For me neither...the phantom looks more like a flying lampshade..[emoji6]
Do you wish you had gotten the P4P instead?
- Thread starter LivinLarge
- Start date
For me neither...the phantom looks more like a flying lampshade..[emoji6]
I'm glad to read so many positive reactions of Mavic owners...my question: is the fragile gimbal of the mavic ( rubberbandlike suspension) a worrisome problem now or in the near future, or are the mavic owners satisfied with this gimbal "as is"?
tictag
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2017
- Messages
- 311
- Reactions
- 152
- Age
- 52
It certainly is fragile, one direct knock and you'll undoubtedly break something (as I found) but protect it with one of those gimbal shrouds and you should be fine (never use the clear gimbal cover if you want quality photos/video, though). I planted my MP in a tree the other day and the gimbal was fine (shroud on).
butterflyslicer
Well-Known Member
To answer your question, no, I don't wish I would have bought a P4P. Two reasons:
* The Mavic is much easier to transport
* I'm waiting on the P5. The P4P doesn't have wireless operation with the CrystalSky monitors and I'm guessing DJI will add this (and other) features to the next generation P model (P5?).
* The Mavic is much easier to transport
* I'm waiting on the P5. The P4P doesn't have wireless operation with the CrystalSky monitors and I'm guessing DJI will add this (and other) features to the next generation P model (P5?).
I'd go with the Mavic. I think the only advantage the P4 Pro has is the camera performance on paper. In the real world I don't think you or anyone can tell the difference between pictures taken with one vs the other. I believe that pictures or video that I've taken that didn't come out well had little to do with whether I had taken them with a P4, Mavic, or Inspire and that the results would have had been the same on all them. More often than not it's my lack of knowledge about drone photography and video that is the reason for a picture or video that didn't turn out well. I agree with all the other reasons given by others as to why the Mavic is a better choice. Smaller, more Portable, drone and accessories are cheaper. I believe more batteries at a cheaper price to be far more valuable than a camera that performs better on paper. More fly time equals more pictures from different angles, altitudes, camera settings, etc.
Mattw996
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2017
- Messages
- 78
- Reactions
- 78
- Age
- 50
Apart from the price difference I bought the mavic because
1. I watched a lot of YouTube comparisons and I often struggled to tell the difference.
2. I can always have it with me and as they say "the best camera is the one you have with you" fits in my glove box (in it's case) and my work bag, I always have it with me and most of the shots I have are just things I`ve seen and in 10 minutes it`s out, photo taken and back in.
1. I watched a lot of YouTube comparisons and I often struggled to tell the difference.
2. I can always have it with me and as they say "the best camera is the one you have with you" fits in my glove box (in it's case) and my work bag, I always have it with me and most of the shots I have are just things I`ve seen and in 10 minutes it`s out, photo taken and back in.
The Mavic delivers (and delivers well) what it promises. As long as your expectations are in line with that you will be very happy with your decision. If you need it to be as stable in high wind as a P4P, have the same camera as the P4P (be as large and heavy and have very expensive accessories as the P4P) - then buy the P4P.
I bought my Mavic on a whim at Best Buy. I had never considered a drone purchase, had done zero research and the only reason I was on the drone aisle was it was the shortest path to the door. I was speaking "general drones" with the sales associate who was a P4P owner and seemed very knowledgeable on the subject. Long story short, I asked him which he would purchase that day if he were me. He said Mavic so I did. I'm not a professional photographer though I am very obsessive and have been known to be more than a little critical. I could research an ink pen for days and still not be 100% on my decision. Currently there are two things that I remain 100% on - One is my '03 Jeep Wrangler, the other is my Mavic Pro.
I bought my Mavic on a whim at Best Buy. I had never considered a drone purchase, had done zero research and the only reason I was on the drone aisle was it was the shortest path to the door. I was speaking "general drones" with the sales associate who was a P4P owner and seemed very knowledgeable on the subject. Long story short, I asked him which he would purchase that day if he were me. He said Mavic so I did. I'm not a professional photographer though I am very obsessive and have been known to be more than a little critical. I could research an ink pen for days and still not be 100% on my decision. Currently there are two things that I remain 100% on - One is my '03 Jeep Wrangler, the other is my Mavic Pro.
