Mavic 3 vs Mavic 2 pro for photography

[Darkabaz]

I am very curious about the mavic 3 compared to the mavic 2 pro purely for photography.
do you see a difference in daylight, for example? is the m3 much better? Of course I know that the sensor of m3 is much larger and therefore receives more light.
But at the moment I only use my drones for photography so I'm very curious how the Mavic 3 holds up compared to the M2p

 

[vindibona1]

On paper the M3 looks better. More megapixels, eh? But having earned a living as a photographer, 100% digital for the last 20 years.... The LENS is the weak link in the chain. I'm not sure how technology has progressed in the last several years, but for the most part the best lenses supported up to 15mp and the higher megpizels didn't really do much as far as adding detail and resolution once your sensor got higher than 15mp.... maybe 20 if you got the right lens? For the most part the higher mp count didn't really add anything more than additional storage overhead. I'm not sure how that changed in these last few years with mirrorless and all. But in these drones we don't have lenses with layer of high quality glass. That we know for sure. Probably a highly engineered poly carbonate. And that's ok.

Now, you want super high quality photos, right? What are you going to do with the images? 30x40" prints and larger? You aren't going to print large photographs like that yourself. You'd want to send those to a PROFESSIONAL lab for printing. The real professional ones have interpolation software that can take a small file size and make miracle prints. IMO it would almost minimize the difference to near zero if not zero.

Electronic viewing? The M2P will have enough data that even if the M3 images is "better" you'd better be putting the images on identical 32" (or larger) calibrated 4k monitors, side by side to notice any difference. And the difference may be on how you processed the images in Photoshop. You will be shooting raw and processing in Photoshop (or Lightroom)) no?

If you're concerned with strictly photos and the quality of the viewer's end product I wouldn't suggest spending SO much extra on the M3. And something else not photo related, the M2 controller, excluding realized benefits of the updated Ocusync, is head and shoulders better than DJI's "standard" controller. The M3's Smart controller is essentially the M2 controller with a built-in bright screen ($1200 on its own). I own a Mavic 2 Pro, and while I wouldn't mind having the extras FOR VIDEO, I'd want the smart controller and no ways do I think the extra $1500 for that setup is worth the extras that come out.

One more thing... The SDK for the Mavic 2 has been out for awhile. Lots of 3rd party apps support it. It wiill be awhile before DJI released the SDK for the M3. Just sayin'.

 

[EsaT]

If you currently have Mavic 2 Pro, I would say it's still more than competent camera wise and skills of the user are more important.
Difference to Mavic 3 simply isn't anything like jump to Mavic 2 Pro from that tiny sensor DJI used in Mavic "1" and many other drones.
Though of course with same f-ratio in lens, bigger sensor collects more light and bigger pixels are also less affected by diffraction.

Though M3's tele camera is kind of ace in the hole.
Its image quality isn't that great, software currently doesn't give RAW with it and also other controls are limited.
But it's still additional tool allowing getting some kind picture from smaller things/very different perspective than wide angle, or when getting drone closer would break VLOS.
Also tele lens gives something from those sunsets when wide angle view is "Where are the colours?" ordinary.


As for rest of the drone Mavic 3 has definitely some very lovable features.
Like endurance/flight time giving more latitude in how fast/slowly you wear down batteries:
You can boost achievable cycle count of Lithium chemistry batteries lot by not always charging it to 100% and not discharging it to low charge.
Also coming from Mavic Pro (Platinum) power/wind resistance is awesome. Haven't yet gotten single high wind notification.

Though GNSS is still somewhat ornery.
Sometimes home point is locked fast, sometimes it takes many minutes.
But part of that variation is no doubt down to GPS jamming from Putinistan.


As for other aspects that DJI (dung)Fly should have been given major features/functionality upgrade before letting it anywhere near Mavic 3.
You can't even check such basic thing as individual battery cell voltage without having to dive into menus.

And stock remote controller doesn't deserve name remote:
It's dumbmote with very little features for increased carrying bulk over previous Mavic controller.
Only good things are far easier to use/more versatile phone holder and great battery life.
Rest is downgrades to level of who ever decided to put it with Mavic 3 deserving R Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket style critique.
For the price and top compact status Mavic 3's standard remote should have been like what Mini 3 got.
Maybe DJI bundless it in future.

