Photography: Mavic 3 vs. Mini 3 Pro

[rmajoran]

I recognize this will be early on, but as a photographer, I would love to get some feedback on the *single image* photo quality of the Mini Pro 3 vs. the Mavic 3.

I have the Mavic 3, which shoots a 20MP image. The new Mini Pro 3 shoots a single 48MP image, which is very intriguing to me.

If you are a person who has had the opportunity to use both the Mini Pro 3 and the Mavic 3, please post your feedback here. (I recognize this may take awhile since it's so new.)

Thanks!

Ray

 

[Meta4]

I have the Mavic 3, which shoots a 20MP image. The new Mini Pro 3 shoots a single 48MP image, which is very intriguing to me.

The number of pixels is irrelevant, particularly when the 48 MP is arrived at by technical trickery.

 

[rmajoran]

Well, it's not irrelevant if the quality of the pixels is the same, but yes, I agree - not all pixels are created equal.

When someone has a side-by-side image comparison (DNG images preferably), I would love to see them. If all DJI has done is software enhancement (technical trickery), it will certainly be clear in the evidence.

Thanks!

Ray

 

[wco81]

The number of pixels is irrelevant, particularly when the 48 MP is arrived at by technical trickery.

What is the technical trickery, shoot multiple shots in bursts and merge them together in software?

Computational photography like iPhones and other top smart phones?

That could be good but I question whether DJI has the image processing and AI chops of Apple and Google.

 

[rmajoran]

Again, comparing two DNG (RAW) images side-by-side will give us the answer.

 

[wco81]

How steady will a 250 gram aircraft be in the air?

Does it have image stabilization to compensate for being tossed around more in the air?

 

[Meta4]

What is the technical trickery, shoot multiple shots in bursts and merge them together in software?

It's the photosites on the sensor.

Quad Bayer sensors: what they are and what they are not

Marketing departments are trying to sell you on the wrong thing - resolution isn't why these sensors are good, it's the better image processing.

www.gsmarena.com

 

[Phantomrain.org]

I recognize this will be early on, but as a photographer, I would love to get some feedback on the *single image* photo quality of the Mini Pro 3 vs. the Mavic 3.

I have the Mavic 3, which shoots a 20MP image. The new Mini Pro 3 shoots a single 48MP image, which is very intriguing to me.

If you are a person who has had the opportunity to use both the Mini Pro 3 and the Mavic 3, please post your feedback here. (I recognize this may take awhile since it's so new.)

Thanks!

Ray

I love that super Size picture on the Mavic 2 Zoom its been my favorite feature of all the drones. . i will be comparing the 3 images soon on all 3 drones.

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain.

 

[SkywalkerFeng]

I recognize this will be early on, but as a photographer, I would love to get some feedback on the *single image* photo quality of the Mini Pro 3 vs. the Mavic 3.

I have the Mavic 3, which shoots a 20MP image. The new Mini Pro 3 shoots a single 48MP image, which is very intriguing to me.

If you are a person who has had the opportunity to use both the Mini Pro 3 and the Mavic 3, please post your feedback here. (I recognize this may take awhile since it's so new.)

Thanks!

Ray

Mini 3 Pro has a 1/1.3" sensor, roughly 30% the size of the M43 sensor inside Mavic 3. And DJI decided to pack more than twice the number of pixels into that tiny sensor. Unless you only shoots in daylight, I would not consider Mini 3 Pro as a serious tool for photographers.

 

[KS-6]

Mini 3 Pro has a 1.3" sensor, roughly 30% the size of the M43 sensor inside Mavic 3. And DJI decided to pack more than twice the number of pixels into that tiny sensor. Unless you only shoots in daylight, I would not consider Mini 3 Pro as a serious tool for photographers.

Although possibly a fair point on the low light, as a full time pro who has been in business for 35 years, I decide what is a "serious tool" for photographers and I suspect most others do as well.

Although it is far too early to tell, from what I am seeing out of the DNG files, the new Mini will be fine for what I got it for which is vertical still and motion content when stitching is a no go due to subject motion and for overseas travel work. I already put my MP2 files through DXO Photolab to clean up the edges so the workflow will stay the same.

What matters more than anything is the resultant image and what it contains in terms of vision and talent. Secondarily is technical image quality. For some, the Mini will fall short and not be the best use of time and resources. For others, it will fill a specific role just fine.

 

[langcpht]

The number of pixels is irrelevant, particularly when the 48 MP is arrived at by technical trickery.

This is absolutely true - number of pixels has very little to do with total image quality (at least in modern cameras/sensors). The overall quality of the image is going to be largely dictated by the sensor itself and the quality of the lens focusing the image. People tend to get hung up when looking at numbers; particularly when something is objectively measurable, like megapixel resolution. Personally, things like dynamic range and image sharpness are far more important to me than resolution.

 

[SkywalkerFeng]

Although possibly a fair point on the low light, as a full time pro who has been in business for 35 years, I decide what is a "serious tool" for photographers and I suspect most others do as well.

Although it is far too early to tell, from what I am seeing out of the DNG files, the new Mini will be fine for what I got it for which is vertical still and motion content when stitching is a no go due to subject motion and for overseas travel work. I already put my MP2 files through DXO Photolab to clean up the edges so the workflow will stay the same.

