Stills image sharpness?

[zentenk]

I’m deciding whether or not to take the plunge in getting an Air 2S, 1 inch sensor at this size and price seems like an awesome deal. I shoot almost exclusively stills so lack of adjustable aperture not a deal breaker for me.

However, how is the lens on this thing? I went over to dpreview, they had some sample images up... and I must say, it seemed very soft and underwhelming

I’ve got an RX100M4, which uses an older gen 1 inch sensor, the images are much sharper, which leads me to thinthe lens on the air 2s sucks

not sure if this is what it is for drones? Maybe the M2P is similar in image quality?

Any thoughts on this would be great

 

[jmbsmt63]

I’m deciding whether or not to take the plunge in getting an Air 2S, 1 inch sensor at this size and price seems like an awesome deal. I shoot almost exclusively stills so lack of adjustable aperture not a deal breaker for me.

However, how is the lens on this thing? I went over to dpreview, they had some sample images up... and I must say, it seemed very soft and underwhelming

I’ve got an RX100M4, which uses an older gen 1 inch sensor, the images are much sharper, which leads me to thinthe lens on the air 2s sucks

not sure if this is what it is for drones? Maybe the M2P is similar in image quality?

Any thoughts on this would be great

I have been in the process of "shaking down" the Air2 S and have quite a few different kinds of shots.
I can tell you that it's image quality is very good and, IMHO, better straight out of camera than the M2P.
But I do feel that ALL of the drone cameras are lacking in the detail, I feel it is by design, and also how would a "regular" camera's detail look from 100 feet up?
I have an RX100 Mk1 as well as an RX10 mk4 both 1 inch sensors ...the abilities of the cameras are not comparable to the drone cameras because of the lens performance and use..

What, exactly are you looking at when you feel the images you saw were not "sharp"...What kind of still pix would help you, I have a bunch ...lol

 

[zentenk]

I have been in the process of "shaking down" the Air2 S and have quite a few different kinds of shots.
I can tell you that it's image quality is very good and, IMHO, better straight out of camera than the M2P.
But I do feel that ALL of the drone cameras are lacking in the detail, I feel it is by design, and also how would a "regular" camera's detail look from 100 feet up?
I have an RX100 Mk1 as well as an RX10 mk4 both 1 inch sensors ...the abilities of the cameras are not comparable to the drone cameras because of the lens performance and use..

What, exactly are you looking at when you feel the images you saw were not "sharp"...What kind of still pix would help you, I have a bunch ...lol

I've brought my RX100IV to skyscraper observatories around 400m (1200ft) high and look pictures of the city, they were sharp as hell. I'd just think this being a fixed aperture prime lens, DJI could've done a better job with the lens.

I found some sample pics of MA2 vs A2S on this thread and did some comparisons... and the MA2 comes out on top in terms of sharpness. I'm just writing what I'm seeing but please debunk me if you see something that doesn't make sense. I've been in the market for a drone for landscape photography and the A2S seemed to fit the bill... until I saw some of the sample images. Quite disappointed.

Granted, I'd love some side to side raw samples of M2P vs A2S to make a determination of that comparison as well.

 

[Dave Maine]

If one really wants to compare sharpness of the lens itself, you need to compare the actual image files, not what gets shown on web sites. Each web site re-encodes the image to their own standards, generally their own jpeg standard. Comparing jpegs tells you very little about the real lens performance

 

[jmbsmt63]

I've brought my RX100IV to skyscraper observatories around 400m (1200ft) high and look pictures of the city, they were sharp as hell. I'd just think this being a fixed aperture prime lens, DJI could've done a better job with the lens.

I found some sample pics of MA2 vs A2S on this thread and did some comparisons... and the MA2 comes out on top in terms of sharpness. I'm just writing what I'm seeing but please debunk me if you see something that doesn't make sense. I've been in the market for a drone for landscape photography and the A2S seemed to fit the bill... until I saw some of the sample images. Quite disappointed.

Granted, I'd love some side to side raw samples of M2P vs A2S to make a determination of that comparison as well.

