Air2S vs M3 night photos

[jonatious]

Sad to see that the improvement is minimal. Was expecting to see much better differences between the two

 

[BSauce955]

Sad to see that the improvement is minimal. Was expecting to see much better differences between the two

To be honest, I didn't expect much difference except for price.

 

[CanadaDrone]

The only way to properly compare the still image quality of the two is to examine the full RAW files with identical framing in a controlled environment on a PC or similar. Looking at a low-res YouTube video with different framing doesn't tell us much.

This isn't a perfect comparison but it should provide a much better idea than that YT video, and is a proper controlled test.

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com

ISO performance should be about a stop better, which is significant. You are doubling the sensor area without increasing resolution, so light gathering ability improves.

 

[BSauce955]

The only way to properly compare the still image quality of the two is to examine the full RAW files with identical framing in a controlled environment on a PC or similar. Looking at a low-res YouTube video with different framing doesn't tell us much.

In my opinion, who cares about what's on paper. The clients aren't going to ask for the raw files and examine whether the guy with the Mavic 3's footage is better than yours on the Air 2S. It should have naturally visible advantages, otherwise, you might as well buy an Air 2S for $1,000 less.

 

[CanadaDrone]

In my opinion, who cares about what's on paper. The clients aren't going to ask for the raw files and examine whether the guy with the Mavic 3's footage is better than yours on the Air 2S. It should have naturally visible advantages, otherwise, you might as well buy an Air 2S for $1,000 less.

Nothing is 'on paper', you can look at RAW files from the sensors in question in controlled environments, just in different cameras, hence why I said it isn't perfect, but it's a far better way to compare than looking at low-resolution YT compressed footage which doesn't even have the same framing.

 

[BSauce955]

Nothing is 'on paper', you can look at RAW files from the sensors in question in controlled environments, just in different cameras, hence why I said it isn't perfect, but it's a far better way to compare than looking at low-resolution YT compressed footage which doesn't even have the same framing.

And after examining them together, you'll make the decision of whether or not to spend extra for the Mavic 3? That makes no sense, if the only way you can tell the difference is by "looking at RAW files from the sensors in question in controlled environments" then there's no sense in paying the extra for that. No client is going to examine your footage in this "controlled environment".

 

[CanadaDrone]

And after examining them together, you'll make the decision of whether or not to spend extra for the Mavic 3? That makes no sense, if the only way you can tell the difference is by "looking at RAW files from the sensors in question in controlled environments" then there's no sense in paying the extra for that. No client is going to examine your footage in this "controlled environment".

I didn't say that was the only way to tell a difference, I am saying that is the only way to do a worthwhile comparison if your goal is to compare the two. A smartphone photo and a $50,000 Hasselblad photo look about the same at web size (which is likely how the end result would be consumed anyway), but do you think clients would be OK with you showing up for the job with an iPhone? Probably not.

The performance differences between a 1" and 4/3 sensor are well known as they have been in regular cameras for many years now. Unless DJI has done something dramatically different with their processing, which it doesn't appear they have, that isn't going to change.

The biggest difference, for those coming from M2P, is probably going to be that it appears they are using oversampled 5.1K to get their 4K video instead of subsampled 4K. The D-Log profile is also much more flat. Those are the improvements that I am most looking forward to.

 

[BSauce955]

I didn't say that was the only way to tell a difference, I am saying that is the only way to do a worthwhile comparison if your goal is to compare the two. A smartphone photo and a $50,000 Hasselblad photo look about the same at web size (which is likely how the end result would be consumed anyway), but do you think clients would be OK with you showing up for the job with an iPhone? Probably not.

Why'd the example have to be an iPhone? Most people wouldn't show up with an iPhone, more likely a camera such as a 70D, which, while not great, looks more professional than an iPhone. Secondly, most people who don't know about drones, wouldn't be able to tell much of a difference when looking at them. To them, they're both just drones. So, not the best example in my humble opinion.

The performance differences between a 1" and 4/3 sensor are well known as they have been in regular cameras for many years now. Unless DJI has done something dramatically different with their processing, which it doesn't appear they have, that isn't going to change.

Who cares about the performance or whatever when you can't tell the difference unless you zoom in or examine it in "controlled environments".

The biggest difference, for those coming from M2P, is probably going to be that it appears they are using oversampled 5.1K to get their 4K video instead of subsampled 4K. The D-Log profile is also much more flat. Those are the improvements that I am most looking forward to.

We're examining the Mavic 3 and Air 2S. From what I've seen, they're pretty similar.

 

[BigAl07]

And after examining them together, you'll make the decision of whether or not to spend extra for the Mavic 3? That makes no sense, if the only way you can tell the difference is by "looking at RAW files from the sensors in question in controlled environments" then there's no sense in paying the extra for that. No client is going to examine your footage in this "controlled environment".

You're missing the point.... with YT and all the compression any differences are going to be gone! Viewing the RAW data is going to show the difference in the equipment.

