Question for Photographers

[MrsTreat]

I love 'droning' (well, not on-and-on like most women but the flying kind). And my fav thing about droning is taking pictures. Thing is - I really love cameras and 'ground' photography as well. So much so, that every two years or so, I purchase a new DSLR.

This year it's time to update my Canon camera but for the first time I'm not sure. For about the same price as a great DSLR I can buy a drone with a pretty good camera. Sure - not as good as a hand held but pretty darn good. And with a drone I can take pics from places - obviously - I could never get to with a hand held.

So - do I suffer some pic quality for location quality? That's my question. Maybe I'm the only one that really knows for me but hoping some folks thinking the same way and would like to hear opinions all around.

T

 

[Adamcain112]

I am into photography also used to have the Canon 7d markii, sold it for the Fuji XT2. Love this camera I was going to get the Phantom 4 pro but went with the Mavic. I feel if I got the Phantom I wouldn't take it as much as I would the Mavic due to the size. I would rather suffer some IQ over not taking a picture at all.

 

[whiskeylover]

I'm not a photographer, but I think you'd miss taking closeups and macros. Like that token pic of a butterfly on a flower and stuff.

 

[Qoncussion]

I'm guessing that your Canon does absolutely everything you need, except for maybe one or two newly added bells and whistles. But, can it fly? Decision made!

 

[Z953]

Get a Mavic... Holy crap, get a Mavic. I use mine more than my D7100 right now (I carry both in a LowePro Tactical backpack).

No, it's no DSLR but the possibilities are ENDLESS. The pics that you can take will only be limited by your imagination. And then there's the video aspect.

But that's another discussion.

 

[Z953]

I am into photography also used to have the Canon 7d markii, sold it for the Fuji XT2. Love this camera I was going to get the Phantom 4 pro but went with the Mavic. I feel if I got the Phantom I wouldn't take it as much as I would the Mavic due to the size. I would rather suffer some IQ over not taking a picture at all.

Absolutely correct! The Mavic's size is why people take it with them.

 

[Mr. Salty]

I love 'droning' (well, not on-and-on like most women but the flying kind). And my fav thing about droning is taking pictures. Thing is - I really love cameras and 'ground' photography as well. So much so, that every two years or so, I purchase a new DSLR.

This year it's time to update my Canon camera but for the first time I'm not sure. For about the same price as a great DSLR I can buy a drone with a pretty good camera. Sure - not as good as a hand held but pretty darn good. And with a drone I can take pics from places - obviously - I could never get to with a hand held.

So - do I suffer some pic quality for location quality? That's my question. Maybe I'm the only one that really knows for me but hoping some folks thinking the same way and would like to hear opinions all around.

T

I'm a photographer --- for about 15 years it was my profession, now it's a hobby. In my opinion, if you can only do one or the other, upgrading your DSLR at this point is a waste of money and you'd be better off spending the cash on a good drone. (If camera quality is the top concern, a Phantom 4 Professional or maybe even a used Inspire 1. Or a Mavic Platinum if portability is key, but I'm assuming if you're here you already have a Mavic.)

My reasoning: DSLRs are a mature technology at this point, so unless there's something you seriously don't like about your existing camera, upgrading just to upgrade every two years is only going to get you marginal improvements. (If this was 10 years ago my answer would be very different.)

But adding a better drone to your arsenal is adding a second camera that gives you a capability you don't currently possess.

 

[Mr G]

Sony is now at the top of the latest tech with their amazing mirrorless cameras. Sony also makes the 1" sensor in the Phantom 4 Pro! In fact, all 1" sensors are made by Sony, including Nikon, etc. I have a Phantom 3 and a Mavic, but the Mavic gets used much more often. I also have the great Sony RX10 and the smaller versions RX100 and RX100-3 and love the quality of the photos! I always keep the smaller RX100 with me in my van. Only use the much larger RX10 (with 28-600 mm lens!) for special "photo shoots" where I may take photos all day. You can check out my Sony photos on my Flickr site:
Flickr.com/photos/jimwallace/
I currently have around 5,600 pics and nearly 3 million views.
Good luck in making your choice! Jim, Indianapolis

 

[tracer bullet]

The best camera is the one you have with you.

If you've got a decent SLR, I'd keep it and add the Mavic as well. Easy for me to say, I have a 6D and a couple good L lenses. If I still had my original Rebel XT that might be a tough call.

 

[Sterling]

I use a canon 5D MkII for stills and A Sony FS7 for vids but think the quality of the mavic is pretty good for a small drone!

 

[Adamcain112]

I use a canon 5D MkII for stills and A Sony FS7 for vids but think the quality of the mavic is pretty good for a small drone!

FS7 wow you shooting movies, tv shows thats one serious peice of equipment.

 

[Sterling]

Shoot mainly Band videos and corporate vids

 

[gnirtS]

You sacrifice a huge amount unless you buy a P4P (or better, inspire). The mavic camera is basically 2 year old cell phone level. Its not in the same league as even an entry level DSLR with kit lens.

