Is the Mini 3’s photo quality as good as the Mavic 2?

[Mikieh]

I think that the best way to make a high-res photo is to use a Mavic 2 Zoom! There is an option to make a photo with 2 x zoom and combining 9 overlapping images: the "super resolution mode", delivering a very detailed 48Mp photo. I did not make a comparison with a 48Mp photo from the Mini 3 Pro, though.
I had both the Mavic 2 Pro and Zoom and after I bought the Mini 3 Pro, decided to sell the Mavic 2 Pro and keep the Zoom for the zoom option as well as its stability in high wind conditions.

I have both the zoom and pro models and can’t seem to part with either.
I usually set the pro at a 4.0 aperture to take my photos. I’m not blown away like my Inspire X5 photos, but am still impressed. I like to explore with the zoom and pull in tight for details, but can always zoom in post with my Pro 2. So for now I’m keeping both.

 

[Felix le Chat]

In my opinion, it's better .

Concur. Mavic 2 zoom owner since first release - the Mini 3 Pro DNG picture quality is better (apart from slightly dodgy E.M). The DNG's present with far less digital noise and the lens distortion is negligible in comparison to the M2Pro and the M2Z. All in all: the Mini 3's FC3582 is leaps and bounds better than the M2Z FC2204.

 

[Felix le Chat]

Cool, thanks! What are the specs in terms of the photos? I see the mini 3 has a 48 megapixel option but what is the standard photo it takes? 20 mp or 12?

It's 12mp. the 48mp is interpolated, but to be honest, in comparison to the Autel Nano+ equivalent of "50mp": the JPG output at this resolution with the Mini 3 Pro is far better. The only way you will ever get a proper 48 megapixel shot is if the sensor behind the lens has 48 million photosites. The Mini 3 Pro has 12 million - the filter over each photosite is a quad-Bayer: 4 (RGGB) quadrants covering one single photosite; which means the processor "guesses" in the same way it does with digital zoom.

 

[vindibona1]

In my opinion, it's better .

I guess I'll leave it up to you to decide which drone clips you like better; the Mini 3 or the Mavic 2 pro.I

IMO a lot has to do with what you do to the images and files once they are in the computer. Additionally, one of the biggest elements in the mix of determining which imaging is better is the equipment the viewer uses. Raise your hand if you still only have a FHD monitor! And once you export to YouTube or other media viewing sources, how much does the compression affect the files?

In general terms , the Mavic 2 has different features than the Mini 3. An unless you need a built in screen the Mavic 2's controller is 10 times better than that RCN1 "brick" which lacks extra programmable buttons and an LED screen and if you had a Mini 1 you'd know that the Mini 2 and Mini 3 need a bigger case just to accommodate that brick. I was stunned that DJI bundled it with the Mavic 3. At least not you can buy a Mavic 3 Classic ala carte and can use existing controllers.

And perhaps this is the question to your answer. Two drone clips. One is the Mini 3. One is the Mavic 2 Pro. Which is which? Make sure to watch in highest resolution in the YouTube file on your best monitor. There will be some lighting differences because of the rapidly changing light conditions of the morning each clip was shot. So take that into consideration as well as general image quality. I tried to keep the clips as similar as possible.

Note: I decided to do a standalone post/poll on a separate thread. I've given away which drones are in the video here, but please don't be a spoiler for those who aren't tracking this thread and reveal which are in the video. I'll reveal it later in that thread. I thought I could set up a poll, but if that feature is actually available I haven't figured out how to use it.

 

[ExEvo]

I guess I'll leave it up to you to decide which drone clips you like better; the Mini 3 or the Mavic 2 pro.I

IMO a lot has to do with what you do to the images and files once they are in the computer. Additionally, one of the biggest elements in the mix of determining which imaging is better is the equipment the viewer uses. Raise your hand if you still only have a FHD monitor! And once you export to YouTube or other media viewing sources, how much does the compression affect the files?

