Mavic Pro-2 vs Zoom and P4P - Line Skipping + Sensor Heat?

[nomnomnom]

Here are some comparisons that have been discussed, all at ISO 100 and f2.8.

(1) M1P vs M2P DNG files, with the M1P upsampled to 20 MP:

View attachment 49215
M1P DNG upsampled
View attachment 49216
M2P DNG

That shows exactly what you would expect - the 20 MP sensor clearly does better than the 12 MP sensor.

(2) M2P HQ:

View attachment 49217

Similar resolution to the M2P DNG - not surprising since it is reading out the same pixels in this cropped video mode.

(3) M1P 4k vs M2P 4k FOV

View attachment 49220
M1P 4k

View attachment 49219
M2P 4k FOV

Interesting result. The M1P 4k looks like it has much more sharpening applying, even at a -1 setting. It also has a lot more artifacts. Absolute line resolution appears to be similar, but the M2P resolution fades better to unresolved than the M1P.

(4) M2P 2.7k vs M2P 4k FOV

View attachment 49221
M2P 2.7k upsampled to 4k

View attachment 49222
M2P 4k FOV

Unremarkable. The 4k FOV is noticeably better, both in terms of sharpness and resolution.

Given your test results, would you conclude that the M2P FOV is worst than the M1P in 4k?

 

[sar104]

Given your test results, would you conclude that the M2P FOV is worst than the M1P in 4k?

Referring back to the images in post #700, my conclusion was that the M2P 4k FOV image was softer than the M1P 4k. My guess is that's deliberate and that the M1P has much more sharpening but, as a result, in terms of pure resolution, the M2P is arguably worse. I'm not going to judge on the overall comparison since, as we have seen in abundance here, different users weight different IQ factors very differently.

 

[nomnomnom]

Referring back to the images in post #700, my conclusion was that the M2P 4k FOV image was softer than the M1P 4k. My guess is that's deliberate and that the M1P has much more sharpening but, as a result, in terms of pure resolution, the M2P is arguably worse. I'm not going to judge on the overall comparison since, as we have seen in abundance here, different users weight different IQ factors very differently.

Do you not find it a bit ridiculous that the version 2 is worst than version 1? You can't really use HQ as a reference, its a completely different focal length. Why are people letting DJI do this?

 

[lllLegion]

I've been watching on the sidelines, but I wanted to jump in here...

Do you not find it a bit ridiculous that the version 2 is worst than version 1? You can't really use HQ as a reference, its a completely different focal length. Why are people letting DJI do this?

Sharpness is only one metric though. look at this video and tell me which camera you prefer (M2p is in full FOV).

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Many Cinema grade cameras are not as sharp as cheaper Sony or Nikon cameras, but they win out in Colors depth, dynamic range, low light capabilities and more.

This whole "issue" is reminding me of the megapixel war smartphones had a while back.

 

[sar104]

Do you not find it a bit ridiculous that the version 2 is worst than version 1? You can't really use HQ as a reference, its a completely different focal length. Why are people letting DJI do this?

What does HQ have to do with that question? With regards to M2P 4k FOV vs. M1P 4k, I do not know the details of the compromises, the chip choices, or the engineering challenges of the smaller-format camera when moving up to the larger sensor.

What do you mean by "why are people letting DJI do this?"? If you mean "why are people buying this product and not returning it in huge numbers?" then that's presumably because they like the aircraft, they find the overall performance good enough, and they are not consumed with angst over just one aspect of IQ in one of the video modes. Or, as in my case, because I bought it primarily as a photography tool.

 

[Lon Denard]

What does HQ have to do with that question? With regards to M2P 4k FOV vs. M1P 4k, I do not know the details of the compromises, the chip choices, or the engineering challenges of the smaller-format camera when moving up to the larger sensor.

What do you mean by "why are people letting DJI do this?"? If you mean "why are people buying this product and not returning it in huge numbers?" then that's presumably because they like the aircraft, they find the overall performance good enough, and they are not consumed with angst over just one aspect of IQ in one of the video modes. Or, as in my case, because I bought it primarily as a photography tool.

I know, right? It's like DJI is out drowning puppies or something. Yeesh. My guess is the vast majority are happy with the drone. Furthermore, it's my belief that a large percentage of those that are outraged now were happy until they were told there was a reason to BE upset.

 

[Lon Denard]

Thanks for the hint !

You're welcome!

 

[kilomikebravo]

This whole "issue" is reminding me of the megapixel war smartphones had a while back.

BINGO! I KNEW it reminded me of SOMETHING! Thanks for the memory jog, Legion.

