Should I sell my Mavic 3 Classic for the Mavic 3 Pro?

[Chrislaf]

That's the issue. Sure, It would be nice to have another zoom lens closer than the 7x, but I just feel more cheated than anything else. I'm mad at myself and this just validates another poor decision on my part. grrr..

That's just the way it is with technology - there will always be something better and often for the same price or cheaper on the horizon. I don't think it is a poor decision on your part - you bought what you wanted/needed at the time.

When I bought my Mavic 3, less than a month later DJI had their spring sale and the price was reduced CAN$150 and it pretty much stayed that way. Sure, I would have liked to have got the CAN$150 discount off my Mavic 3 but if I would have waited I would not have had much time to fly it before a trip we took to Newfoundland, so at the time it was the right choice for me. I later bought the RC Pro to go with my M3 and then about a month or so later DJI announced the Mini 3 Pro with the DJI RC with the built in screen. The DJI RC with screen was not available as a stand-alone unit for awhile after the initial release of the Mini 3 Pro, but I was second guessing myself since I had just paid so much for the RC Pro. In retrospect the RC Pro was also the right choice for me. The lesson here is if you are waiting for the next best thing, you are going to be waiting forever because there is always going to be a next best thing just around the corner.

With regard to the Mavic 3 Pro, I would love to have the additional 3X Tele as I use the 7X Tele on my existing Mavic 3 extensively, BUT I am only a hobbyist photographer and do not sell my images. At this time, I cannot justify buying another expensive drone for my use case - maybe in the future - if I win the lottery!

Chris

 

[DanJ]

That's just the way it is with technology - there will always be something better and often for the same price or cheaper on the horizon. I don't think it is a poor decision on your part - you bought what you wanted/needed at the time.

When I bought my Mavic 3, less than a month later DJI had their spring sale and the price was reduced CAN$150 and it pretty much stayed that way. Sure, I would have liked to have got the CAN$150 discount off my Mavic 3 but if I would have waited I would not have had much time to fly it before a trip we took to Newfoundland, so at the time it was the right choice for me. I later bought the RC Pro to go with my M3 and then about a month or so later DJI announced the Mini 3 Pro with the DJI RC with the built in screen. The DJI RC with screen was not available as a stand-alone unit for awhile after the initial release of the Mini 3 Pro, but I was second guessing myself since I had just paid so much for the RC Pro. In retrospect the RC Pro was also the right choice for me. The lesson here is if you are waiting for the next best thing, you are going to be waiting forever because there is always going to be a next best thing just around the corner.

With regard to the Mavic 3 Pro, I would love to have the additional 3X Tele as I use the 7X Tele on my existing Mavic 3 extensively, BUT I am only a hobbyist photographer and do not sell my images. At this time, I cannot justify buying another expensive drone for my use case - maybe in the future - if I win the lottery!

Chris

I 100% agree.
Buy the best there is when it comes out and then hang onto it until it's useless.
Unless you have too much money there will always be better tech just around the corner, ie, until the technology is more like automobiles and there isn't much difference from year to year.

 

[chifineart]

As a photographer, surely you also understand the significant difference in perspective between different focal lengths, and why flying closer with the wide angle view cannot replicate the image created by a telephoto lens from much further away, not to mention not disturbing the subject, and being able to get the desired shot inside an NFZ while legally shooting from outside of it.

Of course. But the problem with the 2 other lenses is the quality is not on par with the primary M43 lens. So for me, the other two lenses are useless. If all 3 lenses were M43, sure, I'd bite. But I won't claim I'd use all 3 lenses when the output quality for each is so different from one another. And it also depends on what type of shots you're going for. Most of my shots on land are mostly <35mm anyway.

 

[KS-6]

Of course. But the problem with the 2 other lenses is the quality is not on par with the primary M43 lens. So for me, the other two lenses are useless. If all 3 lenses were M43, sure, I'd bite. But I won't claim I'd use all 3 lenses when the output quality for each is so different from one another. And it also depends on what type of shots you're going for. Most of my shots on land are mostly <35mm anyway.

I’m not sure how experienced you are in your hobby of photography but both the regular Mavic 3 and now the Mavic 3 Pro are simply much better for productive aerial photography than the single lens classic.

