Do you have any other DJI drone to compare the Mavic videos too?I don't get it.
To me, some of you are over analyzing the capability of a $1000 flying camera.
The image produced is nowhere near terrible. If you wanted a prosumer image, you should've purchased a prosumer drone. I get good footage from what I expect from the Mavic Pro. And I've seen amazing footage produced with it.
It's all a matter of perception and expectation. The Mavic isn't going to evolve into that if it isn't there already.
For example:
That's good footage, if you ask me.
I updated everything earlier. Still had watercolour & muddy trees. Decided to try without the ND4 filter that I always have on. I've always had to use at least the ND4 to get anywhere near shutter speed of 60. That seemed to have a positive effect. No water colour and the definition of branches was greatly improved. Just wondering now if the Firmware can handle computing the adjustment that a filter requires? If we took a poll. How many of us having watercolour issues are using any type of filter? My default setup is ND4 filter. UltraHD (3840) at 30fps. Art -1,-1,0.
I don't get it.
To me, some of you are over analyzing the capability of a $1000 flying camera.
The image produced is nowhere near terrible. If you wanted a prosumer image, you should've purchased a prosumer drone. I get good footage from what I expect from the Mavic Pro. And I've seen amazing footage produced with it.
It's all a matter of perception and expectation. The Mavic isn't going to evolve into that if it isn't there already.
For example:
That's good footage, if you ask me.
Ive shot with DSLR's for years and I see nothing wrong with the quality for its price point, whats the use complaining about the camera when we know its on the cheaper side of the DJI line its good for what it is.A little story for you.
When I was at University a friend of mine who was also into computers was also a professional musician. Every song I listened to he hated! He would constantly complain that the person playing instrument X was off key and that this was bad and that was bad etc. The only thing that made him happy was listening to classical music by the greats.
Same thing here. If your into pro photography or have a good DSLR and video cam then you see every problem with the Mavic Video and pictures. If your coming from a background of using Cell phone cameras then the Mavic is wonderful. I am not being a snob, I am just stating a fact that once you have gotten your feet wet into pro photography and know what to look for, the problems are so blaring that they just ruin it for you. I guess ignorance is truly Bliss. At first glance the Mavic Video does look ok but then as you take it in you see lot of problems like blur, noise, glare, poor dynamic range, over saturation, hot spots. That sample you provided shows most of those problems but most people will blissfully not notice.
The Mavic is Ok for what it is. As I said it's built to a price, I can accept that.
Rob
I'm not new to photography and know exactly what you're saying. I'm advanced enough to know what to expect from the camera of the Mavic Pro. And simply stating, if any MP owner expected prosumer image from a consumer drone, that is no ones fault but your own.A little story for you.
When I was at University a friend of mine who was also into computers was also a professional musician. Every song I listened to he hated! He would constantly complain that the person playing instrument X was off key and that this was bad and that was bad etc. The only thing that made him happy was listening to classical music by the greats.
Same thing here. If your into pro photography or have a good DSLR and video cam then you see every problem with the Mavic Video and pictures. If your coming from a background of using Cell phone cameras then the Mavic is wonderful. I am not being a snob, I am just stating a fact that once you have gotten your feet wet into pro photography and know what to look for, the problems are so blaring that they just ruin it for you. I guess ignorance is truly Bliss. At first glance the Mavic Video does look ok but then as you take it in you see lot of problems like blur, noise, glare, poor dynamic range, over saturation, hot spots. That sample you provided shows most of those problems but most people will blissfully not notice.
The Mavic is Ok for what it is. As I said it's built to a price, I can accept that.
Rob
Do you get watercolour effect?
If you want professional quality above an inspire by all means shell out the money for a camera and then buy a drone to mount it.. these drones are consumer drones I dont see why someone needs to fuss over that.
What other consumer drone in this size and price produce better quality? None that im aware of.
Oh yes - plenty of it.
I've had in low light (dull and flat) and in bright winter sunshine (harsh and contrasty).
I've been following the discussions on the expected verses actual or perceived quality. I too have used DSLR's, phones, good quality prime optics and super zooms.
