First Drone for a Pro Photographer

[Stevezphoto]

I bought the Mavic set of ND filters when I bought the Air. I haven't used them yet, but saw a guy getting 1.5s exposures on an overcast morning. I like smooth water wave shots so in interested to try that out. I haven't had anything close to a no wind day yet to try.

its hard to tell, the mav is usally in continous focus and the focus range is small green box i just push the screen in the general area i want in focus and it seems to do pretty good, i think the nd filters are more for video and slowing down the shutter speed for video, i dont think 1/2000 is optimal for 4k video and they recomend much slower and since theres no aperture nd is the only way to get there, i dont shoot much if any video so i dont worrry about it, i dont mind 1/2000 for stills, i know it will freeze the shot anyways haha, i do havea set of nd as well and only used them once but i didnt like the color cast, i got the cheapies haha

 

[lisadoc]

i think the nd filters are more for video and slowing down the shutter speed for video, i dont think 1/2000 is optimal for 4k video and they recomend much slower and since theres no aperture nd is the only way to get there,

That's not true (unless you are defining it as "physical means of capturing light"). As with any camera, you have three options to change light levels on the final photo/video: aperture, shutter speed, and ISO (four options, if you count post-processing). With the Mavic having a fixed aperture, you technically only have two: shutter speed and ISO. The fastest shutter speed you have is 1/8000 sec, which is pretty darn fast, so if your light levels exceed that, you still have your ISO to modify. The lowest ISO you have access to on the Mavic is 100 (base ISO), which is sufficient for many light levels in most situations. Even keeping your shutter speed at longer times (1/200 sec or longer), 100 ISO covers a huge variation in light levels, up to a bright day.

For stills, ND filters are useless unless you need/want longer exposures, as the OP describes for a very specific situation.

For video, many folks swear not to exceed "such-and-such" ISO, or your ISO and shutter speed should be in "x" relationship, which in reality, is only personal preference and not mandatory or the only desirable method by any stretch. The tiny amount of blur added in video capture through lower shutter speeds may not be worth the cost (both monetary and conceptual) of adding in another piece of glass in front of an already low quality lens, with the possibility of adding glare, dust, or simply degrading the lens quality even further. With the distance from subject that most people film at with their drone, the trade-off between "degrading" the video quality due to less-than-cinematic motion in their shot vs. the actual degrading of the shot through the inclusion of a less-than-stellar piece of glass of an ND filter is either indistinguishable or slightly in favor of the increasing of shutter speed. ND filters are a panacea that many reach to without understanding the trade-offs or simply as a matter of routine. Their use however, should be limited to very specific circumstances under very limited conditions.

 

[Stevezphoto]

While I have years of photo experience, I'm a total newb at video. I'm interested in your comments @lisadoc. I saw somewhere else, where that someone was saying that the stated "x relationship" isn't super distinguishable at this level of quality recording.

As I said earlier, I'm curious to shoot some video with ND and without, to see if I can actually tell the difference, without intense pixel peeping. No reason to make things complex for me, especially if this is just for my own entertainment or social media, and not for pro purposes.

For video, many folks swear not to exceed "such-and-such" ISO, or your ISO and shutter speed should be in "x" relationship, which in reality, is only personal preference and not mandatory or the only desirable method by any stretch. The tiny amount of blur added in video capture through lower shutter speeds may not be worth the cost (both monetary and conceptual) of adding in another piece of glass in front of an already low quality lens, with the possibility of adding glare, dust, or simply degrading the lens quality even further.

 

[Mossiback]

I have a set and I know what they are for, but am interested to see the difference with and without. I'm sure its been written about, but what is the optimal shutter speed?

I'm also curious what the minimum shutter is for stills, and how you figure out what it should be since its hard to know exactly what speed the upper level winds are.

Without ND filters your videos will appear choppy or jittery. It is especially noticeable during panning in bright conditions.

Regarding shutter speed for stills, it is the same for any camera; without a tripod a slower shutter speed increases the likelihood of a blurred image. Unless you are trying a special effect, ND filters are not needed. The exception would be a polarizing filter to improve blue skies or/and reduce reflected sunlight.

 

[Stevezphoto]

Unless you are trying a special effect, ND filters are not needed.

I like doing daytime long exposures with an ND and a tripod.

I am curious how good of a tripod a drone can be, and what is the maximum wind where you have a chance at getting a sharp image. I understand it likely takes many attempts to get the right timing in between wind gusts.

 

[lisadoc]

As I said earlier, I'm curious to shoot some video with ND and without, to see if I can actually tell the difference, without intense pixel peeping. No reason to make things complex for me, especially if this is just for my own entertainment or social media, and not for pro purposes.

That's precisely what you should do. Take it out. Film different ways using different protocols, and see if you can tell the difference or which is your personal preference. I would suggest, if you don't already have ND filters, to forgo them until you do a fair bit of filming and then (and only then) if you see a need for them (because the higher shutter speed bothers you in the final product) purchase one or two and try them out.

