Mavic2 Pro vs. Zoom camera resolution

[rfc]

Been thinking of trading my Mavic 2 Pro for a Zoom. I shoot mainly stills and would like to get closer. But before I do, can someone who's familiar with both, tell me if the Zoom, zoomed all the way in, would produce a higher or lower res photo than the same image shot with a Pro (from the same place), and then cropped to match the photo?

 

[sar104]

Which is better?

I am trying to distinguish people walking from long distances. I know shamefully little about optics. My question is "Which is better at resolving features at long distance- The Mavic 2 Zoom zoomed all the way or the Mavic 2 pro with the fancy camera?" Thanks for any advice!

mavicpilots.com

FYI - in all other respects the M2Z is vastly inferior to the M2P for stills.

 

[rfc]

I know it's better; I'm trying to quantify it. I compared the specs (from DJI). for "Still Image Size: 5472×3648". The Zoom is 4000 x 3000. I don't know much about how the zoom works on the Zoom, but I'm assuming that if it's an optical zoom, you'd get the 4000 x 3000 pixels regardless of zoom, which would mean I could crop the 5472 x 3648 down to that size and get the same resolution. There may be other factors about the sensor though that go beyond just the number of pixels. Bit out of my wheelhouse when it comes to this stuff.

 

[sar104]

I know it's better; I'm trying to quantify it. I compared the specs (from DJI). for "Still Image Size: 5472×3648". The Zoom is 4000 x 3000. I don't know much about how the zoom works on the Zoom, but I'm assuming that if it's an optical zoom, you'd get the 4000 x 3000 pixels regardless of zoom, which would mean I could crop the 5472 x 3648 down to that size and get the same resolution. There may be other factors about the sensor though that go beyond just the number of pixels. Bit out of my wheelhouse when it comes to this stuff.

The answer is in the link that I posted above - did you not read it? The M2Z image will have a factor of 1.36 more resolution than a crop from the M2P of a similar field of view. It will be a poorer image in all other resects though.

 

[paulatkin73]

Search AliExpress for a zoom gimbal - you can simply swap it youself. Pro sensor has way better dynamic range and colors. At max zoom the picture from m2z will be sharper, but only a little bit. You can find a post i did week or more ago with such comparison.

 

[rfc]

The answer is in the link that I posted above - did you not read it? The M2Z image will have a factor of 1.36 more resolution than a crop from the M2P of a similar field of view. It will be a poorer image in all other resects though.

I did; It provided exactly the number crunching I was looking for; Thanks! But you threw a monkey wrench in the works with the statement about "poorer image in all other respects". If resolution accounts for only part of it, what else is there? Color depth? Is it the quality of the sensor or optics that just make images better, independent of the resolution alone?

 

[Phantomrain.org]

Been thinking of trading my Mavic 2 Pro for a Zoom. I shoot mainly stills and would like to get closer. But before I do, can someone who's familiar with both, tell me if the Zoom, zoomed all the way in, would produce a higher or lower res photo than the same image shot with a Pro (from the same place), and then cropped to match the photo?

The Zoom has the function that the Pro does not called the Super High Rez where it takes 6 shots and stitches them together for you , giving you some dynamic results.

I than bring the picture into the computer , find the most interesting part of the picture and crop a small section out of the 48 Meg or 9 shots but I normally crop to 3.

I have found that the Super High Res Picture give me the best bang to capture something I may not be seeing in the view.
I have a few of the other crops posted on our website at the bottom of the page.

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly your Mavic in and out of the storm.
Coal

 

[sar104]

I did; It provided exactly the number crunching I was looking for; Thanks! But you threw a monkey wrench in the works with the statement about "poorer image in all other respects". If resolution accounts for only part of it, what else is there? Color depth? Is it the quality of the sensor or optics that just make images better, independent of the resolution alone?

Resolution is only one metric, and often not the most important. The one inch sensor in the M2P has lower noise, more bit depth and higher dynamic range, which are generally far more significant for producing good images.

 

[gnirtS]

The "Super resolution" is nothing more than a fancy version of creating a panorama.
You still have the limited dynamic range, the larger noise and less resolution per pixel compared to the M2Pro.

Resolution is also one tiny part of the equation - you need to factor in dynamic range, sharpness, noise, colour science and so on. The M2Zoom loses out in every single one of these departments.

 

[rfc]

I think I'm going to hold off trading. I've never really had a problem with the image quality; just wish they'd marry the hassleblad camera with a telephoto adapter. Thanks for all the input walking me back from the ledge.?

 

[ZX14-R]

Shooting in HDR mode with the M2P 3-5 Shots works for me. Cant see how you are going to get a better image.

 

[charlas]

Like has been said, ignore the fact its a drone and instead compare it to a dslr/mirrorless system.