The trouble is, I have shot good quality video on my Mavic in low light and bright light and been happy with the quality. Yes the sharpness and saturation are way overdone and obviously on my 40" 4K monitor the shortcomings are apparent - BUT the overall result is still very good for what it is.
However.
When the Watercolour issues arises the quality is abysmal and wouldn't be acceptable on any camera in this price range. It converts the Mavic into a good FPV toy - not a flying camera.
It's just a very annoying software issue - that * is* fixable.
I accept the dynamic range and bandwidth restrictions will have to wait for the next version. But fix the software so we can safely turn down the sharpening and saturation and most of us can be happy bunnies.
My NTSC/PAL switch has so far saved my videos - just upgraded the firmware but no chance to fly again yet.
Mine hasnt produced watercolor ive been using it every day in one form or another and it still produces good quality video. So its not all mavics that have the issue. If it was 100% all mavics then yeah the claim that it sucks might hold some water but its not.It's true that there may not be any other drone out there currently at the Mavic's price point and level of portability that has better video quality. But I think part of the problem is the Mavic has been marketed (either by DJI directly or the early reviewers) as an ultra portable version of the P4, which produces good quality amateur level video... for example, something that will look decent to good as a 1080p YouTube video. But when the watercolour issue in particular occurs with the Mavic, even in the context of a casual YT video, it looks pretty sub-par. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm not expecting prosumer level video out of this thing... but I am expecting video of similar quality at least to a high end smartphone. I think this is a pretty fair expectation, even at the Mavic's price point.
I agree here too. @joshnl ....I can see how you would be inclined to judge the Mavic as a whole based on your experience. I really do hope DJI can resolve this issue with those affected. I just don't think it is a general fact with all Mavics though. The video isn't spectacular, but in a working model, it's pretty good!Mine hasnt produced watercolor ive been using it every day in one form or another and it still produces good quality video. So its not all mavics that have the issue. If it was 100% all mavics then yeah the claim that it sucks might hold some water but its not.
Mine hasnt produced watercolor ive been using it every day in one form or another and it still produces good quality video. So its not all mavics that have the issue. If it was 100% all mavics then yeah the claim that it sucks might hold some water but its not.
So far, the Mavic's video quality has been hugely disappointing for me. I expect it to be at least as good as a high end smartphone's camera, but from my experience so far, it's not
--- SNIP ---
Don't quote me, but I think the camera on the Mav is the same as the P4, sensor and all. And the P4P comparison shouldn't exist because that is a whole different camera and sensor, and we actually SHOULD expect lower quality images than that camera!The Mavic is by no means a low end, made to price drone.Especially when its aptly named Mavic PRO. Its pretty much the same price as a P3P back in the day and the P3P has a much better camera compared to the mavic. I dont care what anyone says. I have hundreds of videos from my p3p and they are 1000% better than my Mavic's under any lighting conditions..
I dont agree to the fact that we should expect lower quality images from the mavic because it is $300 cheaper than the P4P.
I see where your going with this statement. That is a good point. I wonder what the actual percentage is.Even if it's true that it doesn't affect all Mavics, it clearly affects some non-trivial number of them. So I don't think it's fair to say the claim that it sucks (to highly and roughly paraphrase what I said in my posts) doesn't hold water. If it was a small percentage of clearly defective units (as defined by DJI's QC standards), then I'd agree. But clearly, since so many of these affected Mavics are making it into the wild, their QC must deem it as up to product specifications, and therefore it's fair game to criticize it as a negative feature of the product.
I wonder when the majority of these mavics were bought. A lot of times when companies go all out to produce a product at a fast pace to meet demand QC issues happen. With all the complaining about pre orders not shipping I wonder if QC just said screw it ship them all out as fast as you can..Even if it's true that it doesn't affect all Mavics, it clearly affects some non-trivial number of them. So I don't think it's fair to say the claim that it sucks (to highly and roughly paraphrase what I said in my posts) doesn't hold water. If it was a small percentage of clearly defective units (as defined by DJI's QC standards), then I'd agree. But clearly, since so many of these affected Mavics are making it into the wild, their QC must deem it as up to product specifications, and therefore it's fair game to criticize it as a negative feature of the product.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.