Help with mavic pro photo quality

[Rob W]

Dear All

I recently bought a mavic pro and took some photos in auto mode but I'm very disappointed with photos quality. Below are some samples from mavic pro photos. Any suggestion for improve photos quality. Photos taken in RAW and use AF. Is something wrong with my settings or maybe camera problem?

View attachment 18045 View attachment 18046 View attachment 18047

Here is one of my shots. I am very happy with my Mavic, other than the horizon being off.

 

[Rob W]

Dear All

I recently bought a mavic pro and took some photos in auto mode but I'm very disappointed with photos quality. Below are some samples from mavic pro photos. Any suggestion for improve photos quality. Photos taken in RAW and use AF. Is something wrong with my settings or maybe camera problem?

View attachment 18045 View attachment 18046 View attachment 18047

Here is your third picture with a very quick adjustment. This was a 200k jpg not the raw file, so it isn't great, but shows what a little post processing can do. Are you sure there weren't smudges on the camera lens, there are areas of discoloration that could be a dirty lens or possibly the camera setting are way off like others have said.

 

[Navigator]

Here is your third picture with a very quick adjustment. This was a 200k jpg not the raw file, so it isn't great, but shows what a little post processing can do. Are you sure there weren't smudges on the camera lens, there are areas of discoloration that could be a dirty lens or possibly the camera setting are way off like others have said.View attachment 19800

Dear Rob W

Thank you very much for showing me how much better can be the picture quality just after a simple post processing.

I'm pretty sure that there weren't smudges on the camera lens.

 

[geigy]

I think there are a few things you can do to improve things.

First, use a different profile / LUT when processing - the one you are using is giving a magenta cast to the sky, which is the single biggest color problem that I see. Also, try the built-in jpeg files - pretty decent actually, and if you are not really using the features of raw capture then the added processing may be unnecessary. Raw will give you good quality, but maybe start off simple at first, and then go to raw to give your images an edge regarding jpeg compression, HDR, etc.

Second, the images as shown here are tiny - about 1K or so. I can't make a meaningful call on how sharp they are. Either everyone else is looking at the images differently, you are capturing at a low resolution (raw still images should be about 4K horizontal rez), or something else is going on that I don't understand.

Third - the images do seem to have a magenta vignette effect, and this could be what you are seeing. Not uncommon with very wide angle, compact cameras like the Mavic has. Do a flat field test by photographing a blurred white wall or other light colored object held up close to the lens. Use manual focus and blur the image as much as possible. Then see if there is a consistent problem with color changing in the corners. If so, you may need to send your camera in.

 

[dewster]

You're photos look like my photos. I'm not impressed with the quality. Maybe a lens filter will help.

 

[Scarab69]

Actually thats completely and utterly incorrect. An ND filter has absolutely no effect on light metering or balancing shadows and highlights. It has absolutely no effect on dynamic range. None. Not a bit.

An ND prevents light entering meaning you need a slower shutter speed (or higher iso). This is fine for video. For stills it makes no difference. The mavic is more than capable of selecting a shutter speed high enough to balance an exposure without a filter to help it. Even in direct, bright desert sunshine in the middle of summer the mavic has shutter speeds more than enough to work.
NDs are for video only. It seems you don't really know what they do as you've made several physically incorrect statements there.

How about for daytime, long exposure shots?

 

[gnirtS]

Good luck finding a 10 stop or more ND to allow for that. Or getting the mavic stable enough for the multi second or tens of seconds needed to pull it off.

 

[geigy]

Good luck finding a 10 stop or more ND to allow for that. Or getting the mavic stable enough for the multi second or tens of seconds needed to pull it off.

People do that - long exposures of a second or so from the Mavic, and it is a good use of an ND filter. Even getting down to 1/4 or 1/8 of a second will give a good soft effect of waves crashing, or water falling.

 

[gnirtS]

1/4 to 1/8 of a second is right in that "too blurred for a sharp photo, not blurred enough for a long exposure". Its a tiny percentage of people doing that. For everyone else, ND filters on stuff are completely pointless and only reduce image quality.

 

[geigy]

Well, I know that I have been saying that ND filters are not the be-all, but I would stop short of saying they are pointless. If I had a customer who wanted that 24fps cinematic look, I would whip out the ND filters because they are the usually only way to achieve it.

 

[gnirtS]

Well, I know that I have been saying that ND filters are not the be-all, but I would stop short of saying they are pointless. If I had a customer who wanted that 24fps cinematic look, I would whip out the ND filters because they are the usually only way to achieve it.

For video use, they're useful and potentially essential for fast movement in bright light. But we were talking stills here where you want the exact opposite of cinematic blur on a photo.

 

[geigy]

The video discusses using ND 32 and 64 to get up to 5 second stills. Worth watching.