New Mavic 3 Pro arrived. Not a great start.
- Thread starter mavicpilotsnumpty
- Start date
Been following this thread quietly since it opened. Interesting reading. I decided to raid your drop-box and have a crack at the shots you took with the Mavic 3 Pro main camera.
Post-processing on DNG: f/5.6 @ 100 ISO. Shot as 4:3
**WOW!** the vignetting is horrible - as is the magenta cast top right corner... Now I understand why you shot the top-downs of the forest in 16:9. There are clearly aberrations that shouldn't exist in a quality camera and lens, such as:
vignetting
This is the kind of hard vignetting I would expect to see from the RAW's produced by a sub-£300 bridge camera. The vignetting does not react equally to correction - top and bottom right frame remains prevalent. My first thought was to wonder if the sensor was misaligned.
colour cast (top right of frame)
Again, I wondered if the sensor was misaligned at assembly. This might explain the curved magenta cast top right.
Once processed, the level of detail that can be brought out is good, but exactly the same can be said about similar images from my Mini 3 Pro. The level of noise in the DNG files is low and very little noise correction is required (tick in the 'plus' column).
To my eye: edge-to-edge - the detail appears sharper on the right and less sharp on the left (which might also suggest a misaligned sensor).
I would expect a higher standard of photograph from a drone camera with a 4/3 sensor and would not expect a 1/1.3 sensor to even be in the same ball-park, let alone be able to match its quality. If I had spent the best part of £3,000 on a drone parading a 'Hasselblad' camera: I would expect that main camera to be excellent and be subject to draconian quality control. As mentioned already, this camera shows basic aberrations that I would expect to see in the RAW's from a sub-£300 bridge camera. I think (like a lot of other people) that the Mavic 3 Pro main camera has turned out to be a case of expectation tripping over the foot of reality.
DJI bought the controlling interest in Hasselblad in 2018 (if memory serves correct) and that gave Frank Wang the right to have the iconic name printed on the Mavic 2 Pro L1D-20c camera housing. Just because the name is printed on the front: doesn't mean the camera unit was designed or built by those pernickety Swedish experts and I'm certain they would never drop their standards so low as to fit a plastic lens in front of one of their sensors. With the Mavic 3 camera(s) what you are paying top dollar for is the snob value of the brand-name.
I could go out and buy a shiny Porsche bonnet badge then stick it on the front of a Ford Fiesta: It doesn't mean that women will then be attracted to me like flies, men will look enviously at me or that afterwards my car will go like a stabbed rat instead of a Dagenham Dustbin.
Anyone who has owned DJI kit knows that their only high quality cameras are the modular Zenmuse series (from the X5R onwards). They are also properly expensive... as are the lenses. Their speciality cameras, like the P1 go WAY beyond expensive... and you have to buy that big old break-the-bank Matrice M300 separately.
How many people still think that the word 'PRO' behind the word 'MAVIC' stands for 'PROfessional? It doesn't - it stands for PROsumer (a picky CONsumer who's under the misapprehension that an iconic name and a fat price tag assures greater quality)
If this thread has convinced me of anything: it is NOT to fork out three grand of my hard-earned for a drone whose camera appears to be built to the same quality standards as an off-the-shelf KODAK AstroZoom.
Last edited:
You hit the nail on the head.
Having owned quite a few Hasselblads and digital backs. The film Hasseys are my favourite. All mechanical. The digital backs and their proprietary software and lenses really did not do it for me. Their products are in name only, effectively overpriced knockoffs.
When Hasselblad were scrambling around for ideas before DJI, they reworked a Sony RX100 m2 into that weird concoction. That’s when I knew Hasselblad were nothing more than a name and some board members who had no clue.
Anyone who thinks Hasselblad created anything are fooling themselves.
I have lived in Sweden and met some of the Hassey team. Lovely bunch of people. Though this was before DJI got their hands on them even they knew the products they were pushing out were suspect.
As for this Mavic. Had DJI on the phone asking how I got on with my testing.
After 4 hours this morning of checking settings and profiling I came to the conclusion the baked in profile is awful.
When changed it really makes quite a difference to the files.
Still not as good as the Autel but passable.
The lower left distortion is a lens issue or misalignment issue. What makes this worse is the baked in profile. Remove that and it is better. Not gone, but better. Stitching will see if this is an issue.