ChrisRL
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2017
- Messages
- 32
- Reactions
- 20
- Age
- 68
Have both, fly both. Use both in professional broadcast settings.
The only job I have at the moment that definitely distinguishes the two apart is for a weekly show for a European TV network that specifies 2160p50 in PAL, which, of course, only the P4P (or the I2) delivers. Or something like a GH5 on a heavy lifter, but that isn't in this show's budget).
Otherwise, with a little care in exposure, color balance, response and sharpness curves and the like, there's no reason why either of the two cameras, or that on the P4, which I also fly, can't intercut pretty seamlessly with footage shot on the ground.
The P4P has a little trouble intercutting with 10-bit RAW footage from, say, a Sony FS7 A camera, but that's to be expected.
If 100% image compatibility is required, then the drone camera has to be capable of generating RAW as well, (i.e. Inspire 1 Pro, I2, etc). But of course the rental price of the drone just doubled, and most producers, especially of the reality-type shows I work on, would rather take the quality hit and pay less, but still have the P4P or similar deliver the minimum acceptable video quality, than go the extra mile for more. That's usually scripted/feature film production land where the better the film, the more the revenue, rather than TV land, where producers get paid a block fee per episode, no matter how well it does. Of course, if the quality falls below industry standard in either case, then the QC house usually rejects the entire show, and the producer doesn't get paid.
Another thing to mention is that most, if not all, of our widely available domestic-type (Best Buy, Frys, Target, Walmart) 4k TV sets only run at a refresh rate of 60Hz, even though their manufacturers might state "Extreme Refresh Rate" or "Extended Refresh Rate" or whatever. Now, bearing in mind that your broadcast UDH frame comprises two fields, that means that anything shot faster than 30fps will stutter, lag and generally not display smoothly on such monitors/TV sets.
So... if you plan to shoot at 60fps or any of the higher-than-30 rates, then bear in mind that you will have to buy a REAL 120Hz 4k monitor, which doesn't come cheap and isn't so easy to find.
Forget about laptops, they're pretty impossible, save one or two top-of-the-line models, to work with.
Mostly what I get is a request to down-res the 4k footage to something sensible like ProRes 422 HQ in 1080p, for regular viewing and/or web distribution. Which seems like a bit of a waste of anything over a P3P's capability, really.
Bottom line: if you're a video pro or if you really NEED that 4k quality, and can afford the computer, graphics cards, and monitors to play that enhanced quality footage, then by all means, a P4P.
If a client is watching over your shoulder, better make that an I1P or an !2.
Otherwise, if you're shooting for your own pleasure and want to have one drone to really get to fly well and shoot everything in sight, and out of sight, then the Mavic is the tool of choice.
Don't forget, asking if one is better than the other is like asking if a spoon is better than a fork.
The only job I have at the moment that definitely distinguishes the two apart is for a weekly show for a European TV network that specifies 2160p50 in PAL, which, of course, only the P4P (or the I2) delivers. Or something like a GH5 on a heavy lifter, but that isn't in this show's budget).
Otherwise, with a little care in exposure, color balance, response and sharpness curves and the like, there's no reason why either of the two cameras, or that on the P4, which I also fly, can't intercut pretty seamlessly with footage shot on the ground.
The P4P has a little trouble intercutting with 10-bit RAW footage from, say, a Sony FS7 A camera, but that's to be expected.
If 100% image compatibility is required, then the drone camera has to be capable of generating RAW as well, (i.e. Inspire 1 Pro, I2, etc). But of course the rental price of the drone just doubled, and most producers, especially of the reality-type shows I work on, would rather take the quality hit and pay less, but still have the P4P or similar deliver the minimum acceptable video quality, than go the extra mile for more. That's usually scripted/feature film production land where the better the film, the more the revenue, rather than TV land, where producers get paid a block fee per episode, no matter how well it does. Of course, if the quality falls below industry standard in either case, then the QC house usually rejects the entire show, and the producer doesn't get paid.