I agree that with similar conditions the drone images ( except the real "high dollar" /bigger interchangeable cameras on something like the inspire) are purposely "dulled out" meaning that they aren't as sharp/detailed as they could because of the consumer use and the privacy issues...I have no real proof of that but I have noticed exactly what you mentioned with the details. But, if you look at the glass/lens on a proper camera and what they have on these folding "consumer" drones I am amazed they are even as good as they are.
I will try to dig up a few examples of the actual files and try to post them (the raw files might be too large). I did post a link to some I put in a dropbox as well as a google folder of a few night shots at 400 and 1630 ISO both raw and jpg. SOC

Air 2 S Night.. DNG and JPG..400 and 1630 ISO..SOC

4 new items added to shared album

photos.app.goo.gl

The attached JPG is with the Air2S ... SOC (won't let me attach a DNG)

 

[zentenk]

If one really wants to compare sharpness of the lens itself, you need to compare the actual image files, not what gets shown on web sites. Each web site re-encodes the image to their own standards, generally their own jpeg standard. Comparing jpegs tells you very little about the real lens performance

Yes that’s why that’s exactly what I did. Downloaded the raw files and imported them in LR, lowered the default sharpening to 0 and made the comparison.

 

[JustADude]

I’m deciding whether or not to take the plunge in getting an Air 2S, 1 inch sensor at this size and price seems like an awesome deal. I shoot almost exclusively stills so lack of adjustable aperture not a deal breaker for me.

However, how is the lens on this thing? I went over to dpreview, they had some sample images up... and I must say, it seemed very soft and underwhelming

I’ve got an RX100M4, which uses an older gen 1 inch sensor, the images are much sharper, which leads me to thinthe lens on the air 2s sucks

not sure if this is what it is for drones? Maybe the M2P is similar in image quality?

Any thoughts on this would be great

What is your final output going to be? Do you plan to do heavy cropping? Unless you plan to do large prints or large digital displays or require the need to heavily crop, I wouldn't worry about it.

I also shoot DSLRs with expensive prime lenses, and I find the photos out of the A2S to be satisfactory for anything web related, typical home size prints, and mild cropping. It's not going to be DSLR good, but the images are better than the camera on my Note 20 Ultra.

Does the lens suck, or is the sharpness intentionally less because DJI wants to reduce moire and aliasing in videos? Sharpness is really just micro-contrast to provide the perception of sharpness. You don't always want sharpness and it can be really problematic in certain situations. It's easier to add it than take it away. Out of the camera the A2S raw files are rather flat and lack contrast, but a reasonable level of detail is there given the size of the sensor and lens. A few mins of work in Lightroom and the images can be quite nice.

I'm sorry, but your RX100M4 comparison is ridiculous. If you want that quality, get a much larger drone and put on a comparable size lens. Your comparing apples and oranges. All the Air and Mavic drones are made to be small, portable, and light to maximize flight time. These lenses probably have very few elements and a good portion of the cost goes to the drone itself.

 

[zentenk]

What is your final output going to be? Do you plan to do heavy cropping? Unless you plan to do large prints or large digital displays or require the need to heavily crop, I wouldn't worry about it.

I also shoot DSLRs with expensive prime lenses, and I find the photos out of the A2S to be satisfactory for anything web related, typical home size prints, and mild cropping. It's not going to be DSLR good, but the images are better than the camera on my Note 20 Ultra.

Does the lens suck, or is the sharpness intentionally less because DJI wants to reduce moire and aliasing in videos? Sharpness is really just micro-contrast to provide the perception of sharpness. You don't always want sharpness and it can be really problematic in certain situations. It's easier to add it than take it away. Out of the camera the A2S raw files are rather flat and lack contrast, but a reasonable level of detail is there given the size of the sensor and lens. A few mins of work in Lightroom and the images can be quite nice.

I'm sorry, but your RX100M4 comparison is ridiculous. If you want that quality, get a much larger drone and put on a comparable size lens. Your comparing apples and oranges. All the Air and Mavic drones are made to be small, portable, and light to maximize flight time. These lenses probably have very few elements and a good portion of the cost goes to the drone itself.

