DJI would like you to “See The Bigger Picture” on July 18th – announcement?

[Greg Smithski]

Yes I guess this must be a different model.The Enterprise, beam me up Scotty. The strobe or whatever it is doesn't seem to fit very tight against the body of the maverick. It looks like an afterthought.

 

[Gray_seagull]

These two gimbals look almost identical. Could be that dji tested the gimbal on a phantom

 

[Greg Smithski]

Does anyone have an idea what this thing might be? I'm guessing either a plow, a bug zapper, or a return to home buzzer for people that don't want to be bothered by the sound of their laziness and still want longer flight times.

 

[mad monkey]

It's the inlet of a jet engine. This one will have turbo mode

 

[wytnyt]

Does anyone have an idea what this thing might be? I'm guessing either a plow, a bug zapper, or a return to home buzzer for people that don't want to be bothered by the sound of their laziness and still want longer flight times.

its a ultra sonic bird repellent

 

[mad monkey]

its a ultra sonic bird repellent

That could be handy!

 

[mad monkey]

I think I would fall over laughing if they eliminated ocusync in favour of keeping within the usual "legalities" and keeping with the other models now.

It would be interesting if they kept the range for the inspire line, keep the compacts on WiFi and have the middle ground phantoms the same.

 

[Greg Smithski]

And here's the latest news. I guess those photos weren't heavily photo shop after all

https://dronedj.com/2018/07/28/breaking-news-dji-mavic-2-already-listed-in-uk-argos-catalog/

 

[Greg Smithski]

Evidently this is off DJI's German website.

https://dronedj.com/2018/07/29/new-...surfaces-on-german-dji-website/#disqus_thread

 

[CanadaDrone]

I am interested to see how the third party filter manufacturers deal with the rectangular lens housing on the 1" sensor version. Circular polarizers seem like they will be a pain.

I am disappointed that they didn't update the design (a larger version of the Air would have been ideal IMHO), but regardless I'm sure it will be a phenomenal drone.

 

[mad monkey]

I was wondering about that rectangle camera too... Seems like it's going to be a giant pita

 

[4wd]

Circular polarisers are inappropriate for a camera which moves anyway, fitting an ND would be no big problem

 

[CanadaDrone]

Circular polarisers are inappropriate for a camera which moves anyway, fitting an ND would be no big problem

This is not true. While they aren't intended to be set & forget like ND filters, they just require you to have a pre-planned flight path and knowledge on how polarization works relative to the sun. Polarization is one thing that is impossible to even come close to replicating with software, which makes them a very important tool if that particular effect is desired.

When I have a polarizer on my DSLR, the camera moves all the time - the difference is I can constantly manipulate the filter for the desired level of polarization and orient myself properly relative to the sun. With a drone you obviously cannot adjust the level of polarization after take off, but you can most certainly control your orientation relative to the sun, which is why they can be very useful with a properly planned flight path.

 

[Greg Smithski]

Hopefully on the new maverick we won't need ND filters anymore. The last thing I wanna see is a one inch sensor on a crippled camera. I don't think DJI is going to end the Phantom line and has a great upgrade in the works.

 

[CanadaDrone]

Hopefully on the new maverick we won't need ND filters anymore. The last thing I wanna see is a one inch sensor on a crippled camera. I don't think DJI is going to end the Phantom line and has a great upgrade in the works.

Unless it has a full suite of build in ND filters (which it's safe to assume it won't), it will need them. I agree that would be great though.

The reason you don't want to just use the aperture to control how much light enters the lens is because of how early diffraction starts to degrade the image, especially with small, high MP sensors. Maximum sharpness on a typical 1" 20MP sensor will be with the lens wide open or close to wide open. On a 1" 20MP sensor like the one in the Mavic 2 Pro and Phantom 4 Pro, diffraction is already beginning to degrade the image by F4. You generally don't want to be shooting at F11 just because you don't want to use a ND filter. Depth of field is also rarely an issue on such tiny sensors as well, so most everything is still in focus especially with small sensors and large focus distances. You might get away with it in the shade, but on a bright day you are still almost certainly going to want to be using the proper ND and fine tuning within a small aperture range if necessary. ISO always at base unless it has to be raised because it's so dim even with a naked lens.

The logical progression for the Phantom line would be interchangeable lenses and/or even larger sensors (Micro Four Thirds size). If they keep the 1" sensor I am not sure what more they could do it it. Maybe add an optical zoom.

 

[gnirtS]

Circular polarisers are inappropriate for a camera which moves anyway, fitting an ND would be no big problem

Circular polarisers while relatively useless for video ARE very useful for still photos. And for myself and others who take 95% still and 5% video they're exceedingly useful.

 

[CanadaDrone]

Circular polarisers while relatively useless for video ARE very useful for still photos. And for myself and others who take 95% still and 5% video they're exceedingly useful.

They are not useless for video if you understand how polarization works and have a planned shot / flight path. A polarizer's effect is one of the very few that cannot be simulated by software, and is still necessary from time to time. I agree they are more difficult and annoying to work with, but they can get you footage that you can't replicate with any other means.

The same applies for stills, you still need to plan your shot. As long as you are moving in the same direction, all the same principles apply to both video and stills. There isn't a scenario where a shot of a particular scene would be polarized but a video taken in the same direction of that same scene wouldn't.

 

[gnirtS]

Most people on video shoot more than 1 scene and rotate the drone though. Yaw the drone generally and polarisation doesn't work.
(then again, most people dont understand NDs or polarisers and just stick one on without realising it needs adjusting).

I do use polariser on video if i have a shot in mind (i work off boats so lots of water) but just like stills i know what i want before i fly, i launch, get it and then land. Typical flights 10 mins max.

 

[CanadaDrone]

Most people on video shoot more than 1 scene and rotate the drone though. Yaw the drone generally and polarisation doesn't work.
(then again, most people dont understand NDs or polarisers and just stick one on without realising it needs adjusting).

I do use polariser on video if i have a shot in mind (i work off boats so lots of water) but just like stills i know what i want before i fly, i launch, get it and then land. Typical flights 10 mins max.

Agreed - it's the same for video, it's just more annoying because you can only get one particular shot then typically you need to return home to remove or adjust the CPL. You just have to plan for it and be willing to put in the effort. It's often worth it over water though - especially in a tropical area where you want to see the reef below, or something like that.

 

[gnirtS]

I live in a tropical area with reef below (its my job ).

Generally as NDs are a bad thing for stills and vice-versa its usual i'll do 2 flights - a still flight and if i actually want video, a video flight.

One thing i have screwed up with before is forgotten i had the CPL on and tried to do panorama of 360s. Then the evil sky banding from the polariser is really obvious and shot is ruined.