly good but not as good as the best full frame sensors. Is it good enough? Yes it is. Will you be able to blow it up to really large print sizes? no you won’t as it is only 20 megapixels. I haven’t had optimal lighting to test it in yet but here are a few tests I’ve done so far.

 

[jwischka]

Dynamic range will be objectively worse than your M43 gear, to say nothing of comparing it to a newer full frame (D850, A7Rm3). I've not done a super in-depth analysis, but my guess is the Mavic has about 2-3 stops less dynamic range than the OM-D E-M1 / GH4 generation of M43 gear, based on a quick test yesterday.

The files coming off the sensor have a 16-bit output, but I'm fairly certain we're dealing with a 12-ish-bit signal path that's highly biased (black level appears to be 4,096). After accounting for the black level, you've got two bits (2 and 3) totally unused, and only minor activity in bits 0 and 1. I'll probably try to do some more analysis over the next few weeks, but that's my initial read.

From a more subjective "looking at the pictures" perspective, when looking at "the same" scene quickly captured with the M2P, a GH4 and a D850, it's clear that the Mavic is the worst performer of the three. Obviously the D850 was going to win that contest, but I expected the M2P to put up a better showing compared to the GH4. The M2P has significantly more noise in the shadows, even though the GH4 image was pushed about 1.5 EV more. For reference, I've included a shot in the shadows for the MP2 (pushed 2.4EV), the GH4 (pushed 4.2EV) and D850 (pushed 3.3EV) below. All of these are using the base ISO for the sensor in question (100, 200, 64, respectively). Again, this was a (very) quick test, but it should give you some idea of the relative noise performance in the shadows. I may try to put together something more comprehensive in the coming weeks.

I've not had a chance to get the M2P out to do serious work, so it's hard for me to say how right now how it will fare in more challenging conditions, but my initial read is that it's not going to be as forgiving as a more modern (edit: larger) sensor in terms of exposure. That said, with proper ETTR technique, you can get some decent results. The image below is a stitch of 6 shots from a sunset that fizzled a bit on Friday night. My guess is that more complicated scenes will need AEB with some HDR processing on the back end to get similar DR to what is possible with a modern full-frame, but in theory you ought to be able to get 3 extra stops with DJI's 5-shot AEB (a 0.7EV bracket).

The bigger thing, of course, is that, as others have said, you can get the M2P places where it's just not possible to get a D850, at least without a private helicopter and a good bit of cash. Certainly the sensor performance is a little disappointing for those of us who have cameras that are much more capable, but the strength of the Mavic is where it can go, not its sensor.

 

[noosaguy]

Hey Nosa guy,
I too have 30 + yrs as a news photog/ editor and have my first drone and am trying to start a new business in CT.

I've been retired for 13 years now and just a keen amateur these days. The portability of the Mavic and the 1" sensor is what did it for me.
Good luck with your new business venture mate. Is it related to photography and drones in particular?

 

[noosaguy]

From a more subjective "looking at the pictures" perspective, when looking at "the same" scene quickly captured with the M2P, a GH4 and a D850, it's clear that the Mavic is the worst performer of the three. Obviously the D850 was going to win that contest, but I expected the M2P to put up a better showing compared to the GH4. The M2P has significantly more noise in the shadows, even though the GH4 image was pushed about 1.5 EV more. For reference, I've included a shot in the shadows for the MP2 (pushed 2.4EV), the GH4 (pushed 4.2EV) and D850 (pushed 3.3EV) below. All of these are using the base ISO for the sensor in question (100, 200, 64, respectively). Again, this was a (very) quick test, but it should give you some idea of the relative noise performance in the shadows. I may try to put together something more comprehensive in the coming weeks.

What on earth are you talking about? The M2P has a 1" Sony sensor and it will never perform like a full frame sensor. Try to get a Nikon D850 or Canon 5D Mk iV 500 feet in the air without a chopper or light plane though. The M2P isn't and (I'm sure) wasn't designed to be a professional drone, it's an amateur drone. If you're that into pixel peeping I suspect you shouldn't be using the M2P. Just saying...

 

[jwischka]

What on earth are you talking about? The M2P has a 1" Sony sensor and it will never perform like a full frame sensor. Try to get a Nikon D850 or Canon 5D Mk iV 500 feet in the air without a chopper or light plane though. The M2P isn't and (I'm sure) wasn't designed to be a professional drone, it's an amateur drone. If you're that into pixel peeping I suspect you shouldn't be using the M2P. Just saying...

Did you actually read my post? Specifically the last paragraph of it where I say you can't get a D850 the places where the M2P can go without a private helicopter and a lot of money?

More to the point, the OP is asking whether the M2P is "close to the quality" of an M43 camera, and I'm answering that question by showing a side-by-side comparison of a shot from an M2P, an M43 camera, and a modern full frame. In other words, I'm answering the question with actual data.

Yes, the M2P has a 1" Sony sensor, but my initial time with it suggest it's not Sony's best effort in this regard. I'll do a more detailed comparison between it and my RX100m3 later, but having processed more than a few of those files, I don't think the low light performance is quite as good.

 

[noosaguy]

Did you actually read my post? Specifically the last paragraph of it where I say you can't get a D850 the places where the M2P can go without a private helicopter and a lot of money?

More to the point, the OP is asking whether the M2P is "close to the quality" of an M43 camera, and I'm answering that question by showing a side-by-side comparison of a shot from an M2P, an M43 camera, and a modern full frame. In other words, I'm answering the question with actual data.

Yes, the M2P has a 1" Sony sensor, but my initial time with it suggest it's not Sony's best effort in this regard. I'll do a more detailed comparison between it and my RX100m3 later, but having processed more than a few of those files, I don't think the low light performance is quite as good.