Medium frame - massive sensor, huge dynamic range best 'picture' most expensive (and things like auto focus are slower due to pixel density etc) Red's / cinema cams tend to be this sort of sensor, and they are almost all manual focus. 50-100+mp is the typical, and 20k+usd price for body only.

Full frame (I know most think should be bigger than medium, but hey) - kind of the 'sweet' spot for price/feature/quality. The eos1d / 5d and high end Sony/etc are these, these are the cameras that a 22' lense IS actually 22 on. Considered 'pro'. Have great dynamic range, and advanced tracking auto focus systems.

APS-H - Kinda less used now, but used to be the pro level, nearly full frame but not quite. 1.3 crop to full frame

APS-C - Most Canon/Sony non-pro cameras, less dynamic range and sensor not as big, but great price/performance level. 1.6 crop

Micro 4/3 - another popular format like APS-C, smaller than that, and less dynamic range, but still good. Lots of bridge cameras use it.

CX/1inch - this is mainly used by Nikon and Sony, and hense the use on the drone and other 'portable' cameras. Less dynamic range, but still considered a real 'photographic' sensor as such.

After that CCD's are considered as 'lenseless' as they are mainly used for phones etc where interchangeable lenses are not a thing.

This is why the 1inch sensor of the M2P/P4pro is so impressive, they are considered large sensors with real capture capability. Now I think its going to be a good while till we get APS-C let alone full frame sensors on 'all in one' craft like the DJI consumer/prosumer drones, but the 1inch sensor is a huge leap up in capturing light over the tiny sensors of old.

Remember most photographers would actually rather shoot a low (15-20)mp full frame sensor over a huge(40+) 1inch or less sensor, purely as each pixel is much larger, larger pixel = more light = more range and better shooting in challenging conditions.

So (very) long post short, unless you NEED the zooming for something (and it has its place) your best of for photos (and mostly video as well) to have the 'better' sensor. The M2P does have a 'zoom' as such as well, the HD / Full sensor shooting modes do zoom (well it crops to native pixels) and you get that, it's not a real focal zoom, but there anyway.

Hope that helps...

 

[Meta4]

Medium frame - massive sensor, huge dynamic range best 'picture' most expensive ...
Full frame (I know most think should be bigger than medium, but hey)

The confusion is because the proper terms for those cameras are:
Medium Format and 35mm Full Frame.

 

[charlas]

The confusion is because the proper terms for those cameras are:
Medium Format and 35mm Full Frame.

Very true, just I get quizzed about it a fair bit, so thought would point it out. Also buying lenses for medium format cameras is ££££!

 

[bliksem]

The M2P has a Hasselblad camera with a 1" sensor, the M2Z has a ****** camera.
In the DSLR world your feet are your best zoom, just walk closer. With a drone just fly closer.

 

[krodgerson]

Which is better?

I am trying to distinguish people walking from long distances. I know shamefully little about optics. My question is "Which is better at resolving features at long distance- The Mavic 2 Zoom zoomed all the way or the Mavic 2 pro with the fancy camera?" Thanks for any advice!

mavicpilots.com

FYI - in all other respects the M2Z is vastly inferior to the M2P for stills.

Much better to get the M2Pro and then zoom in on post production. Keith

 

[MavicManic]

 

[MavicManic]

On a related subject: I shoot video exclusively on my M2P and view it on Dell Laptop with moderate specs in Microsoft Photo app that was native to the PC. I pause the full screen video and press PRT SCRN (print screen) which puts the image into the clipboard. I then paste it into photoshop and do my cropping and image adjusting. I get better results then the jpegs taken by the drone. I do not use any ND filters because I want the fastest shutter (1/2000 on a sunny day) speed to get the sharpest frames. Never had any problem with “choppy” video because of lack of “motion blur.”

At night, I go with the drone’s jpegs as it is better in low light because I can use 1/8 sec exposure. Anything slower usually has some blurring depending on wind.

 

[Meta4]

I get better results than the jpegs taken by the drone.

You don't get better results that way.
Shooting stills, the resolution is 5472×3648 = 20MP
But video only gives you 3840×2160 = 8.2MP
8MP better than 20 MP ??

 

[johnmeyer]

Resolution is WAY overrated in its importance. Once you get to about 3,000 x 2,000, you have an image that can be used for just about anything except huge (16x20 and up) enlargements.

My daughter married a world-class professional photographer and while his cameras do have absurdly high resolutions, he never once has mentioned that. Instead, he is interested in the almost total lack of noise at high ISO; he raves about the dynamic range (ability to get detail out of the shadows when grading RAW images in Lightroom); lack of chromatic aberration; ability to shoot continuous still photos at a high rate; total lack of banding; and more.