Dji Has seem changing on the 7x tele lens of mavic 3 recently !!

[Bussty]

My Cine & regular M3 have oval.

Hi there are you able to let us know the date of manufacture showing on the box? Many thanks

 

[GadgetGuy]

some day we will all know. On average.... is the oval 7X lens an improvement over the round version. By the way. the drone date being made is on the box. I think the earliest would be October 2021. (i know November 2021 was round in my case)

If it turns out that it is an improvement, anyone with Refresh can just pay the deductible, and hope to get the newer one, by waiting long enough to "crash" and file a claim. "Oops! I dropped mine!"

 

[curso88]

 

[Niku]

Yes the tele lens had changed! I had M3 in service in Germany, the IMU system was damaged and the whole M3 was replaced!

 

[gianlucaballoni]

Let's say that a single user who posts photos to make a comparison may actually not be enough to make dji lie. I hope that in the coming days / weeks there will be more "tests" so as to understand what the real situation is regarding this lens. Of course, if it were true that the "new" lens improves the photos it is the least that if a user wants a dji change he does it. It is not that you have released the m3 + with new features, it is about selling the same "updated" drone and therefore it would seem right that those who own the first version of the lens can ask for a warranty change. If not, I strongly doubt that many will still trust DJI, especially on very expensive drones like the m3.

 

[Bussty]

Let's say that a single user who posts photos to make a comparison may actually not be enough to make dji lie. I hope that in the coming days / weeks there will be more "tests" so as to understand what the real situation is regarding this lens. Of course, if it were true that the "new" lens improves the photos it is the least that if a user wants a dji change he does it. It is not that you have released the m3 + with new features, it is about selling the same "updated" drone and therefore it would seem right that those who own the first version of the lens can ask for a warranty change. If not, I strongly doubt that many will still trust DJI, especially on very expensive drones like the m3.

Yes it will be interesting. If the oval proves to be clearer I also think it would be a mistake for DJI to go back to using the round version like they suggest they might.

 

[MS Coast]

It sounds less like a "new" vs. "old" camera configuration and more like "supplier A" and "supplier B" with production using whatever cameras are available at the time. That's common in manufacturing. There's a minor difference in appearance but presumably both meet specifications.

The oval version may provide slightly better results than the circular version. One comparison from an unknown source certainly isn't conclusive.

If both versions meet the performance specifications advertised for the Mavic 3, I can't see any reason for a warranty claim. They promise a certain level of performance and provided it. I don't think there's the basis for a complaint if some buyers get something that does a little extra.

If you buy a car that promises 35 mpg and you get one that gets 35 mpg, there's no warranty issue if someone else gets a car that gets 36 mpg.

 

[Bussty]

It sounds less like a "new" vs. "old" camera configuration and more like "supplier A" and "supplier B" with production using whatever cameras are available at the time. That's common in manufacturing. There's a minor difference in appearance but presumably both meet specifications.

The oval version may provide slightly better results than the circular version. One comparison from an unknown source certainly isn't conclusive.

If both versions meet the performance specifications advertised for the Mavic 3, I can't see any reason for a warranty claim. They promise a certain level of performance and provided it. I don't think there's the basis for a complaint if some buyers get something that does a little extra.

If you buy a car that promises 35 mpg and you get one that gets 35 mpg, there's no warranty issue if someone else gets a car that gets 36 mpg.

This is actually a good point DJI have never said this camera is for taking High Quality footage



But nice if somehow we can actually use it for that...

 

[UAVquadman]

It sounds less like a "new" vs. "old" camera configuration and more like "supplier A" and "supplier B" with production using whatever cameras are available at the time. That's common in manufacturing. There's a minor difference in appearance but presumably both meet specifications.

The oval version may provide slightly better results than the circular version. One comparison from an unknown source certainly isn't conclusive.

If both versions meet the performance specifications advertised for the Mavic 3, I can't see any reason for a warranty claim. They promise a certain level of performance and provided it. I don't think there's the basis for a complaint if some buyers get something that does a little extra.

