Aperture of 1.8 is not all great

[kave]

I have tested the Mini 5 now for two days. For landscape photos it is quite unsharp I am afraid. I compare it to my old Mavic 2 Zoom side by side.
The 1.8 aperture gives us a very short depth of field, so when taking landscape photos, a large part of the photo might not be in focus when viewing it at 100%.
When taking photos of something flat, the Mini 5 is sharp. and in focus.

 

[GadgetGuy]

The wider fixed aperture has a much shallower depth of field, so you have to choose your focus carefully, or focus stack multiple images, depending upon your point of interest in the photo. Auto focus will likely select the background rather than the foreground. One or the other will be slightly out of focus in aerial landscapes.

 

[kave]

In fact, I haven't seen reviewers mentioning this as an issue even with the Air 3S with it's fixed aperture.
I will have to save up to a Mavic 4 then.

 

[Meta4]

The 1.8 aperture gives us a very short depth of field, so when taking landscape photos, a large part of the photo might not be in focus when viewing it at 100%.

That doesn't sound correct.
The lens should have plenty of depth of field whether the aperture was f2.8 or f1.8.
It's a wideangle lens and wideangle lenses have lots of DoF.

In fact, I haven't seen reviewers mentioning this as an issue even with the Air 3S with it's fixed aperture.

Doesn't that suggest that this isn't a problem?

Can you post a couple of examples?
Upload original jpg files to Google Drive or similar and post a link here.

 

[kave]

I will try to find som photos that compares my Mavic 2 with my Mini 5, but here is one of the reviewers I found now when searching for it:

DJI Mini 5 Pro Review: Should You Get One For Drone Photography?

I tested the DJI Mini 5 Pro before its release, allowing me to thoroughly find out what this little powerhouse has to offer from a photographer's perspective!

jvn.photo

 

[anotherlab]

That doesn't sound correct.
The lens should have plenty of depth of field whether the aperture was f2.8 or f1.8.
It's a wideangle lens and wideangle lenses have lots of DoF.

The lower the F-stop, the shallower the depth of field. An aperture of f1.8 has a pretty shallow depth of field.

The lens being a wide angle lens has no relation to the depth of field. A photo taken on a 15mm lens at f1.8 will have a much shallower depth of field than the same subject taken by the same lens at f4.

 

[YorksPhotos]

The lens being a wide angle lens has no relation to the depth of field.

That is not true. You get more depth of field with a wider focal length at the same aperature and distance to subject.The three main factors that affect depth of field are aperture (f-number), focal length, and the distance between the camera and the subject.Try it with a DOF calculator.

 

[anotherlab]

That is not true. You get more depth of field with a wider focal length at the same aperature and distance to subject.The three main factors that affect depth of field are aperture (f-number), focal length, and the distance between the camera and the subject.Try it with a DOF calculator.

That's why I wrote that the same subject with the same lens would have a greater depth of field at a higher f-stop than at a lower one.

 

[YorksPhotos]

That's why I wrote that the same subject with the same lens would have a greater depth of field at a higher f-stop than at a lower one.

Yes, that part of your post is correct. That is why I didnt include it in the quote. I shoot a lot at 500mm F4 so focus at that depth of field is critical. Understanding DOF is a must. I can go from a depth DOF on inches (wildlife) to light years (astrophotography) at the same camera settings.

 

[MS Coast]

Compare the hyperfocal distance of that lens to the distance to objects in your landscape photo. That should suggest there's no problem.

Unless there's something in the foreground that should be in focus, it's hard to see how depth of field is a serious concern in most drone landscape shots, particularly at higher altitudes.

 

[Meta4]

here is one of the reviewers I found now when searching for it:

DJI Mini 5 Pro Review: Should You Get One For Drone Photography?

I tested the DJI Mini 5 Pro before its release, allowing me to thoroughly find out what this little powerhouse has to offer from a photographer's perspective!

jvn.photo

That reviewer said:

Usually, with a drone, you are far enough from any subjects for that not to matter but the F1.8 aperture changes that.​

The first part of that sentence is correct, but the second part is an exaggeration.
It would be more correct if it read: The actual difference in depth of field is minimal, and in typical drone landscapes, you won't even notice it.

I find his example images less than convincing.
I stared at them trying to see the alleged muddiness and can't find it.
So I tried using a Depth of Field calculator to see what difference having an aperture of f1.8 actually makes.
I found that at at f2.8 and focused at 50 metres, the DoF extends from 6 metres in front of the camera to infinity.
When you change the aperture to f1.8, DoF would be from 9 metres to infinity.

So there is a difference, but unless you are going to have foreground elements just a few metres from the camera, you won't notice any real difference.

 

[wco81]

I will try to find som photos that compares my Mavic 2 with my Mini 5, but here is one of the reviewers I found now when searching for it:

DJI Mini 5 Pro Review: Should You Get One For Drone Photography?

I tested the DJI Mini 5 Pro before its release, allowing me to thoroughly find out what this little powerhouse has to offer from a photographer's perspective!

jvn.photo

So DJI used the same 1-inch 12 Mp sensor but with a different lens?

