Mavic2 Pro vs. Zoom camera resolution

[Meta4]

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.

You still don't get better images by throwing more than half of your pixels away.

 

[sar104]

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.

Something is not right there. If you were comparing 10-bit D-Log video frames with camera JPEGs then you might get better dynamic range even though the resolution will be decreased. But if you are just doing screen captures of the video then even that advantage goes away. You will get the best photo results from manually processing camera RAW images (provided that you do it correctly), followed by camera JPEG images and/or D-Log video frames provided you keep the bit depth. Screen grabs of display video contain the least information of any of the options.

 

[sar104]

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.

Very true - but in this case the dynamic range is being discarded too by just taking screen shots of the video. There is nothing optimal about this method.

 

[charlas]

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.

Yup like I mentioned above, most Photographers would rather shoot low pixel count on a good CCD than bad CCD with high count.

As for screen grabbing... Deffo won't give you better shot's than grabbing the DNG's from the drone and processing in Lightroom, but hey, as I always say, whatever works for you is what's best for you.

 

[sar104]

Yup like I mentioned above, most Photographers would rather shoot low pixel count on a good CCD than bad CCD with high count.

As for screen grabbing... Deffo won't give you better shot's than grabbing the DNG's from the drone and processing in Lightroom, but hey, as I always say, whatever works for you is what's best for you.

It's also hard to imagine that the screenshots would be better than the JPEGs, unless something is amiss with the photo settings. Come to think of it - there was a thread on just that subject where the camera was set to +2.7 and the resulting photos were, not surprisingly, awful.

 

[johnmeyer]

You still don't get better images by throwing more than half of your pixels away.

Not true. You can't tell any difference, at all, between 6720 x 4480 and 3000 x 2000 until you either zoom way in, or until you blow it up to a very large size.

I wrote a paper about this back in the 1980s when people first used scanners to put documents into their desktop publishing documents. Way too many people thought that scanning at the highest resolution was always needed. Back then, when scanning times were absurdly long and when disk drives capacities were still measured in megabytes, scanning at super-high resolutions had massive negative consequences with absolutely no (and I mean no) benefits.

So, I repeat what I said before: resolution is NOT the most important specification when deciding on what camera to buy.

 

[Cinebird]

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

 

[Cinebird]

Right for photography, For video at the other hand S35mm sensor refers to the image of a 35mm stroke but than 90 degrees turned as it is (was) done in argentic Cinema cameras-projectors since the filmstroke there is transported vertically and not horizontally (argentic foto cameras).. S35mm sensor for digital cinema cameras is (almost) équivalent to a APS-H sensor in digital photography.

 

[Meta4]

Not true. You can't tell any difference, at all, between 6720 x 4480 and 3000 x 2000 until you either zoom way in, or until you blow it up to a very large size.
So, I repeat what I said before: resolution is NOT the most important specification when deciding on what camera to buy.

I understand what you are trying to say but you don't get better images from a Mavic by taking 8MP screenshots from video than by shooting 20MP stills.
You are talking about finished image size and comparing different cameras.
But this discussion is about only one camera and initial capture rather than finished image size.
If you capture 20MP you have cropping options that have been given away by the guy that thinks he gets better images by taking 8MP screenshots from video.

 

[DagDerniT]

Absolutely love the Super High Res on the Zoom for detailed pics. I bought both Mavic 2's when they came out I actually sold my Pro and kept the Zoom. Just depends on what you want.

 

[charlas]

Right for photography, For video at the other hand S35mm sensor refers to the image of a 35mm stroke but than 90 degrees turned as it is (was) done in argentic Cinema cameras-projectors since the filmstroke there is transported vertically and not horizontally (argentic foto cameras).. S35mm sensor for digital cinema cameras is (almost) équivalent to a APS-H sensor in digital photography.

Very true, however didn't want to get into Super35 and Anamorphic's.... most people don't get why you would shoot and then stretch the image

 

[ajl_mo]

I'm going to throw my two cents in...

It depends on what you're doing with the drone.

1) As part of my "other duties as assigned" I fly for a city parks department. Part of what I do is getting images and video for special events. I also have a legal department that is scared to death of putting the city at risk. Using the Zoom allows me to get "closer" images and video while staying well away from people.

2) I'm not shooting video/images that I'm trying to sell on some stock photo site. I need construction update photos, aerials of completed projects, video of events for an occasional Facebook post. I know that I could shoot all of the this with a Pro and probably get better results. But I ain't got time nor the computer for heavy editing everything in Adobe. The Zoom lets me get the in the right area, play around with framing, get my shot and get back to the office. The drone is a small part of my work. I have time to trim the bad video out using VLC, do some basic color correction with Irfan, maybe do some titles and end credits with Window Moviemaker and that's about it. But I know most of my stuff will be on a Powerpoint slide for 5 seconds or less or a one and done FB post.

