Mavic 3 Blurry Images

[Filmarik]

Unless you shoot brick walls for a living, this doesn't replicate real world photography in flight, which is what the camera optics are optimized for.

Performing a brick wall tests is a recipe for frustration. Unless you are into archive photography where uniform sharpness from edge to edge is a must in which case you would most like be shooting with a Rodenstock lens mounted on a MF camera and 100MP+ back and not Mavic 3.
With a drone you'll be shooting with focus set to infinity most of the time. Urban landscape with buildings and greenery is usually a good subject to test the drone camera. Take a few well exposed shots( watch the histogram) at all apertures in A mode with various shutter speeds under good midday light and you can then pixel peep to your heart content. But be prepared to be "disappointed" because you will find flaws. If the flaws will hinder your creativity, send it back.

 

[ClaudioNC]

Quote:
"The only thing to do is replace the camera with a perfect one, ...."
Noone has ever made a perfect camera. Leica got close but just a body without any lens costs as much as four or five Mavic 3 drones ! Add another 5 Mavic 3 drones and you might be lucky to get one manual focus lens. That might give some sense of perspective of what a "close to perfect" costs these days
I reckon that we need to be realistic about our expextations here. Mavic 3 is an amazing engineering feast in itself but the camera and its lens are far from perfect! That is if corner to corner sharpness is your main criteria.
If you are lucky enough and get a reasonably good unit then with skilful processing of well exposed DNG files shot at ISO 100 f5.6 the TIFFs or JPEGs are pretty decent and usable even for printing. Just do not expect FF mirorless camera with top notch lens quality. It would be foolish to expect that and you won't get it.

Perfect camera here obviously means a perfectly built copy, man, i.e. not out of tolerance, not out of the spec of its optical design!

 

[Filmarik]

Perfect camera here obviously means a perfectly built copy, man, i.e. not out of tolerance, not out of the spec of its optical design!

I am telling you, "a perfectly built camera" does not exist. We need to be realistic here. This is a prosumer consumer drone, not a hand assembled Leica camera. Even the best lenses have certain degree of variation between copies. DJI churns out these drone in thousands and their QC is what it is, sketchy at best. You might get lucky to get a really good copy but from my own experience they are very rare.

 

[ClaudioNC]

I am telling you, "a perfectly built camera" does not exist. We need to be realistic here. This is a prosumer consumer drone, not a hand assembled Leica camera. Even the best lenses have certain degree of variation between copies. DJI churns out these drone in thousands and their QC is what it is, sketchy at best. You might get lucky to get a really good copy but from my own experience they are very rare.

No need to be realistic here, but just understand the meaning of what I have written, very clearly. Of course you didn't get it.

Incredible!

 

[Filmarik]

No need to be realistic here, but just understand the meaning of what I have written, very clearly. Of course you didn't get it.

Incredible!

In all due respect I am not the one who is not getting it.If grasping meaning of a word "perfect" is too difficult for you to understand, that is fine but that is not my problem. I am just trying to convey a message here that having unrealisticaly high expectations when it comes to Mavic 3 camera can only lead to a disappointment. The variation among coppies is ubfortunatelly significant. You can be lucky and get a decent one which will still not be "perfect" but you have more chances getting one with various degree of sharpness uniformity issues across the frame. I am talking from my own experience returning 2 Cine versions which were just horrible and now I have a non Cine which is far from "perfect" but at least usable. I've decided to keep it for a time being as I need to do a few jobs. I am still contemplating returning it...

 

[ClaudioNC]

I am telling you, "a perfectly built camera" does not exist. We need to be realistic here. This is a prosumer consumer drone, not a hand assembled Leica camera. Even the best lenses have certain degree of variation between copies. DJI churns out these drone in thousands and their QC is what it is, sketchy at best. You might get lucky to get a really good copy but from my own experience they are very rare.

I have dozens of DJI drones and also some Autel EVO II.
None of the DJI cameras I have are blatantly out of tolerance.
Noone of the Phantoms, and Mavics.
Even the DJI branded 15mm lenses (made by Panasonic) for the Inspire 1 Pro and Inspire 2 are perfect.

I found to be bad the Olympus pancake 14-42mm zoom lenses but the Panasonic version to be very good, not perfect, but certainly well usable closing a bit the diaphragm on the all focal lengths.
Of the eight Autel EVO IIs I have, one has a lens that doesn't focus to infinity, but it's an exception and I bought it second hand.

