Pro? Really???
- Thread starter Montana_Flyer
- Start date
Random thought on interchangeable lenses. Been shooting 35mm format for over 50 years... I love the ability to swap out lenses; but even today with 5-6 main lenses I manage to live with only two lenses most of the time (16-28mm, 24-70mm).
BUT. To be able to change lenses you need a lens mount added to the camera AND lens, and a way to couple the camera focus mechanism to the lens. That all adds some cost, but mainly WEIGHT. So that impacts the overall weight (slightly), and the weight the gimbal has to handle so there's some added heft needed there.
There is a design tradeoff here and I think, for even this class of drone, the advantages of interchangeable lenses don't make a lot of sense compared to what they are going to cost.
BUT. To be able to change lenses you need a lens mount added to the camera AND lens, and a way to couple the camera focus mechanism to the lens. That all adds some cost, but mainly WEIGHT. So that impacts the overall weight (slightly), and the weight the gimbal has to handle so there's some added heft needed there.
There is a design tradeoff here and I think, for even this class of drone, the advantages of interchangeable lenses don't make a lot of sense compared to what they are going to cost.
Agreed. You pretty much summed up the conversation, especially with your qualifying term “for even this class of drone”. MP3 is clearly not a professional drone.
I have been a full time commercial / editorial photographer for about 35 years. I have done aerials my entire career, from helicopters, high wing Cessnas and even the back seat of fighter jets. Until I see really good differences between the main camera on the MP3 compared to an MP2, I am not running out the door to buy one.
Reason being is that I already find the 28mm FOV on the MP2 to be a bit too wide on many shots so going to a 24mm FOV on the same resolution sensor will hinder me further. I went through a few MP2’s to get a lens that was reasonably well centered so with doing pre-post in DXO labs I can get pretty good up rezzed files out of it once I am working in the most recent version of Adobe.
I have toyed with the idea of either adding an M2Z or a larger bird with interchangeable lenses but figured I would wait to see what the 3 looks like. I am doing a bit more video which the 3 will be great for, but stills are the bread and butter.
It’s not a one size fits all world and the MP3 might not hold enough of an upgrade for me to take the plunge, especially since my MP2 is well equipped with 6 batteries, the SC, is always flown closed loop so it has not lost it’s flyable area to a bunch of firmware or software updates and won’t.
I’ll be watching to see what the new MP3 actually does…
Reason being is that I already find the 28mm FOV on the MP2 to be a bit too wide on many shots so going to a 24mm FOV on the same resolution sensor will hinder me further. I went through a few MP2’s to get a lens that was reasonably well centered so with doing pre-post in DXO labs I can get pretty good up rezzed files out of it once I am working in the most recent version of Adobe.
I have toyed with the idea of either adding an M2Z or a larger bird with interchangeable lenses but figured I would wait to see what the 3 looks like. I am doing a bit more video which the 3 will be great for, but stills are the bread and butter.
It’s not a one size fits all world and the MP3 might not hold enough of an upgrade for me to take the plunge, especially since my MP2 is well equipped with 6 batteries, the SC, is always flown closed loop so it has not lost it’s flyable area to a bunch of firmware or software updates and won’t.
I’ll be watching to see what the new MP3 actually does…
Lots of people used the M2P professionally, the M3 just takes things to a whole new level.
Until recently, the only way to get uncompressed ProRes was through the Inspire series - now we have that in a much smaller package. Also until recently, the only way to get a 4/3 sensor in the air was to buy an Inspire series and a Zenmuse X5 series camera. The X5S allows for interchangeable lenses, but the M3 camera actually has a much higher bitrate for regular footage.
Wedding and event photographers regularly use drones like the M2P professionally.
Hollywood often uses drones like the XM2 (with a camera, you're looking at easily $200K++) but there is lots of professional drone usage well below that level, and there are movies/documentaries whose entire production budgets are less than that.
The Panasonic GH5 very likely shares a sensor with the M3 (both 20MP 4/3 Sony units), and there are feature films shot with that camera. Netflix has purchased documentaries and films shot on a Canon C100s which is a ~$2500 entry level video camera and uses a sensor that is essentially a 4/3 stretched horizontally.
GoPros are used in Hollywood films as well, one example that comes to mind is The Martian starring Matt Damon. If it's good enough for Ridley Scott, I think it's fair to say it has certain professional applications. Here we are talking about a $500 product with a tiny 1/2.3" sensor and output quality nowhere near that of the M3.