Another thing to mention is that most, if not all, of our widely available domestic-type (Best Buy, Frys, Target, Walmart) 4k TV sets only run at a refresh rate of 60Hz, even though their manufacturers might state "Extreme Refresh Rate" or "Extended Refresh Rate" or whatever. Now, bearing in mind that your broadcast UDH frame comprises two fields, that means that anything shot faster than 30fps will stutter, lag and generally not display smoothly on such monitors/TV sets.
So... if you plan to shoot at 60fps or any of the higher-than-30 rates, then bear in mind that you will have to buy a REAL 120Hz 4k monitor, which doesn't come cheap and isn't so easy to find.
Forget about laptops, they're pretty impossible, save one or two top-of-the-line models, to work with.
Mostly what I get is a request to down-res the 4k footage to something sensible like ProRes 422 HQ in 1080p, for regular viewing and/or web distribution. Which seems like a bit of a waste of anything over a P3P's capability, really.
Bottom line: if you're a video pro or if you really NEED that 4k quality, and can afford the computer, graphics cards, and monitors to play that enhanced quality footage, then by all means, a P4P.
If a client is watching over your shoulder, better make that an I1P or an !2.
Otherwise, if you're shooting for your own pleasure and want to have one drone to really get to fly well and shoot everything in sight, and out of sight, then the Mavic is the tool of choice.
Don't forget, asking if one is better than the other is like asking if a spoon is better than a fork.
ChrisRL
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2017
- Messages
- 32
- Reactions
- 20
- Age
- 68
Me neither.
The video lag issue is nothing but the live download from the drone overloading the CPU of the tablet/cell phone. Easily worked around.
In your stills work, what's your primary DSLR? And the EDC you prefer taking around on walks?
(Every Day Carry)
The video lag issue is nothing but the live download from the drone overloading the CPU of the tablet/cell phone. Easily worked around.
In your stills work, what's your primary DSLR? And the EDC you prefer taking around on walks?
(Every Day Carry)
The UNDERTAKER
Member
Mavic , came from phantom 3 , mavic fits perfect in its bag with all accesorries in my electra glides side bags and is a pleasure to fly and very happy with cam !
My first mavic had all kinds of problems and DJI said to return it because it was defective. Got my second mavic and had the same problems and this time returned it for a refund. I have been flying the Phantom's since 2014 and at this point and convinced that that is the way to go. I have had issues over the years but none that were not able to be corrected.
Regulator247
Active Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2017
- Messages
- 31
- Reactions
- 16
- Age
- 55
In my opinion the only other DJI drone if rather have is an inspire 2. The speed and camera quality between the P4P and the mavic is negligible. I love my mavic and it is the only drone I fly on a regular basis. I fly my immersionrc vortex 250 pro when I want speed. I plan on flying my mavic for years to come.
Ursus Horribilis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2017
- Messages
- 60
- Reactions
- 19
- Age
- 78
I own the Mavic Pro, The Phantom 4 Pro and the Phantom 3 Pro and if I could have only one it would be the Phantom 3 Pro that isn't restricted by all the GEO crap and flight restrictions. I can fly my Phantom 3 Pro wherever I want, as high as I want and as far as I want, and although I'm not an advocate of breaking the rules, it's great to know I can. I wished I'd never heard of the Mavic or the Phantom 4 Pro. They're now useless to me here in Canada.
Bud
Bud
gschentag
Member
Like has been said already.
If you don't have it with you the P4P is not better than the Mavic you do have.
I carry mine, goggles, drone, controller and batteries (3) in a sling pack over my back.
I leave the car charger that came with the combo in the car glove box.
On my 'project list' is a charging area/table for all it.
If being able to fly spontaneously is even a little bit important you, then the Mavic stands apart.
Good luck.
Glenn
Haven't had any of those issues and love the mavic portability
ive had my mavic a little over a month now and haven't had any of those problems you mentioned
I have the mavic which I put in a small case and in my backpack with water and other stuff. Easily fits in. I've already seen p4p hiking around with the huge turtle shell case and making comments on how they wish they had gotten the mavic. For hikes and on the go, it's great. Plus batteries are much cheaper.
For picture quality, unless u directly compare the p4p alongside mavic with everythingu Do, I doubt u will notice a difference worth it.
