I fly my mavic 3 to these 250 foot tall hotels, around 2,000 feet from my house, in a urban area. I'm in a urban area but not dense hi rises. I'm in explorer mode. I get down to 2 bars or less of signal. I still have good video, and no problem moving, up, down, left, right etc. But many time when I try to zoom in, the remote vibrates and it won't zoom. Also sometimes it won't start/stop recording or change video modes. But the fact that it won't zoom really bothers me. Anybody else experience this, and have any idea why? Thanks.
Annoying thing with Mavic 3
- Thread starter shb
- Start date
It's worth bearing in mind the fact that the radio signals between your remote console and the drone are in the same frequency bands as Bluetooth and WiFi signals. Our signal strength is regulated by the FCC since they are in shared wavelength bands. While you may not always experience severe signal degradation you can get a lot of radio interference in urban areas.
Not sure how that relates to your zoom issue however.
Not sure how that relates to your zoom issue however.
Mine does the same thing. Usually when down to one bar. Sometime two bars. I remember reading somewhere that the video and basic control is prioritized with the limited bandwidth in that situation.
As already said , once your connection between AirCraft and RC is less than 100 %, you can expect loss of function at some point. Whether this affects the zoomfunction or any other command that you need is not really predictable, I guess. Range in urban areas is less than optimal. Not much you can do about it.
If you are getting video, and can control the drone, you should be able to zoom and stop/start recording.
Yeah I think all Dji drones do that. Zooming becomes unusable when the rc signal is low.
Same with yaw, and pano creation. It becomes nonresponsive and then catches up, or simply refuses to respond, or cancels the pano creation. Better than nothing, but still frustrating, especially when you are trying to regain control to complete your mission.
Yes, I've experienced this many times. Frequently the zoom/telephoto is the first thing to lose the ability to do.
Don't get stuck in the 7x telephoto, or even the digital 3x, when you lose control over the zoom. It will be very difficult to properly orient yourself with tunnel vision!
AnzacJack
Australian Defence Veteran
Most hotels around here have rooftop pools, so I'm looking for girls. If I find a good one, I'm really pissed if I can't zoom in. They're pretty friendly. They usally wave to me.I am smiling at the fact you are flying up to 250ft hotels and trying to use zoom
AnzacJack
Australian Defence Veteran
jephoto
Well-Known Member
Hope for your sake you’re kidding on this one…
And the rest of us. All we need is a bunch of reports of people being spied on in bathing suits.
Up until now we could always say “it’s a wide angle lens, no way we were spying on people…” but now with the tele/ zoom cameras the outcry for privacy is going to jump.
Are you serious? If so, you need to know that you're doing something totally inappropriate and quite possibly illegal and fundamentally wrong no matter what the laws where you live.
Many members of the general public associate drones with voyeurism and violation of privacy. Conduct like what you're describing is the reason. Your statement is another case of providing the anti-drone crowd with tangible evidence that drones are a problem.
For purposes of clarity, open hotel rooftop pools are public, with no expectation of privacy, and observing women sunbathing at such pools in a bathing suit is no different than at any public beach. It is not voyeurism, which is "the practice of gaining sexual pleasure from watching others when they are naked or engaged in sexual activity" nor is it an invasion of their privacy, because they are in public.
Whether he was serious or not, let's not deliberately mischaracterize the activity.
You may not like it, and the public may not like it, but any helicopter flying overhead can see the exact same thing, including Google Earth! Further, If they are, in fact, waving, then they are enjoying being appreciated and want to be seen!
That ship has already sailed. It's now reality, and not just paranoia with a 7x telephoto camera on a consumer drone. Drones can be used for good and for evil and everything in between, just like other cameras and weapons. Same with cars and planes. We don't ban them all of them just because we don't like how they can be used. We prohibit the specific illegal activity, for which laws already exist.
Last edited:
Almost all the hotels I'm familiar with are privately owned facilities.
There is always a reasonable expectation of privacy. Some jurisdictions have already specifically addressed drones violating expectations of privacy in their laws. One example is Florida. See Criminal Code Section 934.50: "Drones may not be used for surveillance in violation of another party's reasonable expectation of privacy"
You've chosen a rather restrictive definition of voyeurism. One might also choose "the activity of getting pleasure from secretly watching other people in sexual situations or, more generally, from watching other people's private lives."
The fact that some of the "good ones" he observed waved does not mean that all of the people there provided approval or consent.
"any helicopter flying overhead can see the exact same thing, including Google Earth!" If you're able to see as much detail with Google Earth in real time as I can with my Mavic 3, you're using a very different version than I am. Would you share a link?