All I am really getting at here is that the limiting factor for professional use is often the skill of the user rather than the hardware itself. Certainly, there are applications that require a certain level of equipment (i.e. you don't show up to shoot a wedding with an iPhone), but It's all about using the right tool for the job and some applications call for products that may not be what you expect. If you have something as good as the M3, the drone is not going to be the limiting factor for many kinds of professional use.
bonzo
Well-Known Member
Loved the response CanadaDrone, excellent points! Responses and a question below...
What I reject is the price points that DJI is trying to interject between "pro" and"consumer". DJI is taking what should now (2021) be within the next "consumer" platform and still labeling it "pro", but and then hiking the price for "Cine" into the professional price range. IMHO, the non-Cine M3P price is just a tad over where it deserves to be (I understand that DJI needs to recover R&D $). But simply adding a low-end smart controller (yes, low end in today's world when comparing Autel & XDynamics' beauties) and ProRes doesn't justify the $3k bump.
</SS>
No idea what the XM2 is, way beyond my interests as a 'just more than casual" user.
What I reject is the price points that DJI is trying to interject between "pro" and"consumer". DJI is taking what should now (2021) be within the next "consumer" platform and still labeling it "pro", but and then hiking the price for "Cine" into the professional price range. IMHO, the non-Cine M3P price is just a tad over where it deserves to be (I understand that DJI needs to recover R&D $). But simply adding a low-end smart controller (yes, low end in today's world when comparing Autel & XDynamics' beauties) and ProRes doesn't justify the $3k bump.
I fully agree that the skill of the pilot(s) is/are the most significant factor in any aerial footage (maybe exceptions for location and opportunity), be it video OR stills. I am certain that the right pilot could outperform my M2P amateur skills using only a Spark.
One last thing. Is the M3P ProRes really fully uncompressed?
</SS>
am'obi
Member
My only issue is having to buy a new controller. If not, I would have jumped all over. Instead, I ended getting Mavic air 2s.
Attachments
globetrotterdrone
Well-Known Member
@CanadaDrone
That is all sound and fair and certainly the bigger and newer MFT-sensor to the M2P is something people appreciate. Calculative you improve about one stop to the one inch from the M2P by DNR but judging from the samples posted so far, only for stills, it doesn't (yet) show tremendously in the scope of 100 - about 800 ISO. Higher ISO (which I most likely avoid anyway) will show advantages earlier of course.
What you somehow don't say is, that the best sensor always depends on its lens in front and I guess, with all the problems the M2P had (soft corners, problematic quality assurance), we are still on par in this matter even if we gained another 4 mm (equivalent 35 mm) considering details as we also still render with 20 MP.
From a M2P's view, the M3 is (by now) just not the expected huge step for stills. In reverse conclusion we still can appreciate the M2P's quality after that time.
Anyway, I really hope DJI will get all the features and qualities right with some time.
Personally, there's no rush to substitute tools that have proven trustworthy.
That is all sound and fair and certainly the bigger and newer MFT-sensor to the M2P is something people appreciate. Calculative you improve about one stop to the one inch from the M2P by DNR but judging from the samples posted so far, only for stills, it doesn't (yet) show tremendously in the scope of 100 - about 800 ISO. Higher ISO (which I most likely avoid anyway) will show advantages earlier of course.
What you somehow don't say is, that the best sensor always depends on its lens in front and I guess, with all the problems the M2P had (soft corners, problematic quality assurance), we are still on par in this matter even if we gained another 4 mm (equivalent 35 mm) considering details as we also still render with 20 MP.
From a M2P's view, the M3 is (by now) just not the expected huge step for stills. In reverse conclusion we still can appreciate the M2P's quality after that time.
Anyway, I really hope DJI will get all the features and qualities right with some time.
Personally, there's no rush to substitute tools that have proven trustworthy.
Amazing data rates, something my CPUs would have a hard time with.
I did a bit of checking myself, and could not convince myself that it is uncompressed. Given that the term "lossless" doesn't imply uncompressed content (although of course an uncompressed media file would be lossless as well). I cannot think of any codecs that are literally uncompressed, as what would be the point of it except larger file sizes? A lossy compression will will decode back to a close representation of the original, its quality dependent upon the compression rate used during the encoding process, but a lossless compression will decode back to original format, no loss of data, much like a digital file in ZIP format.
Doing some quick math with the little I know about video files, just to create perspective, here is a table of raw video file sizes if left completely uncompressed.
Please note that this is the size of the stream, the file storage space will have overhead making it larger than the stream.
