DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Still Images: Super Resolution versus Pro

Lobalobo

New Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2020
Messages
3
Reactions
1
Age
64
Location
East Hampton, New York
About to buy either a Mavic 2 Zoom or a Mavic 2 Pro. The Zoom seems better for all my purposes save one, maybe: landscape still images suitable for enlargement. So my question is whether the 1" sensor of the Pro is better for still images than Super-Resolution feature on the Zoom. I know that that the Pro offers aperture adjustment and greater dynamic range, but the Super-Res mode of the Zoom allows greater detail from the higher resolution (assuming the stitching works well). Anyone compared the two? Thanks in advance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: old man mavic
About to buy either a Mavic 2 Zoom or a Mavic 2 Pro. The Zoom seems better for all my purposes save one, maybe: landscape still images suitable for enlargement. So my question is whether the 1" sensor of the Pro is better for still images than Super-Resolution feature on the Zoom. I know that that the Pro offers aperture adjustment and greater dynamic range, but the Super-Res mode of the Zoom allows greater detail from the higher resolution (assuming the stitching works well). Anyone compared the two? Thanks in advance.
The Super Resolution feature is simply a stitched panorama.
You can make stitched panoramas with any camera including the Mavic 2 pro.
The Pro's camera is a much better camera all round and stitched panoramas created from its images are going to be better than any created by the M2 zoom.
 
welcome to the forum
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thomas B
About to buy either a Mavic 2 Zoom or a Mavic 2 Pro. The Zoom seems better for all my purposes save one, maybe: landscape still images suitable for enlargement. So my question is whether the 1" sensor of the Pro is better for still images than Super-Resolution feature on the Zoom. I know that that the Pro offers aperture adjustment and greater dynamic range, but the Super-Res mode of the Zoom allows greater detail from the higher resolution (assuming the stitching works well). Anyone compared the two? Thanks in advance.
Note the post above...
First... welcome to the forum!
My comment is that the variable aperture on the M2P is an incredible and useful asset.
 
Thanks so much for the quick replies. What I expected, and thanks. Looks like the Pro for me. Likely will purchase and start flying in the spring and will be back on this forum to seek advice and maybe eventually offer some.

Have been flying a Parrot 2 with my son for a few years; lots of fun and the video is fine (for my purposes anyway), but the stills are useless. Looking forward to upgrading from a toy (even a great toy like the Parrot).
 
Thanks so much for the quick replies. What I expected, and thanks. Looks like the Pro for me. Likely will purchase and start flying in the spring and will be back on this forum to seek advice and maybe eventually offer some.

Have been flying a Parrot 2 with my son for a few years; lots of fun and the video is fine (for my purposes anyway), but the stills are useless. Looking forward to upgrading from a toy (even a great toy like the Parrot).
To get the same field of view stitching Mavic 2 pro images you will need to fly further back from your subject. The end result may be higher resolution however the perspective will be different. The M2 pro image will seem more compressed (less front to back perceived depth).
 
I have both drones and have done various tests in various lighting conditions to determine the best solution for exactly what you’re asking: which camera gives you the better image at the end of day.

The winner is clearly and without a doubt: the M2Pro.

The smaller sensor, optics and poor low-light sensitivity on the Zoom just pale in comparison to a properly exposed RAW file from the Pro and yes, this includes the SuperRes stitched JPGs which left me extremely unimpressed.

The Zoom simply takes x-images and stitches them together in a JPG for the end result. It’s decent, sure, but the Zoom camera (for stills) is not impressive.

Most of my testing was done in optimal light with a ton of depth of field and image data in the frame (wide city scape, 700-800 feet up, clear skies, unlimited visibility). In these images I’m looking for sharpness throughout the frame, edge distortion and loss of detail, color, highlights and shadows and then some.

I pushed the sensors to the max here and simply found the Pro won out every single time. Now, when we move to low-light and even night shots, the Zoom is just utter garbage as it simply cannot process the nuances of highlights / shadows even at a high ISO. With the Pro, I’m getting remarkable shots at ISO100 with a wide open aperture of f/2.8 at 3-4 seconds. Tripod mode might work but unsure.

I’ve taken some fantastic photos with the zoom but only in perfect mid-day lighting conditions with perfect exposure, ISO100 and great conditions. And the subject is important. If you’re shooting a relatively large object (building, crane, bus) you’ll get pretty solid results. However, the Pro lets you PUSH certain compositions so if you’re interested in pushing that sensor to the max, it’s the one to get. You’re simply getting more sensor data = better image.

You might also be interested in printing your images which is something I do. At a professional lab, I’m not really able to print larger than 11x18 without starting to see pixelation, general blurriness and sharpness / loss of detail issues. The reason is simple: the DPI of the photos and the resolution (4500x3200 off the top of my head) of the PRO isn’t large enough for large(r)prints.

But there’s a trick that works and I’m blown away by it. A program called Gigapixel. Truly remarkable. With Gigapixel I’m able to bump up 4x to an almost 300MP image (20,000 x 14,000) which gives it a whopping 950MB file size. But the results are grand. I just printed a 20x30 print on Fuji Pearl at the lab and the results are just spectacular compared to a standard TIFF exported from a RAW file (45MB). An up-res like this is most likely unnecessary for digital viewing but if you’re printing, it is a no-brainer for me.