Please feel free to check out my mavic video I made in Hawaii
"In Our Hawaiian Life- Beautiful Hawaii 4K Mavic Pro"
Hope this helps
For picture quality, unless u directly compare the p4p alongside mavic with everythingu Do, I doubt u will notice a difference worth it.
Please feel free to check out my mavic video I made in Hawaii
"In Our Hawaiian Life- Beautiful Hawaii 4K Mavic Pro"
Hope this helps
wsalopek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2016
- Messages
- 118
- Reactions
- 32
- Age
- 64
P4P vs Mavic is just like DSLR vs "pocket camera". (Larger-sensored camera vs smaller-sensored camera.)
The Mavic (or pocket camera) can take "decent / good / very good" images (as judged by a given viewer using a given display device) in the non-demanding situations of:
1) good/bright lighting, and
2) situations where the brightest and darkest regions of an image are not too far apart
(And keeping in mind of course, that a "good" image is almost always more about subject/composition/lighting (in other words the photographer) than the actual equipment being used.)
In other words, a Mavic, in the hands of a skilled photographer, who can work within the limitations of the smaller sensor (see (1) and (2) above), and because he or she will likely have the Mavic with him or her more often, will almost ALWAYS be able to get a good/great shot with the Mavic...esp if the "display device" is Web/Instagram/Facebook/Youtube (as opposed to prints).
HOWEVER...
If that same photographer has access to a larger-sensored camera, in this case, the P4P, in the same situation, and especially if the light is relatively low and/or the dynamic range capability needed is high, that photographer will ALWAYS get an image with the P4P that is noticeably better looking, perhaps even to someone who might otherwise not be concerned with absolute image quality, than with a smaller-sensored camera, in this case, the Mavic.
You want the P4P if:
1) You or your audience will notice, or will demand/desire, the highest quality image.
2) You don't mind the extra weight/bulk.
You want the Mavic if:
1) You or your audience will not notice (or care if they do), that the image/video is not of the very best quality.
2) You want the most portable equipment you can find.
This is the exact same argument when choosing what size land-based camera to use. Lighter / cheaper / decent (depending on viewer), vs heavier / expensive / great, both in relation to what desire/demand/requirement the end viewer wants.
It's also why photographers and videographers typically have a "portfolio" of cameras / lenses...choosing each day which camera or cameras to take with them.
The Mavic (or pocket camera) can take "decent / good / very good" images (as judged by a given viewer using a given display device) in the non-demanding situations of:
1) good/bright lighting, and
2) situations where the brightest and darkest regions of an image are not too far apart
(And keeping in mind of course, that a "good" image is almost always more about subject/composition/lighting (in other words the photographer) than the actual equipment being used.)
In other words, a Mavic, in the hands of a skilled photographer, who can work within the limitations of the smaller sensor (see (1) and (2) above), and because he or she will likely have the Mavic with him or her more often, will almost ALWAYS be able to get a good/great shot with the Mavic...esp if the "display device" is Web/Instagram/Facebook/Youtube (as opposed to prints).
HOWEVER...
If that same photographer has access to a larger-sensored camera, in this case, the P4P, in the same situation, and especially if the light is relatively low and/or the dynamic range capability needed is high, that photographer will ALWAYS get an image with the P4P that is noticeably better looking, perhaps even to someone who might otherwise not be concerned with absolute image quality, than with a smaller-sensored camera, in this case, the Mavic.
You want the P4P if:
1) You or your audience will notice, or will demand/desire, the highest quality image.
2) You don't mind the extra weight/bulk.
You want the Mavic if:
1) You or your audience will not notice (or care if they do), that the image/video is not of the very best quality.
2) You want the most portable equipment you can find.
This is the exact same argument when choosing what size land-based camera to use. Lighter / cheaper / decent (depending on viewer), vs heavier / expensive / great, both in relation to what desire/demand/requirement the end viewer wants.
It's also why photographers and videographers typically have a "portfolio" of cameras / lenses...choosing each day which camera or cameras to take with them.
Last edited:
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
-
-
Wyoming Drone Trespass bill (establishes 200ft min. over private property)
- Started by Magpie
- Replies: 7
-
Forum statistics