Compare this to 220Mb/sec ProRes 442 HQ, and a 60 second video would only be 13.2 GB ((220/1000))*60). The evidence shows that there is compression going on at the codec.
I did a bit of checking myself, and could not convince myself that it is uncompressed. Given that the term "lossless" doesn't imply uncompressed content (although of course an uncompressed media file would be lossless as well). I cannot think of any codecs that are literally uncompressed, as what would be the point of it except larger file sizes? A lossy compression will will decode back to a close representation of the original, its quality dependent upon the compression rate used during the encoding process, but a lossless compression will decode back to original format, no loss of data, much like a digital file in ZIP format.
Doing some quick math with the little I know about video files, just to create perspective, here is a table of raw video file sizes if left completely uncompressed.
Please note that this is the size of the stream, the file storage space will have overhead making it larger than the stream.
Compare this to 220Mb/sec ProRes 442 HQ, and a 60 second video would only be 13.2 GB ((220/1000))*60). The evidence shows that there is compression going on at the codec.
globetrotterdrone
Well-Known Member
You can compress without loss certainly ... like PNG. But you won't get the reduction in size like with JPEG loss.
Uncompressed just saves your machine some shuffling for the CPU but will rise your demand of storage.
en.wikipedia.org
Uncompressed just saves your machine some shuffling for the CPU but will rise your demand of storage.
Lossless compression - Wikipedia
I did not know that PNG was lossless!! I learn something every day. Thanks globetrotterdrone!!
Gad you found it useful - sorry for the late reply as I just saw this.
The XM2 is a ~$70,000 USD platform far larger than any consumer drone (closer to the size of a small car) that can carry some of the largest camera/lens combinations that Hollywood uses, themselves easily costing $150K++. This is obviously totally beyond the realm of what most people will ever experience.
Regarding the price bump, it has a lot to do with the 4/3 sensor (large image sensors are very expensive) and the processing power that goes along with it to allow the resolutions, framerates, and bitrates that the M3 offers. Anyone whose work directly benefits from these will probably think the M3 is a bargain, and those whose needs are met by a M2P or A2S will probably think it's overpriced because they either don't understand or don't need the upgrades. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that either.
Also, everything is more expensive now due to COVID-related supply, shipping, and labor shortages. Without a doubt that is part of the price increase. As one example, a shipping container from Asia to North America used to cost around $5,000 and now costs close to $30,000, and that is just one of many things that go into determining the price of goods manufacturer overseas or with parts that come from overseas. What would the M3 cost pre-COVID? I haven't a clue, but almost certainly it would be less.
ProRes capability requires a licensing fee paid to Apple, and with DJI's Inspire line, we can see the standalone cost of this is $500 USD, so there is a big chunk of the Cine's price premium right there. With the RC Pro available separately, there is no reason to buy the Cine version unless you are specifically wanting ProRes. It also includes a built in 1TB SSD due to the recording demands of uncompressed ProRes (about 10-11GB per minute).
One thing I think DJI could have done better is offer more combinations (for example the non-Cine with the RC Pro, or the Cine without), but having too many combinations especially at launch and with the current global situation, they probably just had to pick a few and go with it. I suspect down the road it will be easier to mix & match.
Indeed it is uncompressed. There are different levels of ProRes, but what DJI offers is ProRes 4:2:2 @ 4K60P with a bitrate of roughly 1,500Mbps or roughly 190MBps. That is approximately 8 times higher than the maximum bitrate the non-Cine version can achieve in any mode, hence the requirement for a different storage medium (the SSD in this case).
The biggest difference in dynamic range between a 1" sensor and M43 sensor (all else equal) is at higher ISOs, which is perfect because you typically want to shoot Log footage around ISO400-800. Still photos show exactly the expected gains in the samples I have seen so far.
Here is a comparison between what are very likely the two sensors in question - it may not be perfect but it should be extremely close. What you can see is that the DR vs ISO setting is greater at higher ISOs than it is at low ISOs, and would you look at that, the gap is particularly large around ISO800, which is arguably the ideal place to be shooting Log footage
It's much more complicated than that. The lens itself has no bearing on the actual sensor performance, but it obviously affects the end result. Resolution comes into play as well. Just for example sake, if you put an average lens in front of a 40MP sensor and an amazing lens in front of a 10MP sensor, downsampled to 10MP, that 40MP image will look as good or better, and a large print from the 40MP file will still look better. I know that's not really what you asked, but it becomes much more complicated if you are trying to evaluate sensor and lens performance as a combined entity. The lens also has no effect on DR or ISO performance, only sharpness, all else equal.
