Is a DJI Mavic 2 Pro a dodo

[GadgetGuy]

The M2 has entered End of Support, so it is technically obsolete. No longer receiving No-Fly-Zone updates could be construed as an unsafe aircraft. Currently, we are recycling out about 6 drones and 40 batteries.

The only No-Fly-Zone update for any DJI aircraft now is the FlySafe database update to permanently remove GEO. QED.

 

[Dmcvey]

I have had several inquiries about purchasing batteries and drones. We have deprecated them as a Capital Expense over 5 years, and they now have no economic value. IRS would not allow the sale. All our drones have a 5-year lifespan and are then replaced. We drill out the HD, and a vendor signs off on the destruction.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I have had several inquiries about purchasing batteries and drones. We have deprecated them as a Capital Expense over 5 years, and they now have no economic value. IRS would not allow the sale. All our drones have a 5-year lifespan and are then replaced. We drill out the HD, and a vendor signs off on the destruction.

I assume you mean depreciated, rather than deprecated. LOL!
I rather liked my Mavic 2 Pros, and would never speak ill of them.

 

[Dmcvey]

I assume you mean depreciated, rather than deprecated. LOL!
I rather liked my Mavic 2 Pros, and would never speak ill of them.

Thanks....need more coffee

 

[jwilson]

Hi Guys,

I am new to this forum so be nice if I miss anything.

Anyways, I have had a DJI Mavic Air 2S for a while now and want to venture into professional drone photography as this seems to be the most lucrative, at least where I live.

My funds are extremely low and I can afford a DJI Mini 4 Pro but I have been looking at the DJI Mavic 2 Pro and although it is much older, and has more restrictions in-place, it seems to be a better drone for photography and I can get it for much less, used than than a Mini 4 Pro.

Is a DJI Mavic 2 Pro a dodo? or is it worth buying it as it has a better lense, variable aperture and much stronger in winds?

Ignoring the restrictions and age. What do you think?

Any opinions would be helpful

I wouldn't buy such an old drone.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I wouldn't buy such an old drone.

Why not? The Mavic 2 Pro is tried and true. The only real limitation of the Mavic 2 Pro over newer drones is the limited light time. Its 20MP camera and 1” sensor are otherwise certainly on a parity with all newer drones except the Mavic 3 series with the larger MFT sensor. It creates stunning 360° spherical panoramas.

 

[JoeShmoe]

The only real limitation of the Mavic 2 Pro over newer drones is the limited light time.

1) Mavic 3 radio system has better range, and is less susceptable to interference
2) M3 is quieter
3) M3 has zoom
4) Better aerodynamics of M3
5) M3 gains GPS lock faster than M2.

(P.S. this is from personal experience flying both M2's and M3's , separately and in formations)

 

[Drbobk]

I have had several inquiries about purchasing batteries and drones. We have deprecated them as a Capital Expense over 5 years, and they now have no economic value. IRS would not allow the sale. All our drones have a 5-year lifespan and are then replaced. We drill out the HD, and a vendor signs off on the destruction.

What you MEAN to say is that they have a “book value” of zero, having been totally depreciated. They can (and obviously do) have economic value if someone is willing to pay you for them. Your sale of zero book value assets will generate taxable income. There is no IRS prohibition against a sale of these assets. DJI might prefer that you destroy them, but the IRS has no reason to stop you. There will be tax revenue associated with it.

 

[GadgetGuy]

1) Mavic 3 radio system has better range, and is less susceptable to interference
2) M3 is quieter
3) M3 has zoom
4) Better aerodynamics of M3
5) M3 gains GPS lock faster than M2.

(P.S. this is from personal experience flying both M2's and M3's , separately and in formations)

No disagreement, although the only zoom on the Mavic 3 is digital which can be done just as easily in post.