In detail, the actual lenses on the other two cameras are far more even in overall sharpness being better in the corners than the 24mm 2.8 is, even at its optimum apertures of 4.5-5.6. This makes quite a difference in post processing and especially when stitching when you have a relatively even image to start with in terms of overall sharpness. When I was shooting commissioned art in Iceland last Fall, I got so much great imagery out of the stitched 7x cam it was not even funny. It’s not that the 24mm was bad, the one on my Cine is actually quite good because I spent 6 weeks of having DJI sending me replacements until I got a good one. But the 162mm 7x cam in 3x3 to 4x6 panels processed through DXO and then stitched in LR clearly trounced the regular camera when making high resolution and impact laden aerial photos.

The new 70mm 2.8 on the Mavic 3 Pro will be outstanding for creating super high resolution stitched aerial landscapes. The trio of the new improved 166mm 7x lens, new 70mm 2.8 lens and a good sample of the 24mm 2.8 make the new Mavic 3 Pro a photographer’s dream rig.

 

[chifineart]

I’m not sure how experienced you are in your hobby of photography but both the regular Mavic 3 and now the Mavic 3 Pro are simply much better for productive aerial photography than the single lens classic.

In detail, the actual lenses on the other two cameras are far more even in overall sharpness being better in the corners than the 24mm 2.8 is, even at its optimum apertures of 4.5-5.6. This makes quite a difference in post processing and especially when stitching when you have a relatively even image to start with in terms of overall sharpness. When I was shooting commissioned art in Iceland last Fall, I got so much great imagery out of the stitched 7x cam it was not even funny. It’s not that the 24mm was bad, the one on my Cine is actually quite good because I spent 6 weeks of having DJI sending me replacements until I got a good one. But the 162mm 7x cam in 3x3 to 4x6 panels processed through DXO and then stitched in LR clearly trounced the regular camera when making high resolution and impact laden aerial photos.

The new 70mm 2.8 on the Mavic 3 Pro will be outstanding for creating super high resolution stitched aerial landscapes. The trio of the new improved 166mm 7x lens, new 70mm 2.8 lens and a good sample of the 24mm 2.8 make the new Mavic 3 Pro a photographer’s dream rig.

I think our styles are just different and our output medium may not be comparable. I go to Iceland 3x a year and spend one of those times there for a full 30 days shooting with my Mavic 3. And I've been taking various drones to Iceland for the last 10 years and have never had the desire to go beyond 35mm for the photography that I do - in the air or on land. While you do put your photos through DXO, my preference is to have a baseline photo that is the best and then apply DXO or another type of sharpening, noise reduction or megapixel/enlargement software accordingly. I can never imagine using the 162mm lens on the Mavic 3 even if you take a pano or multi-row pano. I have tried the method you outlined and the quality is just not enough for large prints. The resolution and dynamic range just aren't there and are not good enough for large-scale prints (minimum of 60x40). DJI understood the noticeably lower quality of the 162mm lens and therefore never marketed the lens on the original Mavic 3 for photos or even videos. They instead marketed it as a way to "explore". Yes, you can certainly take photos and videos with it but the baseline quality of that lens just doesn't meet everyone's needs. For me, the quality just isn't there on the 162mm.

 

[KS-6]

I think our styles are just different and our output medium may not be comparable. I go to Iceland 3x a year and spend one of those times there for a full 30 days shooting with my Mavic 3. And I've been taking various drones to Iceland for the last 10 years and have never had the desire to go beyond 35mm for the photography that I do - in the air or on land. While you do put your photos through DXO, my preference is to have a baseline photo that is the best and then apply DXO or another type of sharpening, noise reduction or megapixel/enlargement software accordingly. I can never imagine using the 162mm lens on the Mavic 3 even if you take a pano or multi-row pano. I have tried the method you outlined and the quality is just not enough for large prints. The resolution and dynamic range just aren't there and are not good enough for large-scale prints (minimum of 60x40). DJI understood the noticeably lower quality of the 162mm lens and therefore never marketed the lens on the original Mavic 3 for photos or even videos. They instead marketed it as a way to "explore". Yes, you can certainly take photos and videos with it but the baseline quality of that lens just doesn't meet everyone's needs. For me, the quality just isn't there on the 162mm.

It’s likely more than just styles. I have been a full time fine art and commercial photographer for over 35 years, making aerial images from helicopters, high fixed wing and even back seat from fighter jets.