 

[Lon Denard]

BINGO! I KNEW it reminded me of SOMETHING! Thanks for the memory jog, Legion.

We talking the larger pixels vs more pixels debate?

 

[kilomikebravo]

I think Legion was referring to the argument, "who has more pixels" not their sizes.

 

[sar104]

We talking the larger pixels vs more pixels debate?

If you just consider the sensor physical and pixel dimensions, the M2P has a bigger sensor but more pixels (or rather photosites consisting of a Bayer array of 4 sensors). The resulting photosite size is 2.42 µm on the M2P and 1.58 µm on the M1P. That represents a factor of 2.35 increase in light-gathering area on the M2P if all other things were equal, which they are not, if only because of the back-illuminated design of the M2P sensor which will increase that factor further. It probably has a couple of stops advantage.

 

[Lon Denard]

If you just consider the sensor physical and pixel dimensions, the M2P has a bigger sensor but more pixels (or rather photosites consisting of a Bayer array of 4 sensors). The resulting photosite size is 2.42 µm on the M2P and 1.58 µm on the M1P. That represents a factor of 2.35 increase in light-gathering area on the M2P if all other things were equal, which they are not, if only because of the back-illuminated design of the M2P sensor which will increase that factor further. It probably has a couple of stops advantage.

Thank you! I was just out flying and people throw up the camera and it's limitations vs the cost of the drone as if it is the only metric by which to judge. As an overall package, is this drone 40% better than the MPP? I say thee yea! Absolutely. Many act as if there are no other improvements to the drone. Like it's an MPP with a different camera and nothing else. Like none of that $350 didn't go to sensors, Occusynch 2, longer flight time, etc.

So the questions are; is the M2P an $200 upgrade from the M2Z? Is the M2Z an $150 upgrade from the MPP? Is the MPP an $100 upgrade from the MP? Lastly, is the MP an $200 upgrade from the MA? When you look at the Mavic line up as a whole, it all kinda makes sense from a marketing perspective.

 

[lllLegion]

I think Legion was referring to the argument, "who has more pixels" not their sizes.

Yeah, during that time everyone was caught up with the megapixel count and said a 12mp was better than 10mp or 8mp while ignoring all other aspects of the camera.

Its not (correctly) viewed as so important in phones anymore and some manufactures like Samsung even went from a 16mp to a 14mp while still improving the image quality.

 

[Lon Denard]

Yeah, during that time everyone was caught up with the megapixel count and said a 12mp was better than 10mp or 8mp while ignoring all other aspects of the camera.

Its not (correctly) viewed as so important in phones anymore and some manufactures like Samsung even went from a 16mp to a 14mp while still improving the image quality.

14? We're down to 12mp! I think HTC kinda started it with their phone cameras.

 

[kilomikebravo]

..like Samsung even went from a 16mp to a 14mp while still improving the image quality.

Yep, with higher dpi pixel density and of course, OLED.

 

[Bussty]

Or, as in my case, because I bought it primarily as a photography tool.

Just curious are you 100% happy with the MP2 as a photography tool? That's the only thing I want to use it for but currently holding off as on this forum and others has been some really bad corner and whole left/right side blurriness even at f/5.6. Feels like luck of the draw if you get a sharp one or not...

 

[sar104]

Just curious are you 100% happy with the MP2 as a photography tool? That's the only thing I want to use it for but currently holding off as on this forum and others has been some really bad corner and whole left/right side blurriness even at f/5.6. Feels like luck of the draw if you get a sharp one or not...

I've not seen any reports of uneven focus, but that's always a concern with any camera. Mine is acceptably sharp across the entire field of view, but I would expect some manufacturing variability. I'd simply return for a replacement if it had poor focus.

 

[Bussty]

I've not seen any reports of uneven focus, but that's always a concern with any camera. Mine is acceptably sharp across the entire field of view, but I would expect some manufacturing variability. I'd simply return for a replacement if it had poor focus.

Definitely appears to be an issue for some unlucky MP2 owners...
Mavic pilots thread 1
Mavic pilots thread 2
DJI Forum Thread

 

[jarmokan]

Sad to see so many M2P haters, I guess it is because they can't afford it so they have to find ideas about how to tell themselves that it's not worth it anyways...

 

[Bussty]

Sad to see so many M2P haters, I guess it is because they can't afford it so they have to find ideas about how to tell themselves that it's not worth it anyways...

There is a lot of M2P owners who have purchased (so they could afford it) but are unhappy with quality. I wouldn't call them DJI haters they just aren't very happy. I get that.