Significant improvement of 7x lens! comparison inside

[GadgetGuy]

Like with the Mini 3 Pro, but there's probably the catch you rightly point out: the Mini 3 Pro is with the standard battery < 249 g but DJI features a battery plus, which then adds flight time but surpass the 249 g threshold.

The Mavic 3 Pro is in standard configuration C2 with >= 900 g but < 4 kg. So it's most likely that you may exceed your MTOM with additional batteries but your original level is then void as with the Mini 3 Pro, but I think, if you specify your drone with C2 and then reduce weight, it's not possible to fall below the C2 rating.

Not an expert here, but I guess, that could be the reason for DJI not doing any battery tricks here.

Here are EASA rules:

So, is the Mini 3 Pro not eligible for the sub 250g classification in the EU just because DJI sells a Plus battery, even though you never purchase or use one?

The classification should depend upon your configuration and your use, and not some hypothetical possibility. China didn't prohibit the Mini 2 when used with the smaller battery to keep it below 200g, even through a bigger battery was readily available from DJI that brought it to 250g. Why should the EU be any different?

 

[globetrotterdrone]

So, is the Mini 3 Pro not eligible for the sub 250g classification in the EU just because DJI sells a Plus battery, even though you never purchase or use one?

The classification should depend upon your configuration and your use, and not some hypothetical possibility. China didn't prohibit the Mini 2 when used with the smaller battery to keep it below 200g, even through a bigger battery was readily available from DJI that brought it to 250g. Why should the EU be any different?

In fact it is: the Mini 3 Pro is C0 (with the imprint of 249 g on the battery itself) but you cannot buy the battery plus within the EU from any vendor officially. That was a clever trick from DJI with this model indeed.

Battery plus (left), standard battery (right).

As the C rating is not only MTOM but also sound level etc. (not sure what other factors they include), I guess fall below a standard C2 as for the Mavic 3 Pro is not allowed by only reducing the weight.

I would love to be it like that way but knowing what legal things need to be met here in Europe, I cannot think of it in this way. I guess for having a better C rating than the original you are obliged to typing of your personal configuration at your expense.

 

[GadgetGuy]

In fact it is: the Mini 3 Pro is C0 (with the imprint of 249 g on the battery itself) but you cannot buy the battery plus within the EU from any vendor officially. That was a clever trick from DJI with this model indeed.

Battery plus (left), standard battery (right).

As the C rating is not only MTOM but also sound level etc. (not sure what other factors they include), I guess fall below a standard C2 as for the Mavic 3 Pro is not allowed by only reducing the weight.

I would love to be it like that way but knowing what legal things need to be met here in Europe, I cannot think of it in this way. I guess for having a better C rating than the original you are obliged to typing of your personal configuration at your expense.

What if one simply DIY modified a Mavic 3 Pro airframe to comply with the C1 rating by creating a lighter weight battery and any other requirements that it is currently noncompliant with? Would that work?

 

[globetrotterdrone]

@GadgetGuy
I think Mavic 3 Pro not for EU or UK? has summarised it quite well. I doubt we will see the Mavic 3 Pro C1 compliant or a special variant. I guess that will either be the Mavic 4 or a Air 3(s).

 

[Skyscope]

the Mini 3 Pro is C0 (with the imprint of 249 g on the battery itself)

No, fortunately it is not C0.
If it were C0, it would be limited to 120m AGL in firmware and couldn't be set any higher, even if it were legally permitted, as in the mountains for example.

 

[GadgetGuy]

@GadgetGuy
I think Mavic 3 Pro not for EU or UK? has summarised it quite well. I doubt we will see the Mavic 3 Pro C1 compliant or a special variant. I guess that will either be the Mavic 4 or a Air 3(s).

Fortunately, it is not an issue for me in the U.S.. However, I would hate for the EU to not be able to enjoy the Mavic 3 Pro as a C1 class, so I would continue to look for loopholes and workarounds to be able to make it comply. It seems most everyone is focusing on the weight. That is easily overcome with a 57g lighter battery, sacrificing only 20% of the flight time. The other more esoteric issues are just as relevant on any other drone, so if the original Mavic 3 complies, why not a an 899g Mavic 3 Pro?

 

[GadgetGuy]

No, fortunately it is not C0.
If it were C0, it would be limited to 120m AGL in firmware and couldn't be set any higher, even if it were legally permitted, as in the mountains for example.

So how is the Mini 3 Pro classified, and how do they get around the mere existence of a higher capacity battery that, if used, would put it over the 249g weight? However that works should theoretically be able to be applied to an 899g Mavic 3 Pro using a lighter battery, to lose the excess weight of the regular Mavic 3 battery.

 

[Skyscope]

So how is the Mini 3 Pro classified

Not at all, and it doesn't have to be, according to Article 20 and 22 in Regulation (EU) 2019/947.

A 899g Mavic 3 Pro has to be a separate offer from DJI, like a "Mavic 3 Pro Air"
The current Mavic 3 Pro is classified C2 and remains so, with or without a lighter battery.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Not at all, and it doesn't have to be, according to Article 20 and 22 in Regulation (EU) 2019/947.

A 899g Mavic 3 Pro has to be a separate offer from DJI, like a "Mavic 3 Pro Air"
The current Mavic 3 Pro is classified C2 and remains so, with or without a lighter battery.

If I follow your logic, DJI itself could offer an 899g C1 classified Mavic 3 Pro by merely making a lighter weight Mavic 3 battery just for the EU, and shipping it inside the regular Mavic 3 Pro, just like DJI did for the Mini 2 to be compliant with China's exempt 200g classification. Would that work?