In general terms , the Mavic 2 has different features than the Mini 3. An unless you need a built in screen the Mavic 2's controller is 10 times better than that RCN1 "brick" which lacks extra programmable buttons and an LED screen and if you had a Mini 1 you'd know that the Mini 2 and Mini 3 need a bigger case just to accommodate that brick. I was stunned that DJI bundled it with the Mavic 3. At least not you can buy a Mavic 3 Classic ala carte and can use existing controllers.

And perhaps this is the question to your answer. Two drone clips. One is the Mini 3. One is the Mavic 2 Pro. Which is which? Make sure to watch in highest resolution in the YouTube file on your best monitor. There will be some lighting differences because of the rapidly changing light conditions of the morning each clip was shot. So take that into consideration as well as general image quality. I tried to keep the clips as similar as possible.

Note: I decided to do a standalone post/poll on a separate thread. I've given away which drones are in the video here, but please don't be a spoiler for those who aren't tracking this thread and reveal which are in the video. I'll reveal it later in that thread. I thought I could set up a poll, but if that feature is actually available I haven't figured out how to use it.

Drone 2 looks like you're using digital zoom.

 

[RogerDH]

It's 12mp. the 48mp is interpolated, but to be honest, in comparison to the Autel Nano+ equivalent of "50mp": the JPG output at this resolution with the Mini 3 Pro is far better. The only way you will ever get a proper 48 megapixel shot is if the sensor behind the lens has 48 million photosites. The Mini 3 Pro has 12 million - the filter over each photosite is a quad-Bayer: 4 (RGGB) quadrants covering one single photosite; which means the processor "guesses" in the same way it does with digital zoom.

I'm not sure how this misinformation got spread so far and wide, but the Mini 3 Pro camera has a 48MP sensor, i.e. 48 million photodiodes. The 48MP mode is not interpolated; the 12MP mode "bins" groups of 4 pixels. "Quad Bayer" refers to having 4 pixels under each color filter, and "debayering" in any modern digital camera always requires "guessing" at 2 of the 3 colors for each pixel, because only 1 color light reaches each pixel. However, with quad Bayer filters, the color data is less precise, and details that are primarily distinguished by color differences rather than brightness are less clear, which is why the image quality is not quite as good as a 48MP sensor with standard Bayer filters.

Edit: It should be noted, however, that the reason for quad-Bayer filters is that photodiodes can be made smaller than the filters, so these 48MP quad-Bayer sensors are much smaller than 48MP sensors with standard filters. This smaller size means more noise, so the image quality of these sensors will be always be less than those larger 48MP sensors, even without considering the lower color resolution. I think the main justification for these sensors is that the 12MP mode is so darn good -- very clean and sharp -- compared to similar sized standard sensors, and it especially improves video quality.

 

[vindibona1]

Drone 2 looks like you're using digital zoom.

FOR A MOMENT or two the digital zoom did kick in. I sure wasn't very smooth. I wish there was a speed/smoothness control for the zoom as well as pitch and yaw. When it pulled out there was no zoom any longer. I wouldn't use that footage in a project, but it was what I had that was close enough for an even A/B comparison. But all other than those few seconds were not zoomed at 1x.

 

[vindibona1]

I'm not sure how this misinformation got spread so far and wide, but the Mini 3 Pro camera has a 48MP sensor, i.e. 48 million photodiodes. The 48MP mode is not interpolated; the 12MP mode "bins" groups of 4 pixels. "Quad Bayer" refers to having 4 pixels under each color filter, and "debayering" in any modern digital camera always requires "guessing" at 2 of the 3 colors for each pixel, because only 1 color light reaches each pixel. However, with quad Bayer filters, the color data is less precise, and details that are primarily distinguished by color differences rather than brightness are less clear, which is why the image quality is not quite as good as a 48MP sensor with standard Bayer filters.

Edit: It should be noted, however, that the reason for quad-Bayer filters is that photodiodes can be made smaller than the filters, so these 48MP quad-Bayer sensors are much smaller than 48MP sensors with standard filters. This smaller size means more noise, so the image quality of these sensors will be always be less than those larger 48MP sensors, even without considering the lower color resolution. I think the main justification for these sensors is that the 12MP mode is so darn good -- very clean and sharp -- compared to similar sized standard sensors, and it especially improves video quality.