Why?

Probably to have product differentiation.

That reviewer says wind is an issue:

While I was very impressed by how the Mini 5 Pro handled extremely windy conditions, it is important to note that the flight speed and battery life take a serious hit. If you are someone who often finds themselves in very windy situations, it is imperative you look at a larger drone. Bigger, more capable, drones will have better battery life, fly reasonably fast and stay stable.

Additionally, the Mini 5 Pro isn’t the most stable for video recordings in windy situations. While the drone is really capable, and it will stay airborne, it does tend to bounce around quite a bit. For photography this isn’t a big deal but for video, it is almost impossible to expect it will remain stable in really windy conditions.

I will be looking for direct comparisons of the 3S and Mini 5 Pro image quality, given that they apparently have the same sensor.

 

[Meta4]

So DJI used the same 1-inch 12 Mp sensor but with a different lens?
Why?
Probably to have product differentiation.

Have you seen a suggestion that they have used a different lens .... or are you guessing they did?
It's hard to see why they would change something that works well.
"Product differentiation" wouldn't be a reason to.

 

[PINEBARON]

So DJI used the same 1-inch 12 Mp sensor but with a different lens?

Why?

Probably to have product differentiation.

That reviewer says wind is an issue:



I will be looking for direct comparisons of the 3S and Mini 5 Pro image quality, given that they apparently have the same sensor.

With MP5, it is all about low light performance, night time/low light use, basically use this drone for photography that can best use f1.8, faster shutter speed and great for filming closer subjects/objects, gardens, weddings, real estate etc where you may need to blur the background, it will do its best. Think of using the MP5 as an addition to compliment your other drones since it's not meant to replace/compete with A3S and definitely not MP4. Focus on its pluses; its lighter weight, smaller size, lighter batteries etc. less regulations etc.

 

[brett8883]

That reviewer said:

Usually, with a drone, you are far enough from any subjects for that not to matter but the F1.8 aperture changes that.​

The first part of that sentence is correct, but the second part is an exaggeration.
It would be more correct if it read: The actual difference in depth of field is minimal, and in typical drone landscapes, you won't even notice it.

I find his example images less than convincing.
I stared at them trying to see the alleged muddiness and can't find it.
So I tried using a Depth of Field calculator to see what difference having an aperture of f1.8 actually makes.
I found that at at f2.8 and focused at 50 metres, the DoF extends from 6 metres in front of the camera to infinity.
When you change the aperture to f1.8, DoF would be from 9 metres to infinity.

So there is a difference, but unless you are going to have foreground elements just a few metres from the camera, you won't notice any real difference.

Just to drive the point home, the hyperfocal distance for both f/1.8 and f/2.8 is less than 10 feet. To call it unnoticeable is would be an understatement.

As a technical photographer it just kind of amazes me how a photographer like this reviewer who charges over €6000 for a photography workshop wouldn’t understand this concept

 

[brett8883]

That is not true. You get more depth of field with a wider focal length at the same aperature and distance to subject.

It’s actually only the physical size of the aperture opening and distance from the subject that actually determines the depth of field. F number and focal length are only relevant so far as they are used to calculate physical aperture size which is why they are on the calculator. A 15mm aperture opening on a 24 mm lens and a 500 mm lens both produce the same depth of field from the same distance. They will have very different exposures, but the same of the field.

Oddly, this makes what he said technically correct and what you said technically incorrect.

 

[davedrone 178]

Actually after testing a few times, and to make sure I had the focusing correct, I'm very disappointed in the picture. It's very very soft and almost looks like 1080p. What Gives?

 

[Meta4]

Actually after testing a few times, and to make sure I had the focusing correct, I'm very disappointed in the picture. It's very very soft and almost looks like 1080p. What Gives?

To get any meaningful suggestions people are going to see what you are seeing.
You really need to post some examples.
Upload one or two full-sized, original jpg image files to Google Drive or similar and post a link.

 

[YorksPhotos]

It’s actually only the physical size of the aperture opening and distance from the subject that actually determines the depth of field. F number and focal length are only relevant so far as they are used to calculate physical aperture size which is why they are on the calculator. A 15mm aperture opening on a 24 mm lens and a 500 mm lens both produce the same depth of field from the same distance. They will have very different exposures, but the same of the field.

Oddly, this makes what he said technically correct and what you said technically incorrect.

You are creating a circle of confusion.
All of your statements are are absolutely correct.
My post "You get more depth of field with a wider focal length at the same aperature and distance to subject." Absolutely correct. It is covered in the afternoon on the first day of a beginning photography class, right after covering the exposure triangle.
I was comparing aperatures, same lens/camera/setting, not the physical size of the aperature. Your example with the 500mm proves that. At 15mm opening the aperature would be f32.
Not so oddly this makes his statement still incorrect, yours and my post correct.

 

[MS Coast]

My post "You get more depth of field with a wider focal length at the same aperature and distance to subject." Absolutely correct.

I have to smile at "wider focal length." A distance with a width. One dimension becomes two. Alice would agree that's very curious, even before she ate the mushroom.