Use the tool you need for the job. Zoom works out great for us.

 

[kingsnake11]

My humble 2 cents. If you're looking for professional images and shooting as a photographer then the arguments for the pro2 with the 1 inch sensor are sound. On the other hand, if like me, you are using the RPAS (sUAV) to monitor and photograph wildlife with a minimum of disruption then image quality may be of less importance. We were discussing with a researcher using a zoom to pass over nesting and sun basking sites for turtles who are notoriously skittish. The zoom seems sufficient for species recognition and counting individuals without disturbing them. So it really boils down to what you really want out of your machine.

 

[sar104]

My humble 2 cents. If you're looking for professional images and shooting as a photographer then the arguments for the pro2 with the 1 inch sensor are sound. On the other hand, if like me, you are using the RPAS (sUAV) to monitor and photograph wildlife with a minimum of disruption then image quality may be of less importance. We were discussing with a researcher using a zoom to pass over nesting and sun basking sites for turtles who are notoriously skittish. The zoom seems sufficient for species recognition and counting individuals without disturbing them. So it really boils down to what you really want out of your machine.

It's worth bearing in mind, however, that the zoom is only 2x optical, and only has an advantage of a factor of 1.36 over the Pro in HQ mode.

 

[globetrotterdrone]

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

Indeed, indeed.
The thing is, the term full frame also trickled down into the German language, where nowadays most people, who never were never acquainted with the 'good old SLR or other technical equivalent camera systems, parrot it. Those camera with 24x36 mm film were called Small factor cameras - which indeed compared to medium and large photography is a rather matching term for the hoi polloi. ?

But with the beginning of DSLR and the costly sensors in 35mm format, APS-C and others were considered smaller and therefore full frame somehow pemeated.

For the image quality record, some days ago, love my Mavic 2 Pro bird:

 

[4winds]

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?

Have both that I use for work ( building in bridge demolition ) By no means am I a professional, I can tell you that I find myself using my pro 2 almost all of the time, I have no problem with getting up close to my work, if interested I’m thinking about selling my zoom let me know

 

[paulatkin73]

i posted this direct comparison in the other thread some time before. this is a pointless pixels peeping exercise, but, it shows the factual difference of the pro image - on the left, to the zoom shot at max optical zoom - what it does in the super res pano mode. non-zoomed versions are not comparable, this way you can see marginal amount of an additional detail on the right image, can also see noise and different colors.
that tower clock was a half mile away or so, both shots taken from same position, 80m altitude.

so, as i use both models now, i can say zoom is a very convenient reconnaissance tool, when set to 1080p30 or 1080p60 mode to allow optical and digital zooms to work for videos. that allows to see and zoom in on anything and take more or less decent shots and videos while light is right.

other than that, it is not really comparable, and as soon as light is not bright enough or you want actually print something later - you need pro. only way to get noiseless image from zoom is to take a series of shots with it and then blend them all in the photoshop, so noise would be relatively neutralized in the final blend. with M2P it is just less problematic.

 

[johnmeyer]

I understand what you are trying to say but you don't get better images from a Mavic by taking 8MP screenshots from video than by shooting 20MP stills.
You are talking about finished image size and comparing different cameras.
But this discussion is about only one camera and initial capture rather than finished image size.
If you capture 20MP you have cropping options that have been given away by the guy that thinks he gets better images by taking 8MP screenshots from video.

I was responding to the OP, not the other person who stated he was doing screen captures. Doing screen captures is a horrible workflow, not so much because of the lower resolution (for the reasons I already described), but because you are throwing away bit depth, and RAW data (if you use it). What's more, given how the image made its way to the screen, it has probably been compressed far more than the JPEG stored on the card.

 

[Drone on]

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?

Does it have to be a one or the other purchase?
Some pilots are buying one or the other, then buying the camera only of the model they did not buy.
There are many YT videos on the relative ease to swap the cameras even in the field
I believe others have argued that the Z is for video, and the P is for pics.
So, if you are predominantly are interested in pics than P, and vise versa.

 

[offtheback]

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...

I would love a folding Micro 4/3 drone.I shoot Olympus and with a bit of exposure care the results are very good.Mirrorless has some great features too.Silent shutter,pro capture and live composition.The Olympus has focus stacking too.