The lenses of these small sensors do not have the construction and calibration difficulties that the larger lenses for full frame sensors can have, often as centering defect of the optic.

 

[Filmarik]

I have dozens of DJI drones and also some Autel EVO II.
None of the DJI cameras I have are blatantly out of tolerance.
Noone of the Phantoms, and Mavics.
Even the DJI branded 15mm lenses (made by Panasonic) for the Inspire 1 Pro and Inspire 2 are perfect.

I found to be bad the Olympus pancake 14-42mm zoom lenses but the Panasonic version to be very good, not perfect, but certainly well usable closing a bit the diaphragm on the all focal lengths.
Of the eight Autel EVO IIs I have, one has a lens that doesn't focus to infinity, but it's an exception and I bought it second hand.

The lenses of these small sensors do not have the construction and calibration difficulties that the larger lenses for full frame sensors can have, often as centering defect of the optic.

I only had only one DJI drone before Mavic 3. The Inspire 2. I had Oly 12mm, 25mm and 45mm, as well as the original DJI 15mm. I can tell you that my DJI 15mm was not good at all! Soft and decentered. The Oly 25mm f1.8 had also serious sharpness issues. The left side near the edge was bad at all f stops. It got better past f5.6 but wide open it was unsusable if near edge sharpness was essential for the shots. I tried different 4 copies of this lens with far apart SN, all equally bad on left side. The 12mm was my workhorse, pretty good at all f stops and well centered. The 45mm was incredibly sharp at f5.6 from edge to edge and corner to corner but due to its focal lenght I did not use it as much as the 12mm.
I suppose it is worth remembering here that DJI has really pushed the envelope with Mavic 3 by putting M43 size sensor behind this tiny lens. I never believed that this combination can deliver perfectly sharp photos from corner to corner. It is just physically almost impossible. Just look at those Oly size lenses and the diameter of the front element. And those lenses were still not able to deliver "perfectly" sharp photos from corner to corner.
Saying all that the Mavic 3 is still an incredible drone despite its shortcomings when it comes to IQ. Not perfect but definitely usable

 

[ClaudioNC]

It is just physically almost impossible

Optically, not physically.
But from the shots I took, in the two flight tests and at ground, my M3 creates (in Jpg) very detailed photos almost on the entire frame of the 4/3 lens, maybe few mm on the corners are just a little less crisp ... maybe.
The whole frame is crisp for the tele.
That's what I saw and that's enough for me at the moment to say that the optics are perfectly calibrated.
I have yet to check what comes out of the dngs in Lightroom, haven't looked at it yet.
I have had this M3 for a very short time, immediately did the basic checks to understand that it has no defects and decide whether to keep it or return it to the seller
I will do the rest later, for me this drone will be of a rare use, for some reasons.

 

[Joe Brnobic]

Also, not sure what focusing method you use. For these distant landscape shots I find MF to be more reliable, delivering consistently sharp photos.
Processing can also make a significant difference. I only shoot DNG and use Capture One for processing. The files from Mavic 3 take well fair amount of sharpening and do look quite crisp after. The C1 also allows for corner softness to be improved through Manual Lens Correction tool tab.
But no matter what processing tricks I apply the corners from my Mavic 3 are not that good. And this the third one!! Two Cine I tried were really BAD!! Decentered lens, blurry regions, just terrible! This third one is the non Cine version and is sort of ok. I needed to do a few jobs so I could not continue sending them back. It was a 2 weeks turnaround each time and it was becoming a tedious process so I settled for this one. The areas near the corners are strangely blurred and then the corner tips get sharper again. Go figure...View attachment 160807

This looks **** sharp to me! Did you edit this image in any way? Did you apply any sharpening? If this is straight from Mavic 3, then you have an excellent lens, Sir. My Mavic 3 main camera images are not this sharp, even at F:5.6 and shutter speed of 1/500 of second at ISO 100.....

 

[Filmarik]

This looks **** sharp to me! Did you edit this image in any way? Did you apply any sharpening? If this is straight from Mavic 3, then you have an excellent lens, Sir. My Mavic 3 main camera images are not this sharp, even at F:5.6 and shutter speed of 1/500 of second at ISO 100.....