What I've learned on over 20 years of digital imaging is that megapixels by themselves mean very little. I'm not hugely technical, but what I do believe is that an RYYB sensor produces better image files than RGGB, especially in low light. For that reason Autel is a huge disappointment because they produce drones that have superior image quality compared to DJI, but the flight characteristics are generally inferior. Image-wise and Autel Nano Plus will top the Mini 3 hands down, but doesn't have the same power. I haven't done much looking into the Evo Lite+ but that looks to be a pretty good drone. I just don't trust Autel for the type of customer service that a professional needs.

 

[dirkclod]

Late to this thread but opinion is I wish they had went with a M2P+
.Loved the Go app and wish I had kept mine. JMO

 

[Lister]

Since all the photodiodes are in place it'd be cool if we could shoot 48 MP monochrome. But no.

 

[KS-6]

I still have my Mavic 2 Pro so I guess I could do a comparison. I would run the images through DXO PL6 though and seeing the colossal improvement it does to the Mini-3, I would not be surprised if it pulls the Mini-3 ahead.

Having a Mavic 3 Cine, EVO II Enterprise and Mini-3 Pro, I think about selling the M2P but for a lot of reasons, I have just not brought my self to do it yet.

Helluva bird that Mini-3 Pro though, I love that thing.

 

[ExEvo]

FOR A MOMENT or two the digital zoom did kick in. I sure wasn't very smooth. I wish there was a speed/smoothness control for the zoom as well as pitch and yaw. When it pulled out there was no zoom any longer. I wouldn't use that footage in a project, but it was what I had that was close enough for an even A/B comparison. But all other than those few seconds were not zoomed at 1x.

The difference between the two is so great that I assumed the drone 2 footage was interpolated somehow. But if a) it isn't and b) it's the M3Pro which I'm looking to buy, I'll have to rethink.

 

[vindibona1]

The difference between the two is so great that I assumed the drone 2 footage was interpolated somehow. But if a) it isn't and b) it's the M3Pro which I'm looking to buy, I'll have to rethink.

The difference shocked me too! I would have been prepared to say that the Mini 3 imags were as good as the Mavic 2's. But apprently not. I don't know. If I didn't have a Mavic 2 I would have been going for the Air2s... But now Autel's Evo Lite Plus, with variable aperture, with extra batteries and chargers are now on sale for around $1200. Autel must be up to a new release soon.

If we weren't just entering winter I'd probably be buying a Mavic 3 Classic or Autel Evo Lite plus. The thing about the Evo Lite is that it has variable aperture and a RYYB sensor. It's a fact that Autel images are bettert from similar DJI drones. It's just that the DJI series drones fly better and reputedly have better customer service. And if I were looking for a drone today, perhaps, as I have a Mini 2, I'd have passed on the Mini 3 and gone for the Evo Lite Plus (at these prices).

 

[ExEvo]

The difference shocked me too! I would have been prepared to say that the Mini 3 imags were as good as the Mavic 2's. But apprently not. I don't know. If I didn't have a Mavic 2 I would have been going for the Air2s... But now Autel's Evo Lite Plus, with variable aperture, with extra batteries and chargers are now on sale for around $1200. Autel must be up to a new release soon.

If we weren't just entering winter I'd probably be buying a Mavic 3 Classic or Autel Evo Lite plus. The thing about the Evo Lite is that it has variable aperture and a RYYB sensor. It's a fact that Autel images are bettert from similar DJI drones. It's just that the DJI series drones fly better and reputedly have better customer service. And if I were looking for a drone today, perhaps, as I have a Mini 2, I'd have passed on the Mini 3 and gone for the Evo Lite Plus (at these prices).