 

[Skyscope]

If I follow your logic, DJI itself could offer an 899g C1 classified Mavic 3 Pro by merely making a lighter weight Mavic 3 battery just for the EU, and shipping it inside the regular Mavic 3 Pro, just like DJI did for the Mini 2 to be compliant with China's exempt 200g classification. Would that work?

No, they can not simply ship the C2 Mavic 3 Pro with a lighter battery. because it has to be a new Drone, with it's own individual C1 classification.

And they would have to make sure that this new C1 "Mavic 3 Pro Air" could not be powered by the regular heavier battery, for example with a FW lock. Otherwise DJI would no longer be able to offer today's Mavic 3 battery on the European market, as it would be counted as accessory and therefore as part of the MTOM of this C1 "Mavic 3 Pro Air".
So it's not very likely for them to go that route...

 

[globetrotterdrone]

No, fortunately it is not C0.
If it were C0, it would be limited to 120m AGL in firmware and couldn't be set any higher, even if it were legally permitted, as in the mountains for example.

Yeah, it has NO label but is equally treated as C0 but with no need for training or minimum age. 120 m AGL has nothing to do with it.

 

[Skyscope]

Yeah, it has NO label but is equally treated as C0 but with no need for training or minimum age. 120 m AGL has nothing to do with it.

Take a look at Regulation 945/2019:, Annex at C0:

A class C0 UAS shall comply with the following: (3) have a maximum attainable height above the take-off point limited to 120 m​

Meaning fixed, not to be exceeded by the user. Therefore, an unclassified Sub-250g drone has a not inconsiderable advantage over future C0 Sub-250g drones.
And because there is no difference in operating unclassified to classified Sub-250g drones with camera in the future (Article 20a in Regulation 947/2019), it's time to get one now, if you're interested.

 

[GadgetGuy]

No, they can not simply ship the C2 Mavic 3 Pro with a lighter battery. because it has to be a new Drone, with it's own individual C1 classification.

And they would have to make sure that this new C1 "Mavic 3 Pro Air" could not be powered by the regular heavier battery, for example with a FW lock. Otherwise DJI would no longer be able to offer today's Mavic 3 battery on the European market, as it would be counted as accessory and therefore as part of the MTOM of this C1 "Mavic 3 Pro Air".
So it's not very likely for them to go that route...

So, the answer is basically yes, with your minor qualifications, which you explain exactly how to meet. FW lock for the C1 version of the Mavic 3 Pro Light to prevent the regular battery from being used in it. QED. Yeah!

 

[Skyscope]

Great in theory. But will not happen.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Great in theory. But will not happen.

Based upon the two prior battery precedents already set, with the smaller battery for the Mini 2 just for China, and the bigger, noncompliant Plus battery for the Mini 3 Pro which takes it above 249g, I wouldn’t be so sure. DJI merely needs to decide that it would be more profitable than not doing it. Based upon all the EU clamoring here, it sounds like the demand to support such a move exists. Time will tell all.

 

[Skyscope]

Based upon the two prior battery precedents already set, with the smaller battery for the Mini 2 just for China, and the bigger, noncompliant Plus battery for the Mini 3 Pro which takes it above 249g, I wouldn’t be so sure.

But I am. Neither is the Plus Battery for the Mini 3 available from DJI on the EU market, nor for example Prop Guards or Wide Angle Lenses for the Mavic 3 or the Mavic 3 Classic, because of the MTOM limit I mentioned above.
And comparing all of that with China is not very useful because it has not adapted the EU regulations, as far as I know.

 

[GadgetGuy]

But I am. China doesn't have EU Regulations...

How do either of those statements change the premise?
DJI is clearly willing to make different batteries for different markets, to alter the weight of the drone, which is the only sticking block to EU C1 compliance for a lighter weight battery EU version of the Mavic 3 Pro, as long as the FW prevents using the regular battery in the lighter EU C1 version.

 

[Skyscope]

OK, we move in circles, let's agree to not agree.
If you like to believe DJI will release a second lighter Mavic 3 Pro for the European market within the next 18 months, it's fine for me. I just don't, for many reasons.

 

[GadgetGuy]

OK, we move in circles, let's agree to not agree.
If you like to believe DJI will release a second lighter Mavic 3 Pro for the European market within the next 18 months, it's fine for me. I just don't, for many reasons.

I have no beliefs either way. All I have stated is that it is certainly possible for DJI to do so, which you do not dispute, so we agree on that. Whether they actually do so is entirely up to them. I have no dog in this fight, living in the US. It will fully depend upon whether they see enough demand to do so profitably. Just depends upon how many additional units they can sell separately with C1 EU compliance. Seems like quite a few posters here have those concerns. Whether our EU posters with those concerns are truly representative of the EU market remains to be seen.

 

[dre8688]

For me it's come down to matching three color profiles in Davinci Resolve. I like shooting with the MFT camera in dlog. The 3X requires dlog-M. The 7x requires "standard" profile. Once I can obtain unaltered footage of all three cameras and work them over in DR I will be able to make a decision. Obviously that process will include seeing the difference in the upgraded 7x image.

This is what frustrates me so much about the 7X. To not include Dlog-M makes it not an option for many clients who may otherwise use it on their video projects. And even further DJI has taken away the ability to edit contrast, saturation, and sharpness so professionals can't even create a bootleg Dlog-M version. It's frustrating that DJI has made upgrades while limiting the end user at the same time.