Current owners, would you buy a Mavic3 without the tele lens?

[itallica]

as the title asks-how useful is the tele lens to your individual needs? Would you miss it?

 

[BaldyBoyBilly]

as the title asks-how useful is the tele lens to your individual needs? Would you miss it?

Love everything about the tele! It provides a level of creativity not possible with the standard lens. Without that, might as well stay w air2s and buy an extra battery or 2

 

[Meta4]

as the title asks-how useful is the tele lens to your individual needs? Would you miss it?

Mavic 3 Tele Lens

I see some members dismissing the tele lens that's incorporated into the Mavic 3 and confess that I was initially skeptical about it. With a fixed aperture and dinky 1/2 inch sensor, I didn't think it would be capable of producing the quality I wanted. It definitely has limitations and can't...

mavicpilots.com

 

[Eagle Eye 62]

as the title asks-how useful is the tele lens to your individual needs? Would you miss it?

It would depend on the price difference. If it is not significantly cheaper without the tele lens I would say no. I don't
t use it all that often but it is nice to have especially when scoping out locations for shooting, etc.

 

[codex22]

I would buy a Mavic 3 without the tele lens, but only if there is no Mavic 3 WITH the tele lens

 

[akdrone]

I'd probably save my money and get a 2s. That said...the only Mav3 without a tele would be a broken Mav3 and I would not get that . I use the tele all the time and find it super useful.

 

[Saladshooter]

The tele lens is super useful..... just not quite up to the quality of the main lens. I'm all for the rumored M3 Classic to get folks onboard that don't want the Tele lens. But for me, bring on the Mavic 3 Ultra Pro with a 1" or greater sensor for the Tele

 

[ssvdh66]

Only as a backup for the real Mav3

 

[Bob in Savannah]

Mine is awesome! That tele is a pretty amazing addition to this "flying camera."

Of course, I'm just learning and quite the novice compared to some of these peeps around here but I'm learning. I've managed to come up with some decent pics with the tele in perfect lighting and Ive also really been able to amaze myself using it with video when I circle around an object I'm focused on and the background moves quickly creating a cool movie-like vid. I'm sure there's a term for this effect but I'm such a dummy I don't know it yet. BUT I do know how to create it quite easily. lol

The tele is a MUST HAVE for me. Even if just to "scout" I find it quite useful.

 

[simonr23]

Yes.
It’s a nice thing, but I bought the 3 for the flight time and signal range.

I’d be happy with an air 2s with the mavic3 flight time/range.

 

[Suren]

For a person like me that does not do pro photos and videos, I have found the tele lens very helpful to me. I cannot see myself without it

 

[AlanL]

I could live without the tele lens if the main lens/sensor had 1-10x optical zoom

 

[leebroath]

Just shows, there is a market for both the Dual and single version Mavic 3

I can't wait to see what the Classic has in store, which will probably be in a couple months

 

[Nickyb65]

as the title asks-how useful is the tele lens to your individual needs? Would you miss it?

If I could afford the Mavic 3, I would buy it as the standard model with the Tele lens, I think the optical zoom looks impressive IMOH.

 

[Jonathantuba]

The tele lens is the only reason I have kept the Mavic 3 now the Mini 3 Pro is out. The Mini 3 Pro is more useful for me in the UK being able to fly at a lot more locations and i find its image quality quite sufficient, but I do like using the 7x on the Mavic 3, so have retained for that reason - but doubt I would buy again, if say crashed

 

[Crashdummytest]

as the title asks-how useful is the tele lens to your individual needs? Would you miss it?

Would definitively miss it. It is very useful for scouting, and also photo now that raw format can be used.

 

[JoelP]

I bought my Mavic 3 for the quality camera and the amazing battery time. I rarely use the tele lens. It is a “nice to have” and not a “must have”. Perhaps if I had the Pro controller I would appreciate it more. With the standard controller the gimbal tilt and the zoom share the same thumbwheel, so I find myself zooming when I don’t intend to. Occasionally I use the tele to explore, as DJI intended, but with the limitations in quality and setting control I am not all that fond of the tele lens. For me, it will be upsetting to see all the features I use on my Mavic 3 sold for lots less.

 

[Garatshay]

as the title asks-how useful is the tele lens to your individual needs? Would you miss it?

Wow - that’s a great question. I have both a Mavic 3 and a 2 Pro. The 2 Pro is brilliant and it wouldn’t be unreasonable to step back. There is more to the Mavic 3 to consider though. The digital zoom on the main camera is really pretty good out to about 2x - and the longer battery life is a huge plus. That said, I really love using the telephoto lens at native resolution - 7x. My answer, taking everything into account is - YES - I would buy the M3 again, even if it didn’t have the second camera.

 

[KS-6]

Nnnnnnnnnope.

 

[danwnz]

yes, haven't really used it that much, don't get me wrong nice to have