Well I don't think the comparison is ridiculous, after all... the RX100M4 uses a similar sensor made by the same company, the same sensor size, so I think it is comparable. The RX100M4 also has a zoom range of 24-70mm or so, f1.8 at the wide end, adjustable aperture, of course it would have a bigger size than the A2S' camera. The A2S has a prime lens, fixed aperture, and is f2.8. The RX100M4 images I got basically beats the A2S image quality in any zoom range and aperture.

If the RX100M4 has a prime lens, with a fixed aperture and at f2.8, I'm pretty sure it can be made into a similar size as the A2S. Of course this is not something that would be practical or marketable for a point and shoot so it won't happen. But I think in terms comparing them for image quality, it is far from ridiculous. And here it seems the A2S is a lot worse in that regard.

 

[JustADude]

Well I don't think the comparison is ridiculous, after all... the RX100M4 uses a similar sensor made by the same company, the same sensor size, so I think it is comparable. The RX100M4 also has a zoom range of 24-70mm or so, f1.8 at the wide end, adjustable aperture, of course it would have a bigger size than the A2S' camera. The A2S has a prime lens, fixed aperture, and is f2.8. The RX100M4 images I got basically beats the A2S image quality in any zoom range and aperture.

If the RX100M4 has a prime lens, with a fixed aperture and at f2.8, I'm pretty sure it can be made into a similar size as the A2S. Of course this is not something that would be practical or marketable for a point and shoot so it won't happen. But I think in terms comparing them for image quality, it is far from ridiculous. And here it seems the A2S is a lot worse in that regard.

You're right, from a sensor perspective it's not at all ridiculous. From a lens construction perspective, I think it is. Companies are just not going to make the same decisions for a drone as a handheld camera, and then there is the cost aspect. I have no idea how much goes to the drone and controller and how much goes to the camera, do you? What if 90% of the cost of MA2 and A2S are tied up in the drone and controller and only 10% goes to the camera, do you still think it's a fair comparison? Then you factor in the priorities of the design around video and stills, and again you may end up with different results. Just look at the Canon R5 and the Sony A7III. The Canon is arguably focused on stills quality first and video second while the Sony is clearly focused on video first and stills 2nd. That has a very real impact on the quality of those 2 things. The Sony arguably produces better video, and the Canon arguably produces better stills. I don't know anything about the RX100M4, but I would bet all of the DJI drones are focused on video first and stills 2nd. Bottom line, go ahead and compare whatever you want, but I think it is unrealistic to expect anything from that comparison without knowing all the factors that went into the design unless the products are similar in nature (e.g. an Autel Evo 6k vs a Mavic 2 Pro).

 

[sarimento1]

just for fun, here's a 10% center section cropped from one frame of a recent A2S pano series.
First, as shot and no adjustments and 0 sharpening.
Second, same as above except sharpening set to 90 in Lightroom.
Indeed, I'd judge the image a little soft without sharpening.
But, with sharpening, it's pretty darn sharp, at least for my purposes.
Particularly considering that I'm often doing multi-shot pano's.

 

[Bobbogee]

Well I don't think the comparison is ridiculous, after all... the RX100M4 uses a similar sensor made by the same company, the same sensor size, so I think it is comparable. The RX100M4 also has a zoom range of 24-70mm or so, f1.8 at the wide end, adjustable aperture, of course it would have a bigger size than the A2S' camera. The A2S has a prime lens, fixed aperture, and is f2.8. The RX100M4 images I got basically beats the A2S image quality in any zoom range and aperture.

If the RX100M4 has a prime lens, with a fixed aperture and at f2.8, I'm pretty sure it can be made into a similar size as the A2S. Of course this is not something that would be practical or marketable for a point and shoot so it won't happen. But I think in terms comparing them for image quality, it is far from ridiculous. And here it seems the A2S is a lot worse in that regard.

The RX100M4 also costs in the same ballpark as the non-FMC Air 2S. Even though it may use the same sensor, it is made by the same company that makes the sensor and that probably has a development staff for that one product that likely dwarfs the resources (and internal "secret" knowledge) that DJI or other makers just don't have. The M2P with the Hasselblad color support uses the same sensor as some other drones, but there is definitely a value-add over the others using the same imager that makes a difference in the resulting images.