I'm buying the Pro because I can use it to zoom too

[Kilrah]

With good software downsampling should be as good as using the pixels 1:1. I would be surprised if there is a significant difference in these two modes.

Not exactly. The difference is small, but there is one. Even on my full frame mirrorless (A7R2) there is a small but visible difference between the downsampled and the cropped modes (also better in cropped mode).

 

[tirolo]

OK, bear with me. I'm a photographer at heart, and currently own a MP I. At first I was not decided on which MP II to "upgrade" to, when I do. Then I slowly realized for my needs and desires, the MP Pro II is the way to go for me, and that doesn't mean I can't get the benefits of "some" zoom capability.

The zoom Mavic has essentially the MP I camera with a zoom lens on it. Still "only" 12MP resolution and a small sensor. The Pro II has a bigger 20 MP sensor - more dynamic range, more resolution, more light sensitivity and or course a very adjustable f stop. And one could assume a nicer lens. Because a zoom is a sacrifice on IQ compared to a fixed lens. Lots of very nice advantages over the zoom.

But what about cropping images and video when you want to have a zoom effect from the MP Pro II?

In many ways, cropping and zooming are equivalent, so you can easily calculate what's possible. Let's consider still photos. Cropping (zoom equivalence) by 2X is equivalent to zooming from 28mm to 56mm. 20 MP image is 5472 x 3648, so 2 X crop means image is 2,736 x 1,824 or 5MP. Now, 5MP is a lot worse resolution than the Zoom's resolution of 12MP, but still could be enough for "online" photos in some cases. Look at this another way... what crop factor could you get that would reduce the Pro's 20MP to 12MP, to compare directly to the MP Zoom? Well, the answer is 1.3. That yields a 4,209 x 2,806 image and a focal length equivalence of 28 x 1.3 = 36mm. Not the 2x of the zoom, but it does give you some zoom "capability" from 28mm to 36mm at the same resolution as the MP Zoom.

So, that's what I'm thinking, anyone else had similar thoughts or opinions on this?

Those are all valid points. I went with the Zoom version so I can achieve background compression. I think the Pro is more about it's extra EV stop and Manual aperture (maybe to help get a "longer" depth of field and having a sharper landscape as the aperture number goes up?).... Ah and also the 10bit color... and all the crop calculation is a bit less valid if we consider the super res mode on the M2Z, in my opinion...

 

[ATPhoto]

I tend to agree with the OP's logic as I try to decide which M2 to buy. I'm a professional photographer also and I think that in the end, having 20MP and aperture is going to outweigh zooming. However, there is one feature that the Mavic2 Zoom has that sounds amazing and that is the "Super Resolution Photos." You can get a stitched photo that is 48-megapixels. That one thing now has me 2nd guessing my choice for the Hasselblad lens. So, now here I am unable to decide again...lol...

Has anyone seen a "Super Resolution Photo" yet? I can't seem to find one to download and examine.

Edit: I did find a few images to examine. In fact, I found the two on the French site and put the 12mp and 20 mp side by side as a comparison. As expected, the 48mp feature can provide an image with amazing resolution. Just scale that attached image to 200 or 300% in Photoshop and view the difference. Again, this does not make my decision as to which Mavic 2 to buy any easier. I wish the Hasselblad could do Super Resolution and the decision would be made for me.

Edit 2: I just keep looking at the possibilities of the Super Resolution image. Here is another comparison from the same two French shots. You can almost read the label on the tag of the jeans pocket and you can actually see the zipper of the jacket pocket. Needless to say, Super Resolution is a great feature.

I found another super res image online (can't remember where now, its a view of New York city) that I downloaded and the quality was fantastic and has got me thinking about which way to go. However, as good as it is, I don't think it would hold up in low light but it gives you a huge amount of data to work with.

 

[RobH2]

I found another super res image online (can't remember where now, its a view of New York city)

I found that NYC image also. It was pretty amazing and was a good test as there were tons of small details to look at and evaluate. I'm having to prioritize my needs and make some difficult choices. It really depends on what you shoot for sure. I have no need for dolly zoom or zoom really for that matter. I'm interested in image quality and resolution. A 48MP image is an enticing thing, even if it is from a smaller sensor. But, having a 20MP Hasselblad is no insignificant thing. I was a commercial photographer in a past career and all I shot were Hasselblad cameras. There's no disputing they make some of the best cameras in the world.

