Photo comparison Mavic 2 Pro/Zoom

[SteveCA]

really nice! with MP2 right?

Thanks! Yes Mavic 2 pro.

 

[mreloc]

You are missing out my friend. Here is a hyperlapse taken in 25mph winds last evening.

Did you take this at LAX? Lots of air traffic!

 

[SteveCA]

Did you take this at LAX? Lots of air traffic!

Not LAX, but 5 miles from SFO with a view of the landing pattern, hence all the airplanes.

 

[Brutka]

I have both M2Pro and M2Zoom, and had a M1Pro before, and I'm mostly into photography rather than videography.

The M2Pro is generally better, of course. More dynamic range, more resolution, less noise. But you know all that from the specs.

I also tried the M2Zoom for photography, and it has a few more subtle advantages as well. First, it goes to 24 mm on the wide end. So, if you're restricted in altitude, those 4 mm more might be what you need to get the picture you want because the 28 mm of the M2Pro aren't wide enough. Same goes for the telephoto end: You may be unable to descend into a crater or something because you would lose radio connectivity, so you can stay higher and zoom in with the M2Zoom, and end up with more pixels than using the M2Pro and cropping afterwards.

The lens of the M2Zoom has a weak spot, which is corner sharpness at 24 mm, but it's tolerable for most subjects I think. My M2Pro had a decentered lens first, so I sent it back to DJI for exchange, and got a good one back. (Used the M2Zoom in the meantime, and that's my use case indeed: I want to have a backup, and the M2Zoom is a much better backup because it can share all accessories (except filters) with the M2Pro, while the M1Pro couldn't, so I sold that and bought the M2Zoom in addition to the M2Pro.)

Also a major difference: the M2Zoom makes 4:3 photos, the M2Pro makes 3:2 photos. Coming from ground-based DSLR photography, the 3:2 is more my thing, and I often would crop the 4:3 photos from the M2Zoom (and M1Pro before that) to 3:2, further reducing resolution.

Regarding the spec differences: keep in mind that, depending on your style, many if not most subjects don't exceed even the M2Zoom's dynamic range. So, if you would be able to use low ISO most of the time, and 12MP is enough, the M2Zoom is also an option for photography. Still, I'm almost always choosing the M2Pro anyway.

Can you please make a couple of side by side photos and share those?
I need to understand: is the difference big enough for me to justify cost and fixed lnse (vs zoom).

 

[1cmathis]

Hyperlapses are made of hundred of still photos, stitched together. It's not video footage.

Video is also a series of stills (FPS), but that's not what he's asking for.

 

[SquizzyD]

Can you please make a couple of side by side photos and share those?
I need to understand: is the difference big enough for me to justify cost and fixed lnse (vs zoom).

Hi there, new here - found this thread as I was also trying to ascertain which path I should go down. A month or so back I took the plunge and purchased the Zoom based largely on a few slick M2Z drone reels from enthusiastic youtubers. My experience with the zoom was - stunning capabilities for video, the Zoom feature really does give it an interesting angle when at the telephoto end, but when it came to still images - I was severely underwhelmed. The single still images, whether RAW or series of exposure bracketed seemed a lot softer than the video and in my opinion no where near up to printing quality. Now interestingly there is the Super resolution feature (series of stitched images to make the 48mp image) which I thought I could utilise and get the best of both worlds, video and superb images. Unfortunately the super resolution setting takes far bit longer than I expected to perform - by zooming in, taking a picture, zooming out, zooming back in to second spot, taking picture, etc etc then blends them all together.. And foolishly I looked past the fact that on moving subjects, like waves, oceans, cars, pretty much anything you would want to photograph, this super res feature falls down.

Anyway long story short, like many others have said, if you are after still image quality, I probably wouldn't recommend the Zoom.

I sold the Zoom just last week and have purchased the 2 Pro, once I receive this I can post a variety of comparison images here (if you haven't already taken the plunge and purchased).

 

[Brutka]

I sold the Zoom just last week and have purchased the 2 Pro, once I receive this I can post a variety of comparison images here (if you haven't already taken the plunge and purchased).

Not yet. Will be looking forward your images. Thank you

 

[CanadaDrone]

For anyone posting images, be sure to post links to the full resolution RAW images - comparing JPEGs at web-size is completely pointless if the goal is to objectively evaluate image quality.

Plenty of cameras already exist that use these same two sensors though, so we already know how they fare aside from minor lens and processing differences

 

[Brutka]

BTW, while we are waiting files from SquizzyD - I've found a few comparison shots (in RAW).
Looking at those - I see zoom as pretty OK for me. What do you say, guys?