For a still photographer, the camera and the flight time are most relevant. The 20MP stills are the same size as those on the Mavic 3 so the 50% increase in flight time is the only material benefit, unless flying close by, in which case swapping batteries is no significant detriment and the Mavic 2 Pro will keep up!

 

[Dmcvey]

What you MEAN to say is that they have a “book value” of zero, having been totally depreciated. They can (and obviously do) have economic value if someone is willing to pay you for them. Your sale of zero book value assets will generate taxable income. There is no IRS prohibition against a sale of these assets. DJI might prefer that you destroy them, but the IRS has no reason to stop you. There will be tax revenue associated with it.

We do $9B in revenue/year. Not worth the effort.

 

[Chip]

Mavic 2 Pro is awesome and, as noted by others, reliable. Purchased mine in 2018 along with two additional batteries, all of which are still performing well. I have the original DJI RM 500 Controller and it, too, is working perfectly.

Well done sir. With all this talk of tariffs and bans I decided I had best inspect and tune the legacy fleet which includes Mavic 1 Pro Platinum and Mavic 2 Zoom. I cried my eyes out when I realized I had carelessly failed to maintain my OEM Platinum Silver Battery and 4 Mavic 2 batteries and then checked the current prices.

I have two M2Ps. One is stock and the second one I modified for full-spectrum images, particularly for creating false-color IR photos for vegetation mapping and analysis. They both create phenomenal images and I use them for work and for hobby photography. I have 6 batteries for them that are still going strong and would not give it up for many reasons, but the main ones are the photo quality and the ability to run Litchi software with them.

Very cool and kudos on the batteries as well!

On the OP question: I knew the 2 Pro was a better camera but I liked the Zoom and did not need the highest technical image quality. It was a little cheaper too as I recall. I recently bought a Mini 4 pro and looking at Air 3s to complete fleet updates. If I was starting out right now I am not sure I would buy a Mavic 2 Pro or Zoom over say an Air 3s. But no way I would sell the Platinum or the Zoom or call either one a dodo!

 

[TestPilot]

If you're focused on professional drone photography, the DJI Mavic 2 Pro still holds up surprisingly well, even today. Its 1-inch Hasselblad sensor, adjustable aperture, and better dynamic range can make a noticeable difference in image quality, especially for landscape, real estate, or low-light shoots. It's also more stable in wind than the Mini line—something that can matter a lot in pro-level work.
Yes, it’s older and lacks some of the newer features (like omnidirectional obstacle sensing or ActiveTrack 5.0), but for still photography, it arguably outperforms the Mini 4 Pro in terms of raw image quality.

DJI changed their cameras after Mavic 2 to move into the digital imaging tech where the focus is much more on manipulating pixels rather than the pure optical aspects. This is why you can get huge megapixels, but they all suck. Mushy washed out details, especially ugly when the image is upscaled/enlarged.

All the cheap cameras from China are also into this trend, and this mentality sucks.

Autel is still much better than DJI anytime and any day. Their Nano and Evo 2 Pro easily outclass anything from DJI when it comes to fine detail rendition. You will instantly notice this if you use Gigapixel software to enlarge your images.

 

[KS-6]

Autel is still much better than DJI anytime and any day. Their Nano and Evo 2 Pro easily outclass anything from DJI when it comes to fine detail rendition. You will instantly notice this if you use Gigapixel software to enlarge your images.

Do you fly both? Because I do and this is patently false.

I have a EVO II Enterprise, Mini 3 Pro, Mavic 3 Pro and Mavic 4 Pro. The Mavic 3 is slightly better on the wide cam and the Mavic 4 is considerably better, especially when one splits the difference between the 24MP setting and 100MP setting by either upscaling the former or downscaling the latter to what I feel is the sweet spot of 50MP.

But it is the addition of the 70mm and 168mm cameras on the Mavics that make an enormous difference to me, I stitch aerial landscapes with those and then I end up with native resolutions of 60MP++ that simply put any 20-24MP single file to shame.