What matters more than anything is the resultant image and what it contains in terms of vision and talent. Secondarily is technical image quality. For some, the Mini will fall short and not be the best use of time and resources. For others, it will fill a specific role just fine.

To put things into perspective, the sensor inside Mini 3 Pro is about the same size as the one in my mobile phone, Samsung S21 Ultra.

And yes, a photographer can come home with some creative images with his phone. But there are so many missed opportunities, when you have to work around the limitations of a tiny-sized sensor.

Not to mention the creative potential of that 7X zoom camera on Mavic 3. There is no way you can get the same cinematic feel, from the 24mm lens on Mini 3 Pro.

 

[KS-6]

This is absolutely true - number of pixels has very little to do with total image quality (at least in modern cameras/sensors). The overall quality of the image is going to be largely dictated by the sensor itself and the quality of the lens focusing the image. People tend to get hung up when looking at numbers; particularly when something is objectively measurable, like megapixel resolution. Personally, things like dynamic range and image sharpness are far more important to me than resolution.

Agree this is true, but some massaging in post can get you in a better position with the lesser hardware.

For example, when I crop a 5x7 aspect ratio vertical out of one of my MP2 files, it ends up being 8MP. But when I crop in tighter on the Mini 3 vertical file to reduce the FOV from 24mm to around 35mm which is where I wish these cameras were, it is around 33MP, cleans up the edges and on initial evaluation (not my images) looks like it will do well in comparison to the MP2 cropped. I have not run the DNG's though DXO because they do not have the profiles for it yet.

I was really hoping the MP3 would have either had interchangeable cameras or at least the option to flip the gimbal to vertical but since it is actually a wider lens at the same 20MP count, I saw no advantage at all in comparison to my M2P.

 

[KS-6]

To put things into perspective, the sensor inside Mini 3 Pro is about the same size as the one in my mobile phone, Samsung S21 Ultra.

And yes, a photographer can come home with some creative images with his phone. But there are so many missed opportunities, when you have to work around the limitations of a tiny-sized sensor.

Not to mention the creative potential of that 7X zoom camera on Mavic 3. There is no way you can get the same cinematic feel, from the 24mm lens on Mini 3 Pro.

Check out my post above to the other person, I am getting the Mini 3 purely for vertical shots which I estimate will be fine. I'm not interested in the zoom since it really does not give me the file I want as zoomed out.

If I did not already have an MP2 I might consider the MP3 but since I see little to be gained in going to the 3, it was easy to skip. But the vertical feature on the Mini is a whole other ball game.

 

[MS Coast]

Mini 3 Pro has a 1.3" sensor, roughly 30% the size of the M43 sensor inside Mavic 3. And DJI decided to pack more than twice the number of pixels into that tiny sensor. Unless you only shoots in daylight, I would not consider Mini 3 Pro as a serious tool for photographers.

Typo - 1/1.3" rather than 1.3".

 

[SkywalkerFeng]

Typo - 1/1.3" rather than 1.3".

Thanks for pointing that out - typo fixed.

 

[SkywalkerFeng]

Agree this is true, but some massaging in post can get you in a better position with the lesser hardware.

For example, when I crop a 5x7 aspect ratio vertical out of one of my MP2 files, it ends up being 8MP. But when I crop in tighter on the Mini 3 vertical file to reduce the FOV from 24mm to around 35mm which is where I wish these cameras were, it is around 33MP, cleans up the edges and on initial evaluation (not my images) looks like it will do well in comparison to the MP2 cropped. I have not run the DNG's though DXO because they do not have the profiles for it yet.

I was really hoping the MP3 would have either had interchangeable cameras or at least the option to flip the gimbal to vertical but since it is actually a wider lens at the same 20MP count, I saw no advantage at all in comparison to my M2P.

I was hoping for an interchangeable camera/lens module for M3 as well. Now that DJI has increased the sensor size to M43, and packed two cameras into one module, they have hit technological ceiling for such a compact, foldable drone. The next logical step is to explore the interchangeable camera/lens as an option for M4.

 

[thispilothere]

I was hoping for an interchangeable camera/lens module for M3 as well. Now that DJI has increased the sensor size to M43, and packed two cameras into one module, they have hit technological ceiling for such a compact, foldable drone. The next logical step is to explore the interchangeable camera/lens as an option for M4.

That's the holy grail for me - even some kind of beefier gimbal that would make clipon lenses possible. Maybe they'll include something like this in the new Air line.

 

[SkywalkerFeng]

That's the holy grail for me - even some kind of beefier gimbal that would make clipon lenses possible. Maybe they'll include something like this in the new Air line.

My holy grail is a compact, foldable drone with integrated zoom lens, like Olympus M.Zuiko ED 12-100mm F/4 IS PRO. I am willing to pay more, and accept a larger, heavier drone, for this ultimate zoom range (24mm-200mm). Call it the next Mavic 4 Pro, or Inspire Mini.

 

[jeffg53]

My holy grail is a compact, foldable drone with integrated zoom lens, like Olympus M.Zuiko ED 12-100mm F/4 IS PRO. I am willing to pay more, and accept a larger, heavier drone, for this ultimate zoom range (24mm-200mm). Call it the next Mavic 4 Pro, or Inspire Mini.


View attachment 148098

That would suit me. I wrestle with wide lenses so something like the Oly 12-100 would be magic.