Original Files

 

[CanadaDrone]

BTW, while we are waiting files from SquizzyD - I've found a few comparison shots (in RAW).
Looking at those - I see zoom as pretty OK for me. What do you say, guys?

Original Files

It depends on your personal standards, but in my opinion the still image of the Zoom is quite poor (just as bad on my Air). There are physics based limitations with 12MP 1/2.3" sensors that you simply cannot overcome when comparing to a sensor 4 times the size with better overall technology and a higher resolution. The reason modern smartphones (which use the exact same sensors as the M2 Zoom) rely so heavily on computational photography, HDR algorithms and image stacking is because the upper limits of their performance are so low and it's pretty hard to get a bigger sensor in a smartphone (it's been done but is not commonplace). The M2P is in another league, which is not surprising looking at the sensor hardware. The lens on the M2P is also better, which is another factor. The M2P is not the be-all-end-all either, to put it further in perspective, modern 1" sensor IQ is quite poor compared to a modern full frame sensor like the one in my Nikon D850. It's all relative, and the same limitations exist everywhere, they just occur at different thresholds.

Like I said earlier, these exact same sensors have been out in the wild for years now in other photographic applications - we already know exactly how they perform and there is a very significant objective difference if each is used to their full ability. If your usage never exceeds web-sized JPEGS with zero post processing, it will make far less of a difference to that particular individual, but then the Pro2 likely isn't the best choice for someone like that in the first place.

 

[Brutka]

It depends on your personal standards, but in my opinion the still image of the Zoom is quite poor (just as bad on my Air). There are physics based limitations with 12MP 1/2.3" sensors that you simply cannot overcome when comparing to a sensor 4 times the size with better overall technology and a higher resolution. The reason modern smartphones (which use the exact same sensors as the M2 Zoom) rely so heavily on computational photography, HDR algorithms and image stacking is because the upper limits of their performance are so low and it's pretty hard to get a bigger sensor in a smartphone (it's been done but is not commonplace). The M2P is in another league, which is not surprising looking at the sensor hardware. The lens on the M2P is also better, which is another factor. The M2P is not the be-all-end-all either, to put it further in perspective, modern 1" sensor IQ is quite poor compared to a modern full frame sensor like the one in my Nikon D850. It's all relative, and the same limitations exist everywhere, they just occur at different thresholds.

Like I said earlier, these exact same sensors have been out in the wild for years now in other photographic applications - we already know exactly how they perform and there is a very significant objective difference if each is used to their full ability. If your usage never exceeds web-sized JPEGS with zero post processing, it will make far less of a difference to that particular individual, but then the Pro2 likely isn't the best choice for someone like that in the first place.

Being a photographer myself I do understand this and not arguing theory.
But. And that was suprprising "but" for me: when i did raw files development from the test above - the outcomes from m2z and m2p were not miles away.
Did you check those source files?

 

[izzca]

I picked Mavic 2 Pro because of it's ability for variable sizes in aperture which helps in my long exposure shots. It won't go as small as I wish (like f/32 or f/22 on Most DSLR lenses) but at f/11 it's a big help combined with a 6 stop ND. Also, the camera's longest exposure is up to 8 seconds only anyway....
The image below was at 1 second, f/11, ISO 100 with Freewell 64ND. It was kinda bright already so I couldn't go longer than 1 sec. It turned out the way I wanted anyway.

 

[pfeijao]

I think you can get good photos on both the zoom and M2P.
Both can save as raw photos, but on the zoom I can get 48MP superresolution.
Dont know if the M2P justifies the price.
I do think on videos the zoom gets more natural colors. I dont really like the M2P colors, they arent natural, but its just my opinion.
Here is a picture taken on my M2zoom on 48MP superesolution. There isnt anything like it on the Pro.

 

[Brutka]

I think you can get good photos on both the zoom and M2P.
Both can save as raw photos, but on the zoom I can get 48MP superresolution.
Dont know if the M2P justifies the price.
I do think on videos the zoom gets more natural colors. I dont really like the M2P colors, they arent natural, but its just my opinion.
Here is a picture taken on my M2zoom on 48MP superesolution. There isnt anything like it on the Pro.

how much time does it take for M2Z to take all those pictures for the superres shot?

 

[pfeijao]

About 3 or 5 seconds. It takes 9 photos using the zoom and stitches them to a 8000x6000 pixel panorama photo automatically.
You can have the choice to take the photo in jpg or raw format. Later you can use the intermediary raw files to reconstruct an even better panoramic photo (if you use photoshop,etc).