You could make a video demonstrating the differences but running it through YT is going to make them appear much more similar than they really are.

 

[BSauce955]

You're missing the point.... with YT and all the compression any differences are going to be gone! Viewing the RAW data is going to show the difference in the equipment.

You could make a video demonstrating the differences but running it through YT is going to make them appear much more similar than they really are.

Ahhh, ok, that makes more sense. From what I understood of what he said, you could only tell the differences in controlled environments and side by side. It sounded like the differences are so minute and barely detectable. That's just what I drew from what he said. Might've been wrong.

 

[SkywalkerFeng]

In my opinion, who cares about what's on paper. The clients aren't going to ask for the raw files and examine whether the guy with the Mavic 3's footage is better than yours on the Air 2S. It should have naturally visible advantages, otherwise, you might as well buy an Air 2S for $1,000 less.

You are making these statements, only because you don't understand the image quality difference between 1" inch and 4/3 sensor. When shooting images in low light conditions (dawn/dusk/night), the 4/3 sensor should give you at least one stop advantage, when it comes to high ISO performance. Clients may not understand what is RAW, but they certainly appreciate an image with less noise and better detail in both highlight and shadow area.

The following comparison shows the image quality difference between Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II (4/3 sensor) and Sony DSC-RX100 V (1" inch sensor), in low light condition. The difference is certainly "naturally visible".

 

[BSauce955]

You are making these statements, only because you don't understand the image quality difference between 1" inch and 4/3 sensor, especially in high ISO performance. A client may not understand what is RAW, but they certainly appreciate a low-light image with less noise and better detail in both highlight and shadow area.

The following comparison shows the image quality difference between Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II (4/3 sensor) and Sony DSC-RX100 V (1" inch sensor), in low light condition. The difference is certainly "naturally visible".

View attachment 137998

Why'd you have to zoom though to tell the difference? I personally don't zoom in when examining people's pictures.

 

[CanadaDrone]

Why'd the example have to be an iPhone? Most people wouldn't show up with an iPhone, more likely a camera such as a 70D, which, while not great, looks more professional than an iPhone. Secondly, most people who don't know about drones, wouldn't be able to tell much of a difference when looking at them. To them, they're both just drones. So, not the best example in my humble opinion.

To illustrate my point, but clients expect professional photographers/videographers to be using the right tools for the job. That extends well beyond taking the photo and into the post processing side of things as well. For example, if I need to recover an image that I do not have the ability to re-shoot, the extra information that isn't noticeable at first glance can easily be the difference between a salvageable photo and no photo at all. Or if a client contacts me 2 months later and now wants something that wasn't part of the original scope of the job (for example an enlargement), it will be a good thing I used the right equipment for the job or I won't be able to deliver on that request.

Who cares about the performance or whatever when you can't tell the difference unless you zoom in or examine it in "controlled environments".

Again, not what I said. The performance difference is there and it's noticeable, but looking at a poorly done YT comparison at low resolution with highly compressed footage doesn't tell us anything. That is like looking at web-sized JPEGs to evaluate image quality between two different cameras and you would never do that. Would you say that a Civic is as fast as a Ferrari because they can both get you to the grocery store? No. You would test them in a proper environment. But, if all you ever need it to do is get you to the grocery store, then most would agree it would be silly to buy the Ferrari. I hope that analogy makes sense. The people who think the M3 is a tiny improvement or don't understand why it costs so much are probably not the people who are going to make use of it's additional capabilities - something like the Air 2S is ready & waiting for them and it's an excellent value.

You keep mentioning having to zoom in to tell the difference - that suggests you only look at web-sized images, don't make prints, don't need a great deal of processing leeway, and only view the results on small displays. If that is the case, why even bother with an Air 2S? Sounds like you could save even more money.

 

[BSauce955]

To illustrate my point, but clients expect professional photographers/videographers to be using the right tools for the job. That extends well beyond taking the photo and into the post processing side of things as well. For example, if I need to recover an image that I do not have the ability to re-shoot, the extra information that isn't noticeable at first glance can easily be the difference between a salvageable photo and no photo at all.



Again, not what I said. The performance difference is there and it's noticeable, but looking at a poorly done YT comparison at low resolution with highly compressed footage doesn't tell us anything. That is like looking at web-sized JPEGs to evaluate image quality between two different cameras and you would never do that. Would you say that a Civic is as fast as a Ferrari because they can both get you to the grocery store? No. You would test them in a proper environment. But, if all you ever need it to do is get you to the grocery store, then most would agree it would be silly to buy the Ferrari. I hope that analogy makes sense. The people who think the M3 is a tiny improvement or don't understand why it costs so much are probably not the people who are going to make use of it's additional capabilities - something like the Air 2S is ready & waiting for them and it's an excellent value.

You keep mentioning having to zoom in to tell the difference - that suggests you only look at web-sized images, don't make prints, don't need a great deal of processing leeway, and only view the results on small displays. If that is the case, why even bother with an Air 2S? Sounds like you could save even more money.