If you buy a car that promises 35 mpg and you get one that gets 35 mpg, there's no warranty issue if someone else gets a car that gets 36 mpg.

if you get the round version and you have the option of returning it for the oval version with No restocking/shipping fee. It's a no brainer and a downgrade if you don't. This has nothing to do with fuel economy because the car that gets 35mpg also most likely has slightly more horsepower!

 

[FlySkyJumper]

Where did you get the second picture?..... it looks more like a distorted photo than an actual lens change.

No, no change in the lense. Most photos you see on any professional manufacturers website are manipulated. Just like photos you see of food items in the drive through. Either way, the answer is no, it's the same lense.

 

[Bussty]

Would be great if there were two forum members that knew each other and had the two different types og M3 and could post an independent test result??

 

[gianlucaballoni]

Would be great if there were two forum members that knew each other and had the two different types og M3 and could post an independent test result??

That's what I'm waiting for. As I said, a single user can say everything and nothing, it could also be a user who hates dji and gives him bad publicity. It would be different if many users notice the difference in the two rooms ... in that case it's not good at all!

 

[MS Coast]

if you get the round version and you have the option of returning it for the oval version with No restocking/shipping fee. It's a no brainer and a downgrade if you don't. This has nothing to do with fuel economy because the car that gets 35mpg also most likely has slightly more horsepower!

Where have you seen an offer to exchange an oval version for a round version? I'll give you 100:1 odds and bet that never happens.

Have you found any evidence that the oval version produces better photos, other than the one post from an unknown person in a Chinese online forum? It's a stretch to make base a conclusion solely on that.

(Ok, we'll talk horsepower in our analogy. So you buy a car that's advertised and rated to produce 200 hp. Someone else gets the same model car and tests it on a dynamometer and finds that it's producing 205 hp. Are you entitled to a warranty claim or free swap?)

 

[Paradigm]

I can't imagine they will give you a swap directly due to something that DJI intelligently claims makes no difference in image quality. However, you may still be able to get a swap for other reasons, but that would depend on where you purchased it, if you've used it, and your morals, in terms of lying about the swap reason.

I think it's too early to start swapping drones with literally no concrete proof of quality differences.

I will say, that this whole fiasco comes across as "classic DJI," if you will.

 

[MS Coast]

I think it's too early to start swapping drones with literally no concrete proof of quality differences.

I will say, that this whole fiasco comes across as "classic DJI," if you will.

Amen.

But I can't call this a fiasco or a DJI screw-up. I've seen no proof that it's not simply a manufacturer sourcing parts from multiple vendors, with minor cosmetic differences between the parts.

 

[Paradigm]

Amen.

But I can't call this a fiasco or a DJI screw-up. I've seen no proof that it's not simply a manufacturer sourcing parts from multiple vendors, with minor cosmetic differences between the parts.

I think the jury is still out as to whether it is just cosmetic. Based on their track record, and incentives to say so, I am unwilling to take their word for it.

I think it is a fiasco, but a screw up is misleading. It's only a screw up from a communication and PR point of view. As in, they should have made a press release that stated "due to supply shortages we are changing..." as soon as a different unite was created. Instead, we are left to find out from social media and speculate. But again, "classic" and "par for the course" comes to mind.

 

[MS Coast]

Instead, we are left to find out from social media and speculate.

I think that was how the Great Toilet Paper Shortage of 2020 happened.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I think that was how the Great Toilet Paper Shortage of 2020 happened.

No, that was because people thought hoarding TP cured Covid!

 

[Bussty]

No, that was because people thought hoarding TP cured Covid!

Lovin these Covid facts

 

[MS Coast]

As in, they should have made a press release that stated "due to supply shortages we are changing..." as soon as a different unite was created.

Have a look at the press releases from some of the auto, airplane, electronics, or appliance manufacturers and see if you can find any that relate to adding a new supplier for a part or subassembly that might looks slightly different but still meets the advertised specifications.