 

[CanadaDrone]

I think you can get good photos on both the zoom and M2P.
Both can save as raw photos, but on the zoom I can get 48MP superresolution.
Dont know if the M2P justifies the price.
I do think on videos the zoom gets more natural colors. I dont really like the M2P colors, they arent natural, but its just my opinion.
Here is a picture taken on my M2zoom on 48MP superesolution. There isnt anything like it on the Pro.

That is a nice composition but when you view it at 1:1 you can see the downfalls of such a tiny sensor. The photo itself is extremely soft, has no fine detail at all (It's completely smeared with a pastel look due to the noise reduction even at ISO 100) and fairly extreme distortion towards the edges. You can extract a much better image (technically speaking) out of the Pro simply because you avoid so many of the limitations of a 1/2.3" sensor. Again this is simply physics, it is not anything anyone did wrong or a problem with DJI's implementation.

If color is your complaint, you're in luck because that has nothing to do with the drone itself, it's simply the RAW converter. You can make the color profile whatever you want with 1 click, the only difference is you have more leeway to adjust color with the M2P. The M2P is also capable of higher than 48MP panoramas with even fewer shots, if getting extremely high resolution images is what interests you. The easiest way to deal with color management is to make profiles with a Colorchecker Passport, and then you can batch process perfect color in post with a single click. Actually that is probably the accessory that has singlehandedly saved me the most time in my entire photographic career - I highly recommend it to anyone.

They're just two different tools that cater to different customers. If you aren't into editing or taking still photos, the Zoom is a fine choice because it's cheaper and has all the benefits of the Mavic 2 chassis. If you need the highest possible quality, highest resolution, and highest file malleability in all scenarios, the Pro is easily worth the premium but in some scenarios it takes more work to extract those benefits (i.e. editing 10bit DLog-M footage).

 

[Brutka]

That is a nice composition but when you view it at 1:1 you can see the downfalls of such a tiny sensor. The photo itself is extremely soft, has no fine detail at all (It's completely smeared with a pastel look due to the noise reduction even at ISO 100) and fairly extreme distortion towards the edges. You can extract a much better image (technically speaking) out of the Pro simply because you avoid so many of the limitations of a 1/2.3" sensor. Again this is simply physics, it is not anything anyone did wrong or a problem with DJI's implementation.

If color is your complaint, you're in luck because that has nothing to do with the drone itself, it's simply the RAW converter. You can make the color profile whatever you want with 1 click, the only difference is you have more leeway to adjust color with the M2P. The M2P is also capable of higher than 48MP panoramas with even fewer shots, if getting extremely high resolution images is what interests you. The easiest way to deal with color management is to make profiles with a Colorchecker Passport, and then you can batch process perfect color in post with a single click. Actually that is probably the accessory that has singlehandedly saved me the most time in my entire photographic career - I highly recommend it to anyone.

They're just two different tools that cater to different customers. If you aren't into editing or taking still photos, the Zoom is a fine choice because it's cheaper and has all the benefits of the Mavic 2 chassis. If you need the highest possible quality, highest resolution, and highest file malleability in all scenarios, the Pro is easily worth the premium but in some scenarios it takes more work to extract those benefits (i.e. editing 10bit DLog-M footage).

I believe this topic has nothing to do with 10bit DLog as this is about photos only.
Otherwise - technically it is true, but in fact nobody still couldn't show side by side comparison to demonstrate the huge difference.
I provided couple of side by side shots above, but that went unnoticed, unfortunately.

 

[pfeijao]

I believe this topic has nothing to do with 10bit DLog as this is about photos only.
Otherwise - technically it is true, but in fact nobody still couldn't show side by side comparison to demonstrate the huge difference.
I provided couple of side by side shots above, but that went unnoticed, unfortunately.

There is and its not good news for the Mavic2Pro..

 

[pfeijao]

 

[SquizzyD]

Not yet. Will be looking forward your images. Thank you

Hi Brutka,

Apologies for the delay, I've attached a couple of images from the Zoom and a couple from the 2 Pro, both untouched or unedited JPGs Straight out off the micro SD (had to reduce size of two JPGs due to the attachment restrictions). The still images coming off the respective cameras are chalk and cheese in my opinion, especially if you want to print or do anything outside of uploading to instagram.. And when I bring the DNG files into lightroom or photoshop there is much more latitude and detail to play with in the 2 Pro 20MP image.. Can potentially stick the DNGs in a dropbox if others are interested in testing them in post

The video side of things, is different again, the 2 Pro does seem a touch softer out of the box, but that seems to be easily fixed through some subtle post sharpening, and again for me, upside is now Ive got a 10 bit signal to play with in colour grading, handles a lot more post than the 8 bit signal I had out of the Zoom. However the weird lens distortion is a bit of a strange one, although I found a premier pro filter that someone had developed which corrects the distortion..

Cheers