Without straying too far into dictionaries and criminal codes, I think you'll find that the majority of people would disagree that it is acceptable to single out a particular woman at a pool, beach, or any other setting and observe and photograph her without her permission, whether it's done with a drone or a handheld camera.
Flying nearly a half-mile and hovering over a 25-storey hotel pool hunting for "good ones" is something that I would not consider doing and I strongly discourage other drone pilots from doing it. I understand that you and the OP may find it acceptable.
Privately owned does not mean that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy on a common area open rooftop pool, open to anyone staying at the hotel and their guests. There is nothing private about the open hotel pool rooftop with helicopters and other taller hotel roof top pools and hotel rooms of adjoining taller buildings all overlooking it. It's a public hotel pool on an open roof top. The airspace above it is also public.
There is not always a reasonable expectation of privacy. There is none in this case. It has to be a reasonable expectation, and there is none at a public hotel pool open to all hotel guests and the visiting public.
Choose any definition you want of voyeurism. This does not qualify for all the reasons specified above.
Google Earth is infamous for having captured even nude sunbathers on rooftops. While they blur any such reported images, they also do so for all faces in public as well.
Sunbathing on any open hotel rooftop poolside does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, any more than at a public beach. The subjects are not nude sunbathing. They are all wearing bathing suits. They are not engaged in sexual activity. There is nothing private about sunbathing openly, and their activity does not suggest they have even an unreasonable expectation of privacy. They are openly waving at the drone, if he was being serious. If so, they are welcoming the attention.
The sunbathers need not approve or consent to being photographed by anyone who chooses to do so, any more than a person in public being photographed. Photographers do not need a person's permission to photograph them in public. It is polite and good form to ask, but never required.
The morality of street photography can be debated, but it is still legal. This is no different. I am merely pointing out that it is not illegal, and is not voyeurism by any definition, whether you approve of it or not.
I am not taking a position on its morality, only its legality.
It still has not even been established whether the OP was kidding or serious. I suspect the former, so this is a purely academic discussion! If you want to delve into it deeper, here is a link that covers most of the issues.
Photography and the law - Wikipedia
Last edited:
I'm in the Philippines, and as far as I know it's not illegal here. I also don't consider it inappropriate. Some guys here go around, and video girls they don't know, and put it on YouTube. Why else do you think DJI put a zoom lens on the mavic 3? I only wish it was 20x or more. Actually, everyone here that see's my drone, waves to me.
Last edited:
Privately owned does not mean that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy on a common area open rooftop pool, open to anyone staying at the hotel and their guests. There is nothing private about the open hotel pool rooftop with helicopters and other taller hotel roof top pools and hotel rooms of adjoining taller buildings all overlooking it. It's a public hotel pool on an open roof top. The airspace above it is also public.
There is not always a reasonable expectation of privacy. There is none in this case. It has to be a reasonable expectation, and there is none at a public hotel pool open to all hotel guests and the visiting public.
Choose any definition you want of voyeurism. This does not qualify for all the reasons specified above.
Google Earth is infamous for having captured even nude sunbathers on rooftops. While they blur any such reported images, they also do so for all faces in public as well.
Sunbathing on any open hotel rooftop poolside does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, any more than at a public beach. The subjects are not nude sunbathing. They are all wearing bathing suits. They are not engaged in sexual activity. There is nothing private about sunbathing openly, and their activity does not suggest they have even an unreasonable expectation of privacy. They are openly waving at the drone, if he was being serious. If so, they are welcoming the attention.
The sunbathers need not approve or consent to being photographed by anyone who chooses to do so, any more than a person in public being photographed. Photographers do not need a person's permission to photograph them in public. It is polite and good form to ask, but never required.
The morality of street photography can be debated, but it is still legal. This is no different. I am merely pointing out that it is not illegal, and is not voyeurism by any definition, whether you approve of it or not.
I am not taking a position on its morality, only its legality.
It still has not even been established whether the OP was kidding or serious. I suspect the former, so this is a purely academic discussion! If you want to delve into it deeper, here is a link that covers most of the issues.
Photography and the law - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Privately owned hotels are not public spaces. Yes, the airspace above them may be.
Some of the people waving does not mean that all present consent to being photographed.
I'm not interested in a legal debate, but the activity described by the OP is clearly illegal in some jurisdictions. Texas is an example. Gov. Code Section 423.002(a): Clarifies the legality of using drones to capture images by certain professionals (such as photographers), with the requirement that individuals are not identifiable in images unless they have given express permission.
The activity described by the OP may well be legal in some or many places. But legal or not, it is one of the causes of the negative perception of drones on the part of many people. Bottom line: most folks would find it "creepy."
Similar threads