I was an Autel evangelist from the early days of the Evo 1 which blew me away but I won't buy another Autel product after the way they have messed customers around and left them high and dry with no parts or support. I don't yet know how bad DJI are but I'm about to find out. The M3Pro is better in many ways than the Evo 1 but I will need to do some more research* on the image quality after seeing your comparison. Maybe you can update after experimenting with your M3Pro settings? I do know that I will buy a model with a video RC because I hate messing around with phones - so I don't have many to choose from after banning Autel from my life.

*I'm downloading some comparison files from here to take a closer look:
Google Drive downloads: M3P vs M2P

 

[Cymru]

Revisiting this thread after various firmware changes and DxO.

My original view still stands.
The Mavic 2 Pro wins hands down for photo quality - everything from range to detail in the image.

The mini 3 at 12mp is OK, especially after feeding through DxO but isnt better. The 48mp has far too many colour artefacts introduced to produce usable images at full scale.
There are also a LOT of lens distortions visible even after corrections and on 12mp (verticals on things like towers are obvious for example). Horizontal lines all curve towards the corners.

For video though the higher bit rate yields far smoother, less jittery video than my M2P can produce.

 

[vindibona1]

I was an Autel evangelist from the early days of the Evo 1 which blew me away but I won't buy another Autel product after the way they have messed customers around and left them high and dry with no parts or support. I don't yet know how bad DJI are but I'm about to find out. The M3Pro is better in many ways than the Evo 1 but I will need to do some more research* on the image quality after seeing your comparison. Maybe you can update after experimenting with your M3Pro settings? I do know that I will buy a model with a video RC because I hate messing around with phones - so I don't have many to choose from after banning Autel from my life.

*I'm downloading some comparison files from here to take a closer look:
Google Drive downloads: M3P vs M2P

The poor reputation of Autel for customer service is what has largely kept me away from their drones. They could be a "contender" if they could ever fully get it together.

First, the Mini 3 is an excellent little drone. The video isn't quite as good as the bigger drones with variable apertures. Not sure about comparing it with the Air2s. If weight isn't an issue I would point you toward the Air2s with the DJI RC controller which is now compatible. Yeah, more expensive because you'll have two controllers, but you'll appreciate the stability of the Air2s. I see you're in the UK, so you may be stuck with the Mini 3. It's a better flyer than the Autel Nano, for sure.

The DJI RC is really smooth comparted to the RCN1 controller, at least from my comparison flying a Mini 2 with it. I strongly dislike the RCN1 and have from the day I got my Mini 2. The controllers from the Mini 1 and certainly the Mavic 2 are MUCH better. The only disadvantage that I see with the DJI RC controller is that it does not have a separate port where you could connect a phone or tablet. So you are stuck with the built-in screen. I sometimes like to fly FPV/VR and the DJI RC and the Mavic 2 controllers, having active USB ports allow for various viewiing devices. Back to the Mini 3....

The Mini 3 is pretty formidable. It's got longer props than the Mini 2 or Mini 1 and will resist fly aways in strong wind (to a point). Seeing as you're in the UK, sadly you cannot take advantage of one of the greatest features of the Mini 3- the extended battery. While immediately weighint over the 250g limit with the ex battery, the thing flies forever. Perhaps it's my mistake, but I don't keep watch on battery life with it nearly as much as I did wiith all the other drones and batteries I've had.

As far as settings go, that's personal taste. Lots of videos on how to set up the pitch, yaw and EXP. Once you get the basiics down you have to go out in the field and set them as you find them best for you.

 

[ExEvo]

The poor reputation of Autel for customer service is what has largely kept me away from their drones. They could be a "contender" if they could ever fully get it together.

First, the Mini 3 is an excellent little drone. The video isn't quite as good as the bigger drones with variable apertures. Not sure about comparing it with the Air2s. If weight isn't an issue I would point you toward the Air2s with the DJI RC controller which is now compatible. Yeah, more expensive because you'll have two controllers, but you'll appreciate the stability of the Air2s. I see you're in the UK, so you may be stuck with the Mini 3. It's a better flyer than the Autel Nano, for sure.