I understand and I wasn't having a go at you at all. The thing is the OP must surely understand a 1" sensor isn't going to perform under all conditions as a full frame sensor. The question is... (IMO) what are the results like? Are they going to be acceptable to a photographer that demands quality? Yes, there will be compromises but for 99.9% of photographers the M2P will be more than good enough.

I believe the question has to be taken in context with the whole M2P package... NOT just to isolate how the sensor performs. If I was that deeply into pixel peeping I wouldn't have considered the Mavic and I'd spend the $500-$1000 each time I wanted an aerial shot to hire a helicopter. It's early days for me but I reckon I could produce an image on the Mavic 2 Pro just as good as the one I posted earlier of Uluru at dusk that took a $700 helicopter charter to produce.
Cheers.

 

[noosaguy]

Will you be able to blow it up to really large print sizes? no you won’t as it is only 20 megapixels. I haven’t had optimal lighting to test it in yet but here are a few tests I’ve done so far.

Hi Steve. I think you've overlooked the ability to stitch multiple images together to achieve large print sizes. I did a multiple image panorama the other day (as a test), and produced a superb panorama with 15,000 x 5,000 pixels. I could print that (if the subject had been worthwhile) as a huge image.

 

[jwischka]

I understand and I wasn't having a go at you at all. The thing is the OP must surely understand a 1" sensor isn't going to perform under all conditions as a full frame sensor. The question is... (IMO) what are the results like? Are they going to be acceptable to a photographer that demands quality? Yes, there will be compromises but for 99.9% of photographers the M2P will be more than good enough.

I believe the question has to be taken in context with the whole M2P package... NOT just to isolate how the sensor performs. If I was that deeply into pixel peeping I wouldn't have considered the Mavic and I'd spend the $500-$1000 each time I wanted an aerial shot to hire a helicopter. It's early days for me but I reckon I could produce an image on the Mavic 2 Pro just as good as the one I posted earlier of Uluru at dusk that took a $700 helicopter charter to produce.
Cheers.

I agree, and said as much in my first post.

I didn't get the Mavic because I thought it was better than my D850. I got it because I thought I could get it to places where I can't get my D850, and because I thought that, with a little digital work, I could get results that were good enough for my liking. I carry my RX100m3 in my car instead of my larger gear because it's small, expendable, and is capable of decent results - certainly better than my cell phone. The best camera is the one you have with you.

That said, having some actual quantifiable data on what the M2P can do may be useful, at least for some people. Lots of people in other forums are arguing about what the bit-depth of the sensor is. That's a pretty easy question to answer: it looks almost certain that it's 12-bits. Lots of people are asking about the low light performance and the shadow detail compared to other 1" sensors. Again, I see a lot of people arguing about it, but I don't see a lot of people taking an actual look at side-by-side results coming out of cameras in semi-controlled conditions.

How might this be helpful? Well, if it looks like the M2P has somewhere between 2-3 stops less DR than what I'm used to shooting, that means I might want to go for a 5 shot AEB bracket instead of just three. In fact, I might want to do a manual bracket with 5 shots at 1EV intervals instead of using the automated function to get that extra 1.5 stops of DR.

My intent isn't to pixel peep - my intent is to know as much about the camera on the M2P as I can so I can use it as effectively as possible. I know it's not going to be as good as what I'm used to shooting with. What I want to know is what the relative performance is going to be so I can compensate for that as best as possible.

And, if we're honest, I'm a professor of electrical engineering... I kind of can't help it.

Cheers.

 

[noosaguy]

I agree, and said as much in my first post.

I didn't get the Mavic because I thought it was better than my D850. I got it because I thought I could get it to places where I can't get my D850, and because I thought that, with a little digital work, I could get results that were good enough for my liking. I carry my RX100m3 in my car instead of my larger gear because it's small, expendable, and is capable of decent results - certainly better than my cell phone. The best camera is the one you have with you.

That said, having some actual quantifiable data on what the M2P can do may be useful, at least for some people. Lots of people in other forums are arguing about what the bit-depth of the sensor is. That's a pretty easy question to answer: it looks almost certain that it's 12-bits. Lots of people are asking about the low light performance and the shadow detail compared to other 1" sensors. Again, I see a lot of people arguing about it, but I don't see a lot of people taking an actual look at side-by-side results coming out of cameras in semi-controlled conditions.

How might this be helpful? Well, if it looks like the M2P has somewhere between 2-3 stops less DR than what I'm used to shooting, that means I might want to go for a 5 shot AEB bracket instead of just three. In fact, I might want to do a manual bracket with 5 shots at 1EV intervals instead of using the automated function to get that extra 1.5 stops of DR.

My intent isn't to pixel peep - my intent is to know as much about the camera on the M2P as I can so I can use it as effectively as possible. I know it's not going to be as good as what I'm used to shooting with. What I want to know is what the relative performance is going to be so I can compensate for that as best as possible.

And, if we're honest, I'm a professor of electrical engineering... I kind of can't help it.

Cheers.

Yeah, I reckon we're pretty much on the same page here. To be honest, I did some shots over where I live and all of them were 5 image AEB sequences. For anything at all important and demanding better DR I will use this every time. That's another bonus with the M2P, the gimbal is so steady, as one poster pointed out earlier, it's like being on a tripod. Like you, when I travel in future I will take the Powershot G1X III (24mm - 72mm eq. zoom). It has an APS-C sensor and handles pretty much as well as an DSLR. For shots from a different perspective or to get more reach, I'll take the M2P.