My M2P has no such problems with it's lens so I can't really comment on that specifically. What I will say is that in the photography world in general, a lot of people think they have problems when they don't because of flawed testing methods or lack of understanding - this is a huge problem for warranty departments. For example, a small amount of lens decentering is normal, even on $5,000 ILC lenses. I don't think I've ever bought a lens in my life that was objectively flawless. If you shoot a brick wall and discover that one corner is slightly worse than another at 200% magnification, that is not an issue, but there are plenty of people who will return products based on outrageous testing scenarios that would never otherwise be a problem with normal usage. Now, if there is an obvious or extreme issue of some kind, of course that is a real problem and needs to be addressed.
All I can say at this point regarding the M3 is that I haven't noticed anything unusual about it's image quality or lens quality looking at DNGs on my computer, or watching 4K playback on a 120" screen. Everything is as I expected it to be and everything is a very noticeable step up from my M2P by my standards.
From a M2P's view, the M3 is (by now) just not the expected huge step for stills. In reverse conclusion we still can appreciate the M2P's quality after that time.
Anyway, I really hope DJI will get all the features and qualities right with some time.
Personally, there's no rush to substitute tools that have proven trustworthy.
How big the improvement is depends entirely on the individual requirements of the user. A one stop improvement is significant, and also means that less extreme adjustments will still retain more quality. If you are shooting in challenging conditions or need to recover/salvage an otherwise worthless image, it can be the difference between a usable result and a garbage result. If you are shooting in perfect conditions with perfect exposure all the time, you aren't going to notice much of a difference because every sensor performs well under ideal conditions.
I think to your point, it's really important to look at the M3 and see if it will make a real difference to your usage, particularly with regards to the intended end use of your footage/images. If you already have an A2S or M2P, those are fantastic drones, and most hobbyists/casual users are not going to see a lot of value upgrading to a M3. Those are also the people who probably think it's overpriced because everyone I've talked to so far who will directly benefit from the M3's upgrades thinks it's a bargain.
globetrotterdrone
Well-Known Member
To sum it up: I think it's overpriced in regard of its value coming from it predecessor, the lack of some basic or unfinished functions, the former SC not being compatible (in a legacy mode) and especially no C marking for EU (guess EU is just something like a side note for DJI after China and US/Canada).
That doesn't render the M3 bad or anything, it's a fine piece of hardware for sure and it may be worth for other people with other needs.
I just think, DJI could have done better in overall practise.
They have the majority market share and certainly use it fully to their advantage until competitors may change it.
slbgeo
Member
I can't tell you how refreshing it is to read ANYTHING written by a person who knows the difference between "your" and "you're"!! Not to mention utilizing both forms in the same sentence! I feel giddy!
The other part of me is saddened by the fact that this simple distinction makes me so happy, solely because it's such a rarity in our text-speech oriented, non-punctuating society. So there! .....or their...or is it they're.?...LOL
So the fact that professionals use the Mavic doesn’t make it a ‘pro’ tool. It MUST have interchangeable lenses to make it ‘professional’?
I think you should look up the meaning of what ’professional‘ is.
By the way, I know plenty of professionals that use their cell phones in certain situations.
The Mavic is just a tool. Professional is how (and how well) you use your tools.
</ I’m a solution architect and have never seen an SS tag in XML>
The X dynamic drone would seem to be more of what the phantom 5 wanters are after. I'd like to see how it flies, and wish it ran drone deploy... And that it folded!
As a new owner of a mavic 3 I can can say so far so good. I'm looking forward to the additional features to come online in January and for DJI to release the SDK. Photography wise, it beats my autel Evo 2 right out of the box as far as smoothest and image quality.
As a new owner of a mavic 3 I can can say so far so good. I'm looking forward to the additional features to come online in January and for DJI to release the SDK. Photography wise, it beats my autel Evo 2 right out of the box as far as smoothest and image quality.
snowghost
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2017
- Messages
- 219
- Reactions
- 196
- Age
- 69
I shoot video in 3840x2160 and occasionally put in some still images taken with my iPhone. The result is quite decent.
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
Air 3s Video settings tested - D-Log vs. HLG- Started by DroneZone Samui
- Replies: 0
-
-
Mavic 3 classic purchased in the USA, on CE transmission profile?
- Started by Ossbourne
- Replies: 0
-
Forum statistics