The prints I made from that trip from that cam stitched paid for it 6x times over in the last quarter and I flew business class from my home town of Aspen. They are not as good as when I fly with my Hasselblad X2D but they are plenty for a good 60x60 once I do my work to them. And to be clear, the FOV is not 162mm, it is usually in the 35-70 range which is far more dynamic that the usual wide angle shots that often include too much.

I think you might actually find if you saw the work on walls in person, it could possibly change your mind about it, but it is all still subjective so who knows.

 

[Filmarik]

I’m not sure how experienced you are in your hobby of photography but both the regular Mavic 3 and now the Mavic 3 Pro are simply much better for productive aerial photography than the single lens classic.

In detail, the actual lenses on the other two cameras are far more even in overall sharpness being better in the corners than the 24mm 2.8 is, even at its optimum apertures of 4.5-5.6. This makes quite a difference in post processing and especially when stitching when you have a relatively even image to start with in terms of overall sharpness. When I was shooting commissioned art in Iceland last Fall, I got so much great imagery out of the stitched 7x cam it was not even funny. It’s not that the 24mm was bad, the one on my Cine is actually quite good because I spent 6 weeks of having DJI sending me replacements until I got a good one. But the 162mm 7x cam in 3x3 to 4x6 panels processed through DXO and then stitched in LR clearly trounced the regular camera when making high resolution and impact laden aerial photos.

The new 70mm 2.8 on the Mavic 3 Pro will be outstanding for creating super high resolution stitched aerial landscapes. The trio of the new improved 166mm 7x lens, new 70mm 2.8 lens and a good sample of the 24mm 2.8 make the new Mavic 3 Pro a photographer’s dream rig.

We both remember how difficult it was to get a "good" M3 unit with 2 uniformly sharp and well centered lenses.
Now one can only hope that DJI has tightened their production manufacturing tolerances and that all 3 cameras will be well made with centered and sharp lenses because the sheer thought of needing to keep returning the M3Pro with decentered 3 lenses instead of 2 until getting a good one frightens me quite frankly.

 

[KS-6]

We both remember how difficult it was to get a "good" M3 unit with 2 uniformly sharp and well centered lenses.
Now one can only hope that DJI has tightened their production manufacturing tolerances and that all 3 cameras will be well made with centered and sharp lenses because the sheer thought of needing to keep returning the M3Pro with decentered 3 lenses instead of 2 until getting a good one frightens me quite frankly.

Totally agree, it’s one of several reasons I am keeping my very well put together Cine.

 

[chifineart]

It’s likely more than just styles. I have been a full time fine art and commercial photographer for over 35 years, making aerial images from helicopters, high fixed wing and even back seat from fighter jets.

The prints I made from that trip from that cam stitched paid for it 6x times over in the last quarter and I flew business class from my home town of Aspen. They are not as good as when I fly with my Hasselblad X2D but they are plenty for a good 60x60 once I do my work to them. And to be clear, the FOV is not 162mm, it is usually in the 35-70 range which is far more dynamic that the usual wide angle shots that often include too much.

I think you might actually find if you saw the work on walls in person, it could possibly change your mind about it, but it is all still subjective so who knows.

The thing for me is, having to apply so much work to get it right for a lens that doesn't have the baseline quality as the primary lens can cause consistency issues if you try to apply the same workflow for different scenes. And if moving objects (ie. Animals) are involved, that produces an additional layer of issues especially when micro details, like the ripples of an elephants skin are expected to be viewable even if the subject is part of the background. That's a very special example but it's an example that does apply on my end. With the new Inspire 3 in the pipeline, this may be able to solve a lot of issues I've had on my end with the lack of megapixels and wanting to get the same baseline quality across all focal lengths

 

[chifineart]

It’s likely more than just styles. I have been a full time fine art and commercial photographer for over 35 years, making aerial images from helicopters, high fixed wing and even back seat from fighter jets.

The prints I made from that trip from that cam stitched paid for it 6x times over in the last quarter and I flew business class from my home town of Aspen. They are not as good as when I fly with my Hasselblad X2D but they are plenty for a good 60x60 once I do my work to them. And to be clear, the FOV is not 162mm, it is usually in the 35-70 range which is far more dynamic that the usual wide angle shots that often include too much.

I think you might actually find if you saw the work on walls in person, it could possibly change your mind about it, but it is all still subjective so who knows.