 

[langcpht]

I've owned and used both. Honestly, you probably won't notice much difference between the two cameras. Spec-wise the Mavic 3 is a superior setup given it's larger sensor and dual-camera arrangement. The telephoto is a nice addition but isn't likely a necessity for many people. It's neat to be able to change focal length and get new perspectives and shift the depth-of-field, but no RAW in telephoto is a bit of a bummer.

The main camera performance is solid. But so was the Mavic 2 Pro's camera. I'm not sure I could tell the difference between them if you put the same image side-by-side with the two cameras. Low-light performance is definitely an improvement. So if you do low-light stuff or slow shutter stuff the increased light-gathering ability will be beneficial.

I think the biggest improvement is not necessarily with the camera, but with the package of the aircraft itself and the controller setup. I ditched my Mavic 2 Pro because of some iffy connection issues I had which always left me a bit nervous. I'd get complete disconnects or screen freezes with it occasionally and I never really trusted it. So far the Mavic 3 hasn't given me any reasons to mistrust it. I use the RC Pro controller and it's been solid so far. Lots of little things add up to make it a better package. But if all you care about is camera performance you probably won't notice much, if anything.

 

[chong67]

In daylight shoot and FB post, both are the same quality.

For night shot, M3 is alot better.

 

[UAVquadman]

24mm vs 28mm

 

[SkywalkerFeng]

24mm vs 28mm

(24mm + 162mm) vs 28mm.

 

[Meta4]

On paper the M3 looks better. More megapixels, eh?

Both are 20MP cameras.
It's the sensor sizes that are different, not the number of pixels.

 

[GadgetGuy]

It's all about photography. Assuming all else is equal, which it isn't, the increased flight time alone of a full 10+ minutes per battery is very significant. Low light performance is substantially better, and the 7x telephoto completely changes the perspective of photos for a more engaging view. Automated HiRes 60MB 360° panos every 75 seconds are a game changer. My M2P's are now backup birds only.

 

[Vic Moss]

I've replaced my M2Ps with M3s. The larger pixel is the key. They're both good cameras, but the M3 produces better results.

If all you're worried about is social media, you won't see the difference.

 

[c.oberschneider]

Corner sharpness is better on the M3 as well, just to add one more point.

 

[vindibona1]

Both are 20MP cameras.
It's the sensor sizes that are different, not the number of pixels.

While this is true, again I'm not that swayed. I've had professional cameras where sensor size, pixel size megapixels, meant nothing in terms of comparative image quality.

Just pulling up the past, from several (many?)years ago, my primary camera for a LONG time was a Canon 1D mk II. (Hard to believe I paid $5k for this camera). I think the sensor size was APS-C, not a full frame camera. Here are the sensor specs on that camera:

​

Megapixels	8.2
Total Pixels	8.5
Sensor Size	28.7 x 19.1 mm
Pixel Dimensions	3520 x 2336
Pixel Size	8.15µm

Subsequently I added a Canon 5D with the following specs:

​

Megapixels	12.8
Total Pixels	13.3
Sensor Size	35.8 x 23.9mm
Pixel Dimensions	4368 x 2912
Pixel Size	8.20µm

On paper the 5D should have trounced the 1D mk II in image quality. Lower megapixels. Smaller sensor. Smaller pixel dimensions. Pixel size It did not. The 1D mk II remained my primary camera for a long time, passing on many new models. There are a lot of variables that go into image quality. I had a Canon D60 that I bought in 2002 and in terms of print detail, might have been as good as what I was getting from my Hasselblad gear shooting film. In fact, I was done with film, I think, in 2001 when I had Nikon D1x cameras, before I switched to Canon (also cost $5k each as did the earlier D1's. For historical pricing vs technology reference, prior to the Nikon D1, Kodak was making the predecessor, 1 megapixel and sold those cameras for $27k each! The D1 was the first professional DSLR where it could be purchased for the bargain price of $5k. Just a few tidbits from memory lane. [I was already in digital to an extent as early as 1996].

I'm not sure about any of the variables that DJI uses in their cameras. What I do know is that the video results will l be more pronounced because there are more things to consider such as write speed, codec, bits, mode (normal vs D-log, vs cinelike) and the available luts for color in post. If video was the OP's prime consideration I'd be more on the fence, depending on the customer's use and display method/equipment of the video footage

 

[c.oberschneider]

Canon 1D MK II had a full frame sensor, not APS-C. Both the Canon 5D and Canon 1D MK II had full frame sensors.The Canon EOS 60D had an APS-C sensor with a 1.6x crop factor.