The DJI RC is really smooth comparted to the RCN1 controller, at least from my comparison flying a Mini 2 with it. I strongly dislike the RCN1 and have from the day I got my Mini 2. The controllers from the Mini 1 and certainly the Mavic 2 are MUCH better. The only disadvantage that I see with the DJI RC controller is that it does not have a separate port where you could connect a phone or tablet. So you are stuck with the built-in screen. I sometimes like to fly FPV/VR and the DJI RC and the Mavic 2 controllers, having active USB ports allow for various viewiing devices. Back to the Mini 3....

The Mini 3 is pretty formidable. It's got longer props than the Mini 2 or Mini 1 and will resist fly aways in strong wind (to a point). Seeing as you're in the UK, sadly you cannot take advantage of one of the greatest features of the Mini 3- the extended battery. While immediately weighint over the 250g limit with the ex battery, the thing flies forever. Perhaps it's my mistake, but I don't keep watch on battery life with it nearly as much as I did wiith all the other drones and batteries I've had.

As far as settings go, that's personal taste. Lots of videos on how to set up the pitch, yaw and EXP. Once you get the basiics down you have to go out in the field and set them as you find them best for you.

Video quality is the biggest thing for me. My first drone was going to be the Yuneec Typhoon - whose form factor I fell in love with - until the Evo 1 came along and knocked it for six even with a smaller sensor. But I was never totally happy with the Evo's flight controls. Yaws were a lot smoother than the Yuneec but still not as smooth as I wanted. Now I'm seeing really fluid flight from the M3Pro plus some other features which my Evo didn't have. But it's missing the Evo's all-round OA which is risky in my case as I fly in and over trees. Video quality looks to be on a par with the Evo judging by the samples I linked to earlier - although not according to your footage for some reason. Stills look good too although I'm ignoring the 48mp examples as they don't look genuine/optically native to me.

The other big issue for me is that Autel drones are still not fully supported here in the UK and it costs big bucks to send one back across the pond for a small repair.

 

[Wreckhunter]

Cool, thanks! What are the specs in terms of the photos? I see the mini 3 has a 48 megapixel option but what is the standard photo it takes? 20 mp or 12?

12

 

[Wreckhunter]

I'm not sure how this misinformation got spread so far and wide, but the Mini 3 Pro camera has a 48MP sensor, i.e. 48 million photodiodes. The 48MP mode is not interpolated; the 12MP mode "bins" groups of 4 pixels. "Quad Bayer" refers to having 4 pixels under each color filter, and "debayering" in any modern digital camera always requires "guessing" at 2 of the 3 colors for each pixel, because only 1 color light reaches each pixel. However, with quad Bayer filters, the color data is less precise, and details that are primarily distinguished by color differences rather than brightness are less clear, which is why the image quality is not quite as good as a 48MP sensor with standard Bayer filters.

Edit: It should be noted, however, that the reason for quad-Bayer filters is that photodiodes can be made smaller than the filters, so these 48MP quad-Bayer sensors are much smaller than 48MP sensors with standard filters. This smaller size means more noise, so the image quality of these sensors will be always be less than those larger 48MP sensors, even without considering the lower color resolution. I think the main justification for these sensors is that the 12MP mode is so darn good -- very clean and sharp -- compared to similar sized standard sensors, and it especially improves video quality.

One more time the mini 3 pro has a 12 MP sensor period,your getting your wires crossed and have it all backwards.
There is no camera drone currently that the public can get that has a camera with a true 48MP sensor.

 

[RogerDH]

One more time the mini 3 pro has a 12 MP sensor period,your getting your wires crossed and have it all backwards.
There is no camera drone currently that the public can get that has a camera with a true 48MP sensor.

And one more time, this is simply wrong; 48MP quad Bayer cameras have been used in phones for several years, and the Mini 3 Pro has one.

Quad Bayer sensors: what they are and what they are not

Marketing departments are trying to sell you on the wrong thing - resolution isn't why these sensors are good, it's the better image processing.

www.gsmarena.com