I'm actually not in as big of a rush to decide now as I was with all the chat about some of the issues users are experiencing. While I wait for things to iron out, I can keep evaluating and working on my decision about which to buy.

 

[Hiflyer808]

Digital zoom is EXACTLY the same as optical in terms of perspective, how big the background looks compared to the foreground etc. People confuse zooming with moving the camera. The moving camera is what creates the background size shift in the dolly zoom, and you can get exactly the same effect by digitally zooming in post on a shot where the camera is moving towards or away from the subject. And you have more control with that digital zoom, for example you could zoom in a little more slowly as the camera moves backward, making your foreground subject actually get smaller as the background gets bigger. Only drawback is decreased resolution, not noticeable if you shoot in 4k and edit in hd. Even if the final version is 4k you can do a more modest dolly zoom shot in post without a very noticeable decrease in sharpness. So (unless the Pro's full fov 4k is as soft as some are saying), the Pro's camera advantages outweigh those of the Zoom by quite a bit if you are a more serious videographer or photographer. But if mostly an enthusiast posting on social media, run out and buy the Zoom.

 

[JDawg]

so am I to understand the Pro doesn't even have digital zoom?

Did you use your lil glock on your lil noggin?

 

[ATPhoto]

I found that NYC image also. It was pretty amazing and was a good test as there were tons of small details to look at and evaluate. I'm having to prioritize my needs and make some difficult choices. It really depends on what you shoot for sure. I have no need for dolly zoom or zoom really for that matter. I'm interested in image quality and resolution. A 48MP image is an enticing thing, even if it is from a smaller sensor. But, having a 20MP Hasselblad is no insignificant thing. I was a commercial photographer in a past career and all I shot were Hasselblad cameras. There's no disputing they make some of the best cameras in the world.

I'm actually not in as big of a rush to decide now as I was with all the chat about some of the issues users are experiencing. While I wait for things to iron out, I can keep evaluating and working on my decision about which to buy.

It would be nice if they could incorporate the Super Resolution into the Pro camera. I'm sure they can, it's just a matter of whether they want to! Maybe a firmware update at a later date?

 

[gnirtS]

It would be nice if they could incorporate the Super Resolution into the Pro camera. I'm sure they can, it's just a matter of whether they want to! Maybe a firmware update at a later date?

How? Super resolution is just a 3 x 3 stitched panorama made at 48mm zoomed in.
There is no optical zoom on the pro. A firmware update cant add an optical zoom.

 

[shotes]

The in camera agile adjustment to FOV can be handy with the M2Z, but to get it for Dolly Zoom is not needed. This explains it well and how to quickly do it on any Drone.

That's not a dolly zoom. It's a cinematic effect similar to a dolly zoom. The bridge shot in particular shows distortion.

 

[RobH2]

How? Super resolution is just a 3 x 3 stitched panorama made at 48mm zoomed in.
There is no optical zoom on the pro. A firmware update cant add an optical zoom.

Yea, now that I think about it, you are right about this. You could add a digital zoom with firmware but not an optical one if the hardware doesn't have the necessary components. So, good point, there won't be Super Resolution on the Pro with the current lens.

I did see an article about how easy it is to swap out the cameras on the M2. It's 4 screws and you can buy the cameras on EBay already. They are kind of expensive though, $650 if I recall. I wonder if the operating system would just automatically pick up whatever camera is plugged in and work? That could be a workaround. I know the mount isn't made for frequent removal and insertion, but now and again it would be nice to swap the camera and have options, at least until DJI decides it would be prudent to have a gimbal mount that is swappable.

 

[LivinLarge]

Lens compression doesn't exist. Compression is cause by distance to the subject.
Lens Compression Doesn't Exist

 

[shotes]

Lens compression doesn't exist. Compression is cause by distance to the subject.
Lens Compression Doesn't Exist

But it does exist because cropping that wide shot makes it unusable. The point of a longer focal length is to get the shot. The point of a short focal length is to get the shot. Most interesting shots are not going to be successfully cropped in a large way in post production.

On a related topic, one reason longer focal lengths are not used often in landscape photography is that choice results in shooting through more atmosphere. Unless a stand off distance with a drone is necessary, closer is usually better. This is true in street photography too when composing shots. Good news photographers don't stand back with longer focal lengths because it limits composition options.

Arguing that cropping is indistinguishable from increased focal length simply shows lack of real world experience. Good outdoor photography is about compositing the 3D world onto a 2D image.