So if you're not using the 162mm and using 35-70 on the mavic 3, doesn't that mean you're working jpeg files? The last I recall, the M3 only allowed raw at 24mm and 162mm. Unless I missed something in a recent update. I actually didn't find out the m3 now has a much higher max altitude limit until recently as I didn't use my drone since last September in Iceland

 

[Filmarik]

So if you're not using the 162mm and using 35-70 on the mavic 3, doesn't that mean you're working jpeg files? The last I recall, the M3 only allowed raw at 24mm and 162mm. Unless I missed something in a recent update. I actually didn't find out the m3 now has a much higher max altitude limit until recently as I didn't use my drone since last September in Iceland

The way I read the KN-6's post about the 35 to 70mm FOV, he is likely referring to the final "assembled" photo stitched from individual images taken with the 162mm lens. I stand to be corrected.

 

[davedrone 178]

I had the Mavic 3 Classic but wasn't too impressed and the unit had some issues so I returned it. A month later I sprung for the Mavic 3 Fly more combo. (refurbished). I love the drone and the tele camera. Works better than the classic I had. I swear these "refurbs" are brand new and the batteries had no cycles on them.

 

[Shuttersky597]

My two cents. I started with my Mini 3 pro. Great drone . Then I bought the Mavic 3 classic for the hasselblad 4/3. Absolutely love this drone and the stability, battery time, and variable aperture are great. I have considered the Pro many times , but didn't want to pay 500 more and many videos say that they were either not impressed with the 166mm tele. So kept my Classic, and have now added the Air 3 for the 70mm. The Air 3 s is rumored in July, but I am not playing this. Would be nice to have one drone to for all uses. But , not ever going to happen. So, all my current drones serve a purpose, but none fit all.

 

[Meta4]

Of course. But the problem with the 2 other lenses is the quality is not on par with the primary M43 lens.
So for me, the other two lenses are useless.

For someone who is apparently an experienced photographer, I'm surprised to see you saying this.
The issue you are going on about is not the lenses.
The Mavic 3 pro has three separate and completely different cameras, with three completely different sensors which are all of different sizes.

If all 3 lenses were M43, sure, I'd bite.

There is no such thing as a 4/3 lens.
What you mean is that if all three cameras had 4/3 sensors .....
But from the way you've posted, it's not clear that you understand the issue of cameras, lenses or sensors.

If All three cameras had 4/3 sensors, the drone would be the size of a Matrice and cost even more.
But DJI managed to shoehorn two small sensors into a camera housing only a little larger than the housing needed for the main camera.
In doing that they have given photographers a fantastic gift with three different cameras with wide, short tele and moderate tele focal lengths.
This all comes in an affordable and easily portable consumer-size drone.

The drone that would cause you to "bite" won't be easily affordable or portable.

But I won't claim I'd use all 3 lenses when the output quality for each is so different from one another. And it also depends on what type of shots you're going for.

And despite your uninformed comments, the lenses of the two smaller cameras appear to be of quite good quality.
The sensors are smaller, which means some limitations, but the quality of the lenses is just fine.

 

[Meta4]

For me, being a photographer, the Classic is the best option. I have zero motivation to gain access to a drone with 3 built-in lenses when only ONE produces the best photos.

For me, being a photographer, the Mavic 3 pro is a fantastic tool.
I understand that it takes a lot more than the biggest sensor to create the best images.

Finally I am able to escape the same tired old wideangle-only perspective of drone shots.
Now I can have background elements that are part of the picture rather than distant dots.
Now I can capture pictures like these, that weren't possible until the Mavic 3 pro.

Short tele camera

Medium tele camera

 

[Kiwicbrthou]

For me, being a photographer, the Mavic 3 pro is a fantastic tool.
I understand that it takes a lot more than the biggest sensor to create the best images.

Finally I am able to escape the same tired old wideangle-only perspective of drone shots.
Now I can have background elements that are part of the picture rather than distant dots.
Now I can capture pictures like these, that weren't possible until the Mavic 3 pro.

Short tele camera

Medium tele camera

Those city shots are of Brisbane where I live, gotta say they are outstanding

 

[Meta4]

Those city shots are of Brisbane where I live, gotta say they are outstanding

Thanks ... here are some more you might appreciate.
These are large, multi-image panoramas.