That was NOT straight out of camera JPEG, Sir. It was a JPEG converted from TIFF file, which in turn was a result of a comprehensive editing process of the out of camera DNG file. I do not shoot JPEGs at all. Even with my DSLR I only shoot RAW and process the captures using my preferred programs, or Apps as they are often called these days, to achieve what I aim for not only in terms of sharpness but also overall look. Sharpening is definitely part of that process.

 

[ClaudioNC]

That was NOT straight out of camera JPEG, Sir. It was a JPEG converted from TIFF file, which in turn was a result of a comprehensive editing process of the out of camera DNG file. I do not shoot JPEGs at all. Even with my DSLR I only shoot RAW and process the captures using my preferred programs, or Apps as they are often called these days, to achieve what I aim for not only in terms of sharpness but also overall look. Sharpening is definitely part of that process.

Hey man, why instead of recording only the DNG, don't you activate both, DNG+JPG, in each camera you have, grounded and flying, if possible?
I ask you this without winking...
It's a lot useful to have available, in any photographic catalog that you are using, or you could use in the future, also the JPG version from the camera, to view, review and select at any time, immediately, all the available picts present in a specific catalogue (at their full sizes), therefore without necessarily having to process them all, each time.
Do you use catalogs?

 

[Filmarik]

Hey man, why instead of recording only the DNG, don't you activate both, DNG+JPG, in each camera you have, grounded and flying, if possible?
I ask you this without winking...
It's a lot useful to have available, in any photographic catalog that you are using, or you could use in the future, also the JPG version from the camera, to view, review and select at any time, immediately, all the available picts present in a specific catalogue (at their full sizes), therefore without necessarily having to process them all, each time.
Do you use catalogs?

I use sessions in C1. I guess this comes down to individual preferencies. In my case I have always been frugal when shooting. I do not come home with hundreds or thousends of shots from any of my assignments. So, to me shooting DNG and JPEG does not make any sense. I import all DNG from card into C1, select those I want to process, give them 5 stars then through search option I only select those (and hide the rest), apply my settings saved as a Style for Mavic 3 and batch export as 16bit TIFF. Then go to Photoshop for finishing touches and finally convert to 8bit TIFF. If I want or need for myself or a client JPEG I convert to JPEG with particular setting for size and quality and save those in a separate subfolder in C1 Output folder named accordingly. Then back up the entire C1 Session on an external drive.
This workflow works for me just fine and has been for many years with other cameras as well, thank you very much

 

[GadgetGuy]

I use sessions in C1. I guess this comes down to individual preferencies. In my case I have always been frugal when shooting. I do not come home with hundreds or thousends of shots from any of my assignments. So, to me shooting DNG and JPEG does not make any sense. I import all DNG from card into C1, select those I want to process, give them 5 stars then through search option I only select those (and hide the rest), apply my settings saved as a Style for Mavic 3 and batch export as 16bit TIFF. Then go to Photoshop for finishing touches and finally convert to 8bit TIFF. If I want or need for myself or a client JPEG I convert to JPEG with particular setting for size and quality and save those in a separate subfolder in C1 Output folder named accordingly. Then back up the entire C1 Session on an external drive.
This workflow works for me just fine and has been for many years with other cameras as well, thank you very much

The JPEG's take up almost no space compared to the DNG, and are essentially included DJI test prints from your DNG negatives. DJI adds their own secret sauce to the JPG, which you may find difficult reproduce when you are processing the DNG your way, since you don't have their recipe. No harm in creating it at the time of shooting, and it shows you DJI's best rendering of the scene for reference purposes.

 

[Filmarik]

The JPEG's take up almost no space compared to the DNG, and are essentially included DJI test prints from your DNG negatives. DJI adds their own secret sauce to the JPG, which you may find difficult reproduce when you are processing the DNG your way, since you don't have their recipe. No harm in creating it at the time of shooting, and it shows you DJI's best rendering of the scene for reference purposes.

When I need a reference pic ( hardly ever) I can look at the few photos stored in the flight log. They are pretty good neutral representation of the reality.

 

[GadgetGuy]

When I need a reference pic ( hardly ever) I can look at the few photos stored in the flight log. They are pretty good neutral representation of the reality.