 

[FlyaDrone]

There are plenty of great digital photo stitching apps available, some good ones are also free. Do M2P with 20Mp lens is able to provide 80Mp hi-res images by putting the grids on your display and taking 4 pics then stitch them on your computer. A little practice and you will be getting better results than the zoom function. Anyone agree or am I off base here?

 

[RobH2]

Do M2P with 20Mp lens is able to provide 80Mp hi-res images by putting the grids on your display and taking 4 pics then stitch them on your computer.

Yes, that is a viable option. Litchi (Phantom Flight School) has a lecture that discusses manually doing 360 panos by doing just that, use a grid and manually rotate the aircraft to get overlap and shoot all of the base images to be stitched. It's a little harder than a preprogrammed function (which Litchi also had that works perfectly) but it's not all that hard. The thing is, because the Pro lens is so wide, you have to get pretty close to the subject to be able to have 4 images to overlap without producing a partial pano in the process. It's a workaround but for a straight normal shot, it's not optimal.

Correct, you can't say that cropping in is the same as zooming or using different focal lengths. Long lenses have a unique effect called perspective flattening. You can't get that by shooting with a 24mm lens and cropping in. It's more apparent on really long lenses like 300mm, but the longer the lens the more flattening you get.

I agree about the stitching. Photoshop does a great job and there are indeed some good free ones. I use PTGui Pro, it costs, but it's incredible.

 

[gnirtS]

There are plenty of great digital photo stitching apps available, some good ones are also free. Do M2P with 20Mp lens is able to provide 80Mp hi-res images by putting the grids on your display and taking 4 pics then stitch them on your computer. A little practice and you will be getting better results than the zoom function. Anyone agree or am I off base here?

Sort of off base.

You'll have a panorama of 80mpixel yes but the actual resolution (pixels per inch etc) is still 20mpixel. You just have more area covered.

So for a given area/field of view you cant replace the zooms ability other than by flying closer.

 

[shotes]

Sort of off base.

You'll have a panorama of 80mpixel yes but the actual resolution (pixels per inch etc) is still 20mpixel. You just have more area covered.

So for a given area/field of view you cant replace the zooms ability other than by flying closer.

I agree. Stitching doesn't help with zoom/crop.

The tricky part about evaluating Mavic 2 zoom vs Pro is that both the lens and sensor is superior on the Pro. The Pro can also be stopped down which will increase optical resolution compared to the zoom at wide aperture.

It's much less expensive to build a quality lightweight prime lens on the pro compared to the lightweight zoom lens on the zoom. Only controlled testing (non-flight) can tell us how a crop on the Pro compares to the zoom .

 

[Hiflyer808]

Cropping in IS exactly the same as zooming in, as far as background size compared to foreground goes. Come on, it's physics 101, entirely a function of distance. The farther away you are, the larger the background looks compared to the foreground. The compression you see with a long lens is because you ate shooting from farther away. Shoot the same scene at the same distance with a wide lens and everything looks smaller, but the relative size of background and foreground don't change. Crop in digitally to match fov of the longer lens and voila, same compression. What IS different is depth of field, so with the longer lens the background could look less in focus. On the other hand the mavic zoom closes the iris down to f3.8 as it zooms, increasing depth of field, so even that difference should be minimal.

 

[FlyaDrone]

Just saying....stitching performed by the drone is the same result as stitching post processing. So not that important if done pre or post processing. Right?

 

[BobGriswold]

 

[LivinLarge]

But it does exist because cropping that wide shot makes it unusable. The point of a longer focal length is to get the shot. The point of a short focal length is to get the shot. Most interesting shots are not going to be successfully cropped in a large way in post production.

On a related topic, one reason longer focal lengths are not used often in landscape photography is that choice results in shooting through more atmosphere. Unless a stand off distance with a drone is necessary, closer is usually better. This is true in street photography too when composing shots. Good news photographers don't stand back with longer focal lengths because it limits composition options.

Arguing that cropping is indistinguishable from increased focal length simply shows lack of real world experience. Good outdoor photography is about compositing the 3D world onto a 2D image.

No one said that it was indistinguishable, only that cropping produces the same compression and perspective as using a longer focal length lens from the same distance. Perspective comes from distance, not lens focal length. That is the point of the article. A 20 Mp sensor has lots of room to crop and still get a usable image.