 

[TestPilot]

Do you fly both? Because I do and this is patently false.

I have a EVO II Enterprise, Mini 3 Pro, Mavic 3 Pro and Mavic 4 Pro. The Mavic 3 is slightly better on the wide cam and the Mavic 4 is considerably better, especially when one splits the difference between the 24MP setting and 100MP setting by either upscaling the former or downscaling the latter.

But it is the addition of the 70mm and 168mm cameras on the Mavics that make an enormous difference to me, I stitch aerial landscapes with those and then I end up with native resolutions of 60MP++ that simply put any 20-24MP single file to shame.

I own Mavic 1 and Mini 3 Pro and I've downloaded all the files I could get online for Autel before I posted that. So I disagree with you.

The images from my Mavic 1 can be blown up from 4000 mp to 6000 mp and still look quite ok, but the ones from Mini 3 Pro cannot go more than 4500-4700 mp from 4000 mp. But my standards are higher than most people and I pixel peep all the time.

And images from the Autel Nano are very sharp, even if the color is not so good.

 

[KS-6]

I own Mavic 1 and Mini 3 Pro and I've downloaded all the files I could get online for Autel before I posted that. So I disagree with you.

The images from my Mavic 1 can be blown up from 4000 mp to 6000 mp and still look quite ok, but the ones from Mini 3 Pro cannot go more than 4500-4700 mp from 4000 mp. But my standards are higher than most people and I pixel peep all the time.

And images from the Autel Nano are very sharp, even if the color is not so good.

How can you disagree with me when you don't even own most of the drones I listed? The only thing I use the Mini 3 Pro for is super light travel jobs and shoots that are either indoors or laden with tight obstacles, it is hardly the output that the Mavic 3 Pro and Mavic 4 Pro put out.

As a full time commercial and fine art photographer for the past 37 years, I can assure you that I have very high standards when it comes to image quality.

 

[TestPilot]

How can you disagree with me when you don't even own most of the drones I listed? The only thing I use the Mini 3 Pro for is super light travel jobs and shoots that are either indoors or laden with tight obstacles, it is hardly the output that the Mavic 3 Pro and Mavic 4 Pro put out.

As a full time commercial and fine art photographer for the past 37 years, I can assure you that I have very high standards when it comes to image quality.

I don't care how long you've been full time photographer; I only care what my eyes see. The kicker is you claim the Mavic 4 Pro produces great images.

Such soft images and you call it great output? I don't know what you're photographing, but I photograph forests canopies specifically. And the leaves and branches need to come out crisp and sharp.

Others here have already made threads complete with lots of image examples complaining about the Mavic 3, so I don't need to add to that. I don't see why you feel you need to step in to defend DJI, like you're working for them?

I am only expressing my own great disappointment in DJI, that they focus on the flying and video capabilities and ignore the photography aspect. What's wrong with that? They started on this road after Mavic 2. The same imaging tech is present in all the S series now, so it is not limited to Mini 3. The Mini 4 also is the same thing.

Have you seen 100 mp Chinese compact cameras? They only cost $25.

 

[KS-6]

I don't care how long you've been full time photographer; I only care what my eyes see. The kicker is you claim the Mavic 4 Pro produces great images.

Such soft images and you call it great output? I don't know what you're photographing, but I photograph forests canopies specifically. And the leaves and branches need to come out crisp and sharp.

Others here have already made threads complete with lots of image examples complaining about the Mavic 3, so I don't need to add to that. I don't see why you feel you need to step in to defend DJI, like you're working for them?

I am only expressing my own great disappointment in DJI, that they focus on the flying and video capabilities and ignore the photography aspect. What's wrong with that? They started on this road after Mavic 2. The same imaging tech is present in all the S series now, so it is not limited to Mini 3. The Mini 4 also is the same thing.

Have you seen 100 mp Chinese compact cameras? They only cost $25.

Wow man, this is not worth anymore response.