Photography (and videography) are very personal endeavors and what you should do is to rely on your own preferences, not the dictates of others. If you and your family/friends are happy with the final product and if you're not making a living producing videos or selling photos, then stick with what pleases yourself the most. Some people like exaggerated colors. Some like muted colors. Some like slightly blurred motion. Others like crisper images and video frames. Some people like slow, long moving shots with subtle transitions. Others like quick jump cuts and shortened shot sequences. One way is not right and the other wrong. They're just different. And the best way will always be your way. As a pro photographer though, I'm sure you already know all that.

 

[Jwelz]

i am hoping the new rumored mav pro2 will have an adjustable aperture camera,2.8 is to shallow, i want to close her down to f8 and get everyghing in focus, pretty happy with the results with this camera but it takes some work to get there, welcome to the forum by the way

Mavic Pro fixed aperture is F:2.2. You will find many cell phone cameras with even wider fixed apertures. A useful depth of field calculator can be found here: A Flexible Depth of Field Calculator.

An F:2.0 lens focussed at 20 ft will have everything from 2.04 feet to infinity in focus, depending on print size and acceptable viewing distance and circle of confusion size.

The Cambridge in Colour site also has a diffraction limit calculator where you can quickly see that, with a Mavic sensor size of 1/2.3", the fuzziness caused by diffraction will exceed that caused by being out of focus. Diffraction is a property of light passing through an opening and it increases as apertures get smaller. An F:2.2 lens is potentially sharper than an F:2.8 lens as it is less affected by diffraction. It turns out that a 1/2.3" sensor is diffraction limited at F:2.8 and a variable aperture that stops down smaller, say to F:4, serves only to turn the entire image to mush. While the depth range of what is in focus may have increased by stopping down, everything both in and out of focus is rendered less sharply as mush. Depth of field with a small sensor is enormous even with large or wide apertures so stopping down is not necessary for depth of field.

The calculations all shift with a larger sensor such as with full frame 35 mm camera sensors where the inherent depth of field is narrower and diffraction effects are not as much a factor until after F:5.6. 5.6 is already pushing the mathematical limits with 1" sensors of larger drones.

 

[genesimmons]

Mavic Pro fixed aperture is F:2.2. You will find many cell phone cameras with even wider fixed apertures. A useful depth of field calculator can be found here: A Flexible Depth of Field Calculator.

An F:2.0 lens focussed at 20 ft will have everything from 2.04 feet to infinity in focus, depending on print size and acceptable viewing distance and circle of confusion size.

The Cambridge in Colour site also has a diffraction limit calculator where you can quickly see that, with a Mavic sensor size of 1/2.3", the fuzziness caused by diffraction will exceed that caused by being out of focus. Diffraction is a property of light passing through an opening and it increases as apertures get smaller. An F:2.2 lens is potentially sharper than an F:2.8 lens as it is less affected by diffraction. It turns out that a 1/2.3" sensor is diffraction limited at F:2.8 and a variable aperture that stops down smaller, say to F:4, serves only to turn the entire image to mush. While the depth range of what is in focus may have increased by stopping down, everything both in and out of focus is rendered less sharply as mush. Depth of field with a small sensor is enormous even with large or wide apertures so stopping down is not necessary for depth of field.

The calculations all shift with a larger sensor such as with full frame 35 mm camera sensors where the inherent depth of field is narrower and diffraction effects are not as much a factor until after F:5.6. 5.6 is already pushing the mathematical limits with 1" sensors of larger drones.

thats all fine and dandy but when i shoot a landscape with my real camera i dont use f2.2 or 2.8, i use f8 or f11. hoping the new mav will have adjustable aperture so no more nd filters, adjustable aperture will allow the exposure triangle to be user adjusted without nd filters.

 

[jmitteco]

I'm a professional photographer & had been considering a drone for years so I could get away from hanging out of expensive helicopters to shoot aerials.
I do a lot of hotel/resort work but I really specialize in food.
I bought the Mavic Pro when it came out.
The drone itself is amazing & I love it. The camera... not so much.
I look at it as somewhere between a decent iPhone camera & a crappy DSLR.
It just doesn't have the dynamic range that I'm looking for. I have to spend a ton of time in Lightroom & Photoshop to get my images to anywhere near where I want them.
And it Really sucks in low light.
AEB has limitations too.
I think the 1" sensor on the P4P would suit me better but I also want the portability of the Mavic.
Hoping they put a much better camera on the Mavic Pro 2.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[Stevezphoto]

The P4P is still more portable than an expensive helicopter!

I hear yeah on the better camera. Hopefully in time they will take the Mavic foldability model and just scale it up a bit to carry the extra size/weight of a larger sensor camera.

I'm a professional photographer & had been considering a drone for years so I could get away from hanging out of expensive helicopters to shoot aerials.
I do a lot of hotel/resort work but I really specialize in food.
I bought the Mavic Pro when it came out.
The drone itself is amazing & I love it. The camera... not so much.
I look at it as somewhere between a decent iPhone camera & a crappy DSLR.
It just doesn't have the dynamic range that I'm looking for. I have to spend a ton of time in Lightroom & Photoshop to get my images to anywhere near where I want them.
And it Really sucks in low light.
AEB has limitations too.
I think the 1" sensor on the P4P would suit me better but I also want the portability of the Mavic.
Hoping they put a much better camera on the Mavic Pro 2.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[daasmangi]

I guess I don't know what I'm looking for ... But here are some shots from my first flights!