You are still missing the detailed DJI secret sauce which includes lens distortion correction and any other weaknesses of the lens and sensor that DJI is compensating for in their JPEG's, that are not documented. The flight log photos are low res junk.

 

[Filmarik]

You are still missing the detailed DJI secret sauce which includes lens distortion correction and any other weaknesses of the lens and sensor that DJI is compensating for in their JPEG's, that are not documented. The fligh

Might be junk for you. To my eye they are corrected for lens distortion and the colours are pretty neutral and their rendition of reality is pretty good. That is all I need if I ever want to be reminded of the colours and light on location during shooting.

t log photos are low res junk.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Might be junk for you. To my eye they are corrected for lens distortion and the colours are pretty neutral and their rendition of reality is pretty good. That is all I need if I ever want to be reminded of the colours and light on location during shooting.

Well, if those few random images are usable for you, imagine what you are missing out on when you could easily have a full sized matching jpeg for every DNG!

 

[Filmarik]

Well, if those few random images are usable for you, imagine what you are missing out on when you could easily have a full sized matching jpeg for every DNG!

Aren't the so called special DJI ingredients also baked into the DNG files? So when you open them in LR the manufacturer profiles are automatically applied? Wouldn't that give the same result as those "amazing looking" OOC JPEG?

 

[GadgetGuy]

Aren't the so called special DJI ingredients also baked into the DNG files? So when you open them in LR the manufacturer profiles are automatically applied? Wouldn't that give the same result as those "amazing looking" OOC JPEG?

No. That's the critical difference. The DNG by definition is just the raw unaltered data from the sensor. It's low contrast and unsharpened without any lens corrections and no noise reduction, but has more dynamic range than a baked JPG. LR can try and replicate what DJI does, but it's like trying to copy someone else's recipe from just the ingredients, without their secret sauces and cooking methods. That's why creative people sell their best replication of a manufacturer's preset as a LR plug-in. Each raw converter is different.

The only reason not to use the amazing looking DJI JPG's is you don't like them, and prefer to render the DNG's differently to match your own style. As far as exposure, 3 or 5 shot bracketed JPG's can be shot much faster than a single DNG, which takes forever to save to the card. Take a look at @Meta4 's ships. All shot in JPG.

The best example I can give you is the Spherical Pano on the Mavic 3. 26 JPG's shot in 45 seconds and then stitched together in camera in 30 more seconds to produce a 70 MB stitched JPG that looks as good or better than creating the same stitch yourself, even from DNG's!

 

[Filmarik]

No. That's the critical difference. The DNG by definition is just the raw unaltered data from the sensor. It's low contrast and unsharpened without any lens corrections and no noise reduction, but has more dynamic range than a baked JPG. LR can try and replicate what DJI does, but it's like trying to copy someone else's recipe from just the ingredients, without their secret sauces and cooking methods. That's why creative people sell their best replication of a manufacturer's preset as a LR plug-in. Each raw converter is different.

The only reason not to use the amazing looking DJI JPG's is you don't like them, and prefer to render the DNG's differently to match your own style. As far as exposure, 3 or 5 shot bracketed JPG's can be shot much faster than a single DNG, which takes forever to save to the card. Take a look at @Meta4 's ships. All shot in JPG.

The best example I can give you is the Spherical Pano on the Mavic 3. 26 JPG's shot in 45 seconds and then stitched together in camera in 30 more seconds to produce a 70 MB stitched JPG that looks as good or better than creating the same stitch yourself, even from DNG's!

Some of your claims or expressions are perplexing. Like shooting 3 bracketed JPEGs is much faster than taking one DNG because it takes forever to save it to card. Really?? I must be using different card from you because it takes maybe 2 sec before my M3 is ready to shoot another DNG. Maybe that's in your language forever?
As for the amazing DJI JPEGs, the are still only 8bit deep files with much smaller DR then DNG. Any OOC JPEG if well exposed and with accurate WB can look pretty darn good. But as soon as you start pushing and pulling the shadows and highlights you start to see posterization in blue sky pretty quickly and they fall appart before you know. Bracketing is definitely an option for expanding the JPEG's limited DR by creating a composite image but moving elements in the shots can be problenatic.
All in all I personally have not found any drawbacks from shooting DNG only. But each to his own. Shooting both is perhaps not such a bad idea especially for those who see benefit from having both. Some might even addopt it after being convinced and converted by your posts.