My main point is asking, is the Civic more practical than the Ferrari? Is the extra speed worth it? Personally, between the Mavic 3 and Air 2S, I'm not so sure.

 

[SkywalkerFeng]

Why'd you have to zoom though to tell the difference? I personally don't zoom in when examining people's pictures.

If you are a hobbyist who just want to share aerial photos with friends or on social media, then there really is no need to burn extra cash on M3, because it is an overkill for personal usage.

M3 is targeted for professionals who demand high image quality, especially in more challenging light conditions (dawn/dusk/night etc). When you start selling your images, the quality matters a lot. Your client may print the image in very large format, the quality of every pixel matters in in case.

I am a professional who sell thousands of image licenses each year, the improvements on M3 clearly justify its extra cost.

 

[CanadaDrone]

My main point is asking, is the Civic more practical than the Ferrari? Is the extra speed worth it? Personally, between the Mavic 3 and Air 2S, I'm not so sure.

Then you probably aren't the target market, simple as that. There is nothing wrong with that whatsoever. If the Air 2S does everything you need it to then it doesn't make much sense to upgrade. That's why DJI offers so much choice in their lineup.

The people who are excited about what the M3 offers because it will open new doors for them or will allow them to do things they could not do previously are the ones who should upgrade. If you are left wondering what the M3 does that your current drone doesn't already do, save your money.

I've been shooting professionally for around 2 decades now and every time I have upgraded my equipment it has resulted in either a marked improvement in quality, or allowed me to do things I could not previously. In both cases it's very much worth it (to me anyway).

 

[BSauce955]

If you are a hobbyist who just want to share aerial photos with friends or on social media, then there really is no need to burn extra cash on M3, because it is an overkill for personal usage.

M3 is targeted for professionals who demand high image quality, especially in more challenging light conditions (dawn/dusk/night etc). When you start selling your images, the quality matters a lot. Your client may print the image in very large format, the quality of every pixel matters in in case.

I am a professional who sell thousands of image licenses each year, the improvements on M3 clearly justify its extra cost.

So you think that Mavic 3 is worth the extra $1,800?

 

[Macinfo]

Why'd you have to zoom though to tell the difference? I personally don't zoom in when examining people's pictures.

I am not sure that sample image is zoomed, it maybe, however I think all that does is exaggerate to some degree the "obvious" differences that would still be clearly noticeable.

There are other issues that have been touched on here, every YouTuber post processes/edits their video, after watching several Mavic 3 videos, there is a clear difference in quality from one channel to another with supposedly Mavic 3 video output and while some mention its 5.1K, that still gets down-rezzed to 4K in their processing, and then YT mangles it the rest of the way...

Now if someone could post native images and video that you could download and view, based on the possibly limitations of your gear, you could get a better idea of the overall difference in quality from an Air2S and the Mavic 3.

 

[SkywalkerFeng]

So you think that Mavic 3 is worth the extra $1,800?

I purchased M2P in 2018 for $1499. I just spent another $2199 on M3. I am a professional photographer who only shoot stills, there is not need to purchase the Cine version. So the price difference is $700, not $1800.

Besides the image quality improvement of that 4/3 sensor, there are other improvements which benefit my professional work:

1) The 50% increased flight time (46 min vs. 31 min) gives me more freedom to scout the terrain, compose and shoot, especially during sunrise/sunset. The sky still looks fantastic, even 20 minutes after sun goes down the horizon. There have been multiple occasions I missed a golden opportunity, because the battery ran out, and I have to land the drone, change the battery, and fly back to the same spot to continue the shooting.

2) The extra wind resistance of M3 means more stable shoot in windy condition. It also helps long exposure during night shoot.

3) The 7x telephone camera. If you are creative, you can still come back with some interesting and unique images.

4) The 15.5mm add-on wide angle lens. Personally I think this accessary is a killer feature for photographers, since it opens a whole new door to more dramatic aerial images.

 

[BSauce955]

I purchased M2P in 2018 for $1499. I just spent another $2199 on M3. I am a professional photographer who only shoot stills, there is not need to purchase the Cine version. So the price difference is $700, not $1800.

Besides the image quality improvement of that 4/3 sensor, there are other improvements which benefit my professional work:

1) The 50% increased flight time (46 min vs. 31 min) gives me more freedom to scout the terrain, compose and shoot, especially during sunrise/sunset. The sky still looks fantastic, even 20 minutes after sun goes down the horizon. There have been multiple occasions I missed a golden opportunity, because the battery ran out, and I have to land the drone, change the battery, and fly back to the same spot to continue the shooting.

2) The extra wind resistance of M3 means more stable shoot in windy condition. It also helps long exposure during night shoot.

3) The 7x telephone camera. If you are creative, you can still come back with some interesting and unique images.

4) The 15.5mm add-on wide angle lens. Personally I think this accessary is a killer feature for photographers, since it opens a whole new door to more dramatic aerial images.

I don't see the practicality in having only one battery which is why I'd have purchased the fly-more-combo.