I'm not sure if I should insert images as thumbnails or full images. Here goes thumbnails.View attachment 38575 View attachment 38576 View attachment 38577 View attachment 38578 View attachment 38579 View attachment 38580

Awesome piks

 

[wombat]

I bought the Mavic set of ND filters when I bought the Air. I haven't used them yet, but saw a guy getting 1.5s exposures on an overcast morning. I like smooth water wave shots so in interested to try that out. I haven't had anything close to a no wind day yet to try.

if you like slow waves have a look at this filter ND 1000 I have one but not had the time to use it yet

ND 1000 FILTER FOR DJI MAVIC

 

[Jwelz]

thats all fine and dandy but when i shoot a landscape with my real camera i dont use f2.2 or 2.8, i use f8 or f11. hoping the new mav will have adjustable aperture so no more nd filters, adjustable aperture will allow the exposure triangle to be user adjusted without nd filters.

And if you had an 8 by 10 camera you'd be using F:64.

Using the depth of field calculator: A Flexible Depth of Field Calculator and using F:2.8 for a 5mm focal length lens, with a comparable field of view to a 28mm focal length lens on a full frame 35mm camera, focussing both at an object 5 metres away and all other assumptions about image size, viewing distance and acceptable sharpness the same, the hypothetical F:2.8 lens would have everything from 1.2 metres to infinity in focus and the 35mm camera would have everything from 3.19 to 11.58 metres in focus. At F:2.0, a Mavic sized sensor would, all other things being equal, have everything from 1.53 meters to infinity in focus.

Desired and useful aperture ranges depend on sensor size. A photo taken at F:8 on a Mavic sized sensor would have image quality comparable to a Kodak Brownie or a pinhole camera. DJI could package the Mavic with a 640 by 480 sensor for all the resolution you'd get at F:11.

 

[genesimmons]

And if you had an 8 by 10 camera you'd be using F:64.

Using the depth of field calculator: A Flexible Depth of Field Calculator and using F:2.8 for a 5mm focal length lens, with a comparable field of view to a 28mm focal length lens on a full frame 35mm camera, focussing both at an object 5 metres away and all other assumptions about image size, viewing distance and acceptable sharpness the same, the hypothetical F:2.8 lens would have everything from 1.2 metres to infinity in focus and the 35mm camera would have everything from 3.19 to 11.58 metres in focus. At F:2.0, a Mavic sized sensor would, all other things being equal, have everything from 1.53 meters to infinity in focus.

Desired and useful aperture ranges depend on sensor size. A photo taken at F:8 on a Mavic sized sensor would have image quality comparable to a Kodak Brownie or a pinhole camera. DJI could package the Mavic with a 640 by 480 sensor for all the resolution you'd get at F:11.

again all that sounds fine,,,,, hoping the new mav woud have an adjustable aperture and of course imporoved sensor maybe like the phatoms or inspire, being in full control of the exposure triagle would be great without nd filters, the more user adustable paremters the better, phones like the s9 and u11 have adjustable apertures with tiny sensors,,,,,

 

[Stevezphoto]

Thanks, I like it!

if you like slow waves have a look at this filter ND 1000 I have one but not had the time to use it.

 

[Wipster]

Hello all,

10 years ago I joined the DWF Digital Wedding Forum en route to my new career as a wedding and portrait photographer. So many hours of my life spent there! After some years that forum faded from its previous glory and I haven't been active on any forums since.

4.5 years ago I closed my photography studio, rented my condo in Colorado, and headed off to Asia with a backpack to see the world. I never thought it would go this long, but I'm still going!

I've had a drone urge for a long time, but I'm a world traveling minimalist, and never wanted to carry the extra gear. Well, the Mavic Air has finally piqued my interest for size and quality, so I made the jump and picked one up a couple weeks ago in Australia.

Now that I've got a dozen flight in, I'm itching for more info on how to get the results I want. Searching Google isn't getting me the results I want...so here I am!

Looking forward to sharing and comparing and looking forward to some dronespiration.

Cheers,

Steve Z

If you ate really a photographer you should have waited until Christmas

 

[Stevezphoto]

Carpe Diem!

If you ate really a photographer you should have waited until Christmas

 

[Jwelz]

If you want a slightly more technical analysis but with a simple 3 category numerical summary of a comparison of drone sensors, there is a pretty good analysis at: DxOMark benchmarks for popular drone camera sensors - DxOMark

Although the Mavic is not specifically detailed, the non pro version of the Phantom 4 is reviewed and its sensor has the same size and similar characteristics to the Mavic Pro. Its specs are significantly better than a GoPro Hero 5.

There is a fairly good user discussion about the effects of stopping down the aperture of the 1" sensor on the Phantom 4 Pro at: Phantom 4 PRO lens "sweet spot" test

 

[Stevezphoto]

Is there anyone on this thread who can read flight logs?

Curious as to why my Air just disconnected and never regained connection with the controller. I lost LOS and had a panic moment, but it did eventually RTH.

Thread Here