And it’s fun to open these images side by side to simply compare Gigapixel’s AI and interpretation of the scene and how efficient this software is at actually making images sharper, crisper, carving out details and more.

Summary:

- Zoom has good versatility for moving closer to objects but requires near-perfect exposure and the right subject. Low-light is very poor and the special modes are marketing.

- PRO has fantastic low-light sensitivity and enables you to shoot more complex photos not to mention, have better finite control over optics.

- Use Topaz Gigapixel if you’re printing it want to just play around. 30-day free trial gives you unlimited exports.
 
Tripod mode might work but unsure.
Despite the name Tripod Mode doesn't do anything to hold the camera still at all.
Tripod Mode is a flight mode which slows the movement of the drone for precise control in tight situations.
 
Despite the name Tripod Mode doesn't do anything to hold the camera still at all.
Tripod Mode is a flight mode which slows the movement of the drone for precise control in tight situations.

Yeap, I concur. Light wind / no wind is the best for those 4-5 second night shots :)
 
I have both drones and have done various tests in various lighting conditions to determine the best solution for exactly what you’re asking: which camera gives you the better image at the end of day.

The winner is clearly and without a doubt: the M2Pro.

The smaller sensor, optics and poor low-light sensitivity on the Zoom just pale in comparison to a properly exposed RAW file from the Pro and yes, this includes the SuperRes stitched JPGs which left me extremely unimpressed.

The Zoom simply takes x-images and stitches them together in a JPG for the end result. It’s decent, sure, but the Zoom camera (for stills) is not impressive.

Most of my testing was done in optimal light with a ton of depth of field and image data in the frame (wide city scape, 700-800 feet up, clear skies, unlimited visibility). In these images I’m looking for sharpness throughout the frame, edge distortion and loss of detail, color, highlights and shadows and then some.

I pushed the sensors to the max here and simply found the Pro won out every single time. Now, when we move to low-light and even night shots, the Zoom is just utter garbage as it simply cannot process the nuances of highlights / shadows even at a high ISO. With the Pro, I’m getting remarkable shots at ISO100 with a wide open aperture of f/2.8 at 3-4 seconds. Tripod mode might work but unsure.

I’ve taken some fantastic photos with the zoom but only in perfect mid-day lighting conditions with perfect exposure, ISO100 and great conditions. And the subject is important. If you’re shooting a relatively large object (building, crane, bus) you’ll get pretty solid results. However, the Pro lets you PUSH certain compositions so if you’re interested in pushing that sensor to the max, it’s the one to get. You’re simply getting more sensor data = better image.

You might also be interested in printing your images which is something I do. At a professional lab, I’m not really able to print larger than 11x18 without starting to see pixelation, general blurriness and sharpness / loss of detail issues. The reason is simple: the DPI of the photos and the resolution (4500x3200 off the top of my head) of the PRO isn’t large enough for large(r)prints.

But there’s a trick that works and I’m blown away by it. A program called Gigapixel. Truly remarkable. With Gigapixel I’m able to bump up 4x to an almost 300MP image (20,000 x 14,000) which gives it a whopping 950MB file size. But the results are grand. I just printed a 20x30 print on Fuji Pearl at the lab and the results are just spectacular compared to a standard TIFF exported from a RAW file (45MB). An up-res like this is most likely unnecessary for digital viewing but if you’re printing, it is a no-brainer for me.

And it’s fun to open these images side by side to simply compare Gigapixel’s AI and interpretation of the scene and how efficient this software is at actually making images sharper, crisper, carving out details and more.

Summary:

- Zoom has good versatility for moving closer to objects but requires near-perfect exposure and the right subject. Low-light is very poor and the special modes are marketing.

- PRO has fantastic low-light sensitivity and enables you to shoot more complex photos not to mention, have better finite control over optics.

- Use Topaz Gigapixel if you’re printing it want to just play around. 30-day free trial gives you unlimited exports.
I Just Got Topaz Gigapixel, I Have The Nikons D800E, And The Nikon D4S, Gigapixel Is NO JOKE ! Eye Popping ... Can Turn A Cheap Res Camera, Into A High Res Camera !
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dakrisht
I Just Got Topaz Gigapixel, I Have The Nikons D800E, And The Nikon D4S, Gigapixel Is NO JOKE ! Eye Popping ... Can Turn A Cheap Res Camera, Into A High Res Camera !

Probably the coolest piece of photo software I’ve ever used. Just remarkable. Enjoy :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gilbertlopez1
Probably the coolest piece of photo software I’ve ever used. Just remarkable. Enjoy :)
It works both ways too- I downsize images to use as background wallpaper on my 5K displays and the apparent sharpness is ridiculous. Sizing files to the native resolution/intended output size of a printer gives noticeable benefits also.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gilbertlopez1
Probably the coolest piece of photo software I’ve ever used. Just remarkable. Enjoy :)
Yes, Thanks for letting us know about it. After reading your post I immediately went to the website, tried it with some of my Nikon D4S Pics, I was like OK, this is NICE ! And hit BUY, Lol ?
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,585
Messages
1,554,097
Members
159,586
Latest member
DoubleBarS