I think you mean the 1D X, that's the one with the FF-sensor. The 1D series was APS-H.

 

[mcde]

There are three key photography related points for me, compared to the m2pro:
1. Flight time may not be something directly related to photography, but I cannot stress how much the extra 10 minutes of it help when trying to find a good composition. This is particularly useful in places you have never visited before.
2. The main 4/3" camera is an overall improvement, especially in low light.
3. The secondary camera with its longer focal length can produce some very interesting results and I wanted this for quite some time. However, its performance should have been better and the lack of raw files is troubling.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I think you mean the 1D X, that's the one with the FF-sensor. The 1D series was APS-H.

My bad. Thanks for the correction. I'm a Nikon guy, not a Canon guy. Got some bad info on a brief internet search. Canon 1D MK II was APS-C, just as @vindibona1 postulated. I've deleted my mistaken post.

 

[Johnmcl7]

The 1D mk II was APS-H, not APS-C - the APS-H format was a larger one than Canon's APS-C sensor (which was slightly smaller than other manufacturers' APS-C sensors) and a good bit closer to the FF sensor size which is why there wouldn't be a large difference in performance between them.

I was initially keen on the Mavic 3 for photography but as a few above have mentioned while the high iso improvement is more substantial, the dynamic range improvement isn't as great and that's more what I'm looking for when shooting in the day.

 

[kanesimages]

Aspect ratios differ. Every camera Ive ever owned, plus the Air 2s and the MP2 uses 3:2. But not the MP3.

3:2 MP2

4:3 MP3

 

[vindibona1]

The 1D mk II was APS-H, not APS-C - the APS-H format was a larger one than Canon's APS-C sensor (which was slightly smaller than other manufacturers' APS-C sensors) and a good bit closer to the FF sensor size which is why there wouldn't be a l

I probably cited the wrong model as my D 1 It’s been so long t

The 1D mk II was APS-H, not APS-C - the APS-H format was a larger one than Canon's APS-C sensor (which was slightly smaller than other manufacturers' APS-C sensors) and a good bit closer to the FF sensor size which is why there wouldn't be a large difference in performance between them.

I was initially keen on the Mavic 3 for photography but as a few above have mentioned while the high iso improvement is more substantial, the dynamic range improvement isn't as great and that's more what I'm looking for when shooting in the day.

I got my 1D mk II (I think that's the model name) in 2004 and shot it seemingly forever. I think I still use it as backup for my Canon 5D mk III, still have my original 5D too and probably one of the 60D's. Gear of the newest/latest/greatest hasn't impressed me for a long time. I learned a long time ago what it took to get images that satisfied my customers and supported my family for over 30 years.

I can definitely see the draw of new gear and the latest/greatest. I get gas for a lot of things and the shiny new object is, of course the mini 3. But funny, the draw for me is the Smart controller and may ultimately, when the kinks are worked out and all the features are installed might cause me to upgrade my Mini 2 to Mini 3 (because the standard controller is such a downgrade from the one that came with my M2P). They talk about ocusync 3.0 or whatever they call it now, but I was out flying today in downtown Chicago with buildings near me projecting lots of interferrence and I was still able to sent my M2P out 3000ft+ without issue. I've had it out 10,000ft over water at night and still had a nice strong signal. Weight restrictions withstanding the Air2s is the best value in drones out there.

 

[SkywalkerFeng]

There are three key photography related points for me, compared to the m2pro:
1. Flight time may not be something directly related to photography, but I cannot stress how much the extra 10 minutes of it help when trying to find a good composition. This is particularly useful in places you have never visited before.
2. The main 4/3" camera is an overall improvement, especially in low light.
3. The secondary camera with its longer focal length can produce some very interesting results and I wanted this for quite some time. However, its performance should have been better and the lack of raw files is troubling.

Manual control and RAW support for 7x zoom camera will be added in the next firmware update.

 

[mcde]

Manual control and RAW support for 7x zoom camera will be added in the next firmware update.

Yes, I have read these rumors. These settings are sorely missing right now. In fact anything that improves the performance of the secondary camera will be more than welcome.