Was going to do a few tests with under and over exposing. To see how far I can push the files.
As for the colour casts. This is a lens issue I think. Need to take off the lens cover to check that as there is a few weird distortions on the image.
Like you said, a micro 4/3rds sensor should be better than this.
Autels 1 inch sensor nails it. The V3 files can be pushed remarkably well.
Having owned quite a few Hasselblads and digital backs. The film Hasseys are my favourite. All mechanical. The digital backs and their proprietary software and lenses really did not do it for me. Their products are in name only, effectively overpriced knockoffs.
When Hasselblad were scrambling around for ideas before DJI, they reworked a Sony RX100 m2 into that weird concoction. That’s when I knew Hasselblad were nothing more than a name and some board members who had no clue.
Anyone who thinks Hasselblad created anything are fooling themselves.
I have lived in Sweden and met some of the Hassey team. Lovely bunch of people. Though this was before DJI got their hands on them even they knew the products they were pushing out were suspect.
As for this Mavic. Had DJI on the phone asking how I got on with my testing.
After 4 hours this morning of checking settings and profiling I came to the conclusion the baked in profile is awful.
When changed it really makes quite a difference to the files.
Still not as good as the Autel but passable.
The lower left distortion is a lens issue or misalignment issue. What makes this worse is the baked in profile. Remove that and it is better. Not gone, but better. Stitching will see if this is an issue.
Was going to do a few tests with under and over exposing. To see how far I can push the files.
As for the colour casts. This is a lens issue I think. Need to take off the lens cover to check that as there is a few weird distortions on the image.
Like you said, a micro 4/3rds sensor should be better than this.
Autels 1 inch sensor nails it. The V3 files can be pushed remarkably well.
400 iso, f2.8, Autel V3 (with the Sony RX100 mk7 sensor) - A lot of latitude. Obviously heavily compressed jpgs to fit on here.
Attachments
Last edited:
140iso, f5.6 Mavic 3 Pro. Not the best of evenings, very overcast. Obviously heavily compressed jpgs to fit on here.
Attachments
I liked the later film Hasselblads. Another camera I was shocked by is the Sigma SD1 Merrill with its Foveon X3. A pig of a box if you're an habitual fast shooter, but fixed position landscapes, still lifes and portraits and it will still make your jaw hang open. The closest I've seen a digital come to analogue capture (although I've had no experience with the Quattro series).
To be honest, if I'd been through the blue-arsed faff you've been through, I'd probably head back to the known quantity of the EVO2 cameras.
My favorite Hasselblad of all time is my SWC...after all this I'm going to pixel peep my new Polaroid.
It has done a pretty good job I have to say. Is DxO a better option than LR for developing DNG files from Mavic 3?
So after all the toing and froing it looks like this second Mavic 3 Pro is a keeper for the OP
Last edited:
LOL..
I still have my 503CX with Distagon 40mm and other lenses in my closet. But I have to tell you that the corners on 6x6 trannies shot wide open or even stopped down with the Distagon (Zeiss made in Germany!!) were not stellar sharp either. Considering the price, size and weight of that lens alone I reckon that the Hassy branded cam on Mavic 3 Pro is not doing such a bad job after all...
Last edited:
Almost...it is the one with the Smolokowski sticker on the front.Is that the Polaroid with the Hasselblad sticker on the front?
)))Lightroom. And capture pne
still on the fence on that. Just had no time to fully beat my head over with a stick on that.It has done a pretty good job I have to say. Is DxO a better option than LR for developing DNG files from Mavic 3?
So after all the toing and froing it looks like this second Mavic 3 Pro is a keeper for the OP
Taken time off work Friday Saturday and Sunday to make up my mind.
I've been playing with the DxO PureRaw. It clears the noise beautifully and their lens profile improves the sharpness accross the frame and all the way to the corners. Much better result than the DJI embeded and even better than what I could do in C1.
The workflow gets a bit heavy and clunky. I might be using it mostly if the end product is a large print or so. But the results are impressive indeed.
Similar threads
- Locked
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
New Threads
-
-
3 Arkutino beach, Ropotamo river and biggest sand dune
- Started by alex_markov
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Forum statistics