Ultimately there is a lot more to photograph on the ground level (and can do this is any weather even if its rain or wind) so you'll get more use out of a proper camera. Get a cheapish body and use the money saved on good glass.

The mavic's main selling point is its portability. Its major weakness is the really poor camera. Its a compromise. You'll get far better quality shots with a DSLR or proper mirrorless camera but the mavic will allow you to get shots from angles not normally available, albeit at a much lower quality.

 

[Z953]

You sacrifice a huge amount unless you buy a P4P (or better, inspire). The mavic camera is basically 2 year old cell phone level. Its not in the same league as even an entry level DSLR with kit lens.

Ultimately there is a lot more to photograph on the ground level (and can do this is any weather even if its rain or wind) so you'll get more use out of a proper camera. Get a cheapish body and use the money saved on good glass.

The mavic's main selling point is its portability. Its major weakness is the really poor camera. Its a compromise. You'll get far better quality shots with a DSLR or proper mirrorless camera but the mavic will allow you to get shots from angles not normally available, albeit at a much lower quality.

No one will ever compare a drone to a DSLR (right now) but, have you seen some of the shots that people have taken with their Mavic? Shooting in RAW certainly makes up for some of the Mavic's camera's short comings.

 

[gnirtS]

They're OK for facebook/instagram but generally when you look at them in detail and not under the shrunken resolution and compression you see just how poor it is. As i said, its about a 2 year old cell phone camera tech in there. Its the compromise you make for portability.

My still photo stuff pays the bills, its unlikely the mavic will even be able to produce much in the way of quality to add to that but i knew that before i bought it. Its a poor camera that i can get into positions that aren't possible elsewhere. Provided i shoot in RAW, usually bracketing, with ISO never above 100, in good bright light and crop out the unsharp 10% or so from the left edge it can produce an acceptable picture.

In reality though my ground based still camera does have more opportunities for photos in any weather and places where drones around around. The mavic is fun but if your primary interest is photography rather than drones id say get a decent proper camera first.

Edit:- although looking back at the original post i really fail to see the point in upgrading a DSLR every 2 years. And old cheap basic body will do fine, all the image quality is on lenses. Very little changes in the DSLR world to make it worth upgrading every few years. My current body is 4 years old, theres nothing released lately to make it worth me upgrading (especially with Canon who seem to have lost the plot and now miles behind the competition in terms of features and sensors). So i'll alter my advice - you already have a DSLR, keep it, if you have decent lenses then get a mavic. If you dont have decent lenses, get a decent lens.

 

[Mr. Salty]

The mavic camera is basically 2 year old cell phone level.

I’ve seen a few people say that around here, but the Mavic has a Sony 1/2.3” imaging sensor. Isn’t that more on par with a compact point-and-shoot, not a cellphone?

 

[gnirtS]

There's a lot more to a camera than sensor size alone. Sony make a lot of sensors and in a lot of difference sizes. (Sony easily make the best sensors around by a mile at the top end...)

Ultimately its noisy and has terrible dynamic range for starters. Plus the lens optics on top are fairly poor. Processing and software isnt great either.

 

[Johnmcl7]

I’ve seen a few people say that around here, but the Mavic has a Sony 1/2.3” imaging sensor. Isn’t that more on par with a compact point-and-shoot, not a cellphone?

1/2.3in sensors or similar (that size is so small that tiny fractions smaller are going to make little difference in reality) are what most high end and many other phones use these days although the phones are often able to extract reasonable performance out of the sensor with a lot of processing work. The latter can mean different devices using the same sensor can get varying results with some devices appearing to get much better performance from the same sensor.

1/2.3in has been the standard for compact cameras as well for a long time and still is for the compact and bridge superzooms but there's now also a good choice of 1in sensor compacts (a much bigger sensor than the Mavic), most of the compact market has been decimated by mobile phone cameras.

In terms of the OP's question, without knowing their equipment and what potentially a new camera will give them, it's hard to comment. When I bought my Mavic I did have a two year old DSLR (Nikon D750) and there weren't and still aren't any DSLRs I'm interested in upgrading to. Although the Mavic's sensor is comparatively poor it makes up with it for its tiny size and while I've toyed with the likes of the 1in sensor based P4 Pro, I just wouldn't get the use out of it. I love the shots from the Mavic as they're just completely different to anything I could get previously.

 

[Adamcain112]

For what the Mavic does and for the cost its great. Its not cheap but for the price its well worth it. I think if your not blowing your pictures up the sensor is more the effective. People get to hung up on pixel peeping. For how good post processing is the Mavics camera could produce pictures for any magazine, and most people use them for social media anyway.

 

[collins]

I have two thoughts...
1. 'For the same price....' is a bit misleading. Drones are rapidly changing tech so resale will not be good. There are lots of hidden costs such as a slew of extra batteries and the chances are fair that you will crash and write off your drone. So starting price might be the same but lifetime cost of the drone will be higher.
2. DSLR tech is pretty mature and there has been no sensor improvement since 2012. Hardly worth upgrading every two years now for what? More af points and a tilt screen?