Very well said. You can buy the best equipment but if you suck as a digital artist, specs don’t matter one iota.Remember hdr is a software gimick. Two streams merged. There will be some ghosting errors in the post processing to create the hdr. This is true of hdr in general not just ma2. So the dynamic range of the m2p should still be seen as wider because it is in a raw capture.
You all can argue bang for your buck or 1" sensors but I feel it's more a matter of how your using the tools that either platform offers. The rest is just philosophical bickering. LoL go out and enjoy your expensive toys. No need for a pissing contest every time you fill your bladder.
Just my two cents. Toss them in a well and make a wish.
The Sony Quad Bayer sensor is really impressive, but I'll stick with my Mavic 2 Pro. While I agree about the depth of field, the more I fly my M2P the more I appreciate having the variable f-stop while in the air for exposure adjustments, primarily for video so I can maintain the 180 rule. I really don't like having to land the aircraft to put another ND filter on for changing exposures. I do a lot of flying during golden hour, I really like sunrises, sunsets, moonrises, etc., so during those times the exposure is constantly changing. It just works well for me.Yes, the M2 Pro's 1" sensor means it's better for low light. But it used to be that the sensor combined with the log profile meant it was also better for dynamic range in videos, when compared to drones with smaller sensors, but no more! With the quad bayer sensor you get hdr in the same way as with photos, with two separate exposures. The result is far better dynamic range than the M2 Pro, as seen here. Combine that with 4k 60fps (albeit not in hdr mode), and really the only big advantage the M2 Pro has is in low light.
Nice video--I just wish it was legal in the US to get shots in the fog, like he did. This is an example of a beautiful shot ideal for drones, that seems perfectly safe; but unfortunately illegal... (I'm not the drone police--quite the opposite... just wishing I could shoot similar footage is all).Yes, the M2 Pro's 1" sensor means it's better for low light. But it used to be that the sensor combined with the log profile meant it was also better for dynamic range in videos, when compared to drones with smaller sensors, but no more! With the quad bayer sensor you get hdr in the same way as with photos, with two separate exposures. The result is far better dynamic range than the M2 Pro, as seen here. Combine that with 4k 60fps (albeit not in hdr mode), and really the only big advantage the M2 Pro has is in low light.
Apples and Oranges!
The MA2 is a great bang-for-the-buck mini drone with impressive capabilities. However this HDR discussion citing qualitative advantages over the M2P is missing some key points:
Camera optics - no comparison
Video 4K 10-bit log - no comparison
Video 4K HLG - no comparison
Still capture - no comparison.
Probably the most important difference not mentioned is 10-bit Log and native 10-bit HLG (true HDR). Of course the former requires professional post processing to extract and deliver the true quality of the video. For those of us that do that this comparison is a bit silly. I for one would never trade my M2P until DJI comes out with an M3P.
I woul
This. And I would also never consider a fixed aperture camera.
As a professional photographer and videographer who likes big sensors, I say you are GREATLY exaggerating the advantages of the larger sensor, log profile, and hlg. First, the sensor is 1", not aps-c or full frame. It is still a small sensor camera. The advantage is thus, somewhat better dr and lowlight performance but not greatly, "no comparison" better, especially since the A2 sensor punches above its weight for its size. Secondly, whether or not we say 10-bit hlg is "true" hdr or not, hdr that is achieved through using two separate exposures as with the A2 will always produce higher dr than hdr produced from one exposure. That's why it is done that way with photography. If I want an hdr photo I'd much rather work with two jpgs at two separate exposures rather than one raw image, even from a larger sensor. Third, I agree about the 10-bit log profile being a pretty big advantage because of how much latitude it gives you for grading, but cinelike does give you some grading ability as well, and multiple reviewers have talked about how surprised they were at how well the A2 image stood up to a heavy grade. Again, the A2 punching above its weight with newer tech. Finally, no way are stills "no comparison" better with the M2. The 48mp stills, under the right lighting conditions, are a useful tool the mp2 doesn't have, the A2 sensor punches above its weight, and again, we are comparing a small sensor with a less small but still small sensor. This is not Gopro vs. full frame.Apples and Oranges!
The MA2 is a great bang-for-the-buck mini drone with impressive capabilities. However this HDR discussion citing qualitative advantages over the M2P is missing some key points:
Camera optics - no comparison
Video 4K 10-bit log - no comparison
Video 4K HLG - no comparison
Still capture - no comparison.
Probably the most important difference not mentioned is 10-bit Log and native 10-bit HLG (true HDR). Of course the former requires professional post processing to extract and deliver the true quality of the video. For those of us that do that this comparison is a bit silly. I for one would never trade my M2P until DJI comes out with an M3P.
As a professional photographer I would never give up aperture control to save a few dollars. Fixed aperture cameras are for phones and amateurs. Something about the internet where people have to write walls of text to justify their purchases and try and convince other people.As a professional photographer and videographer who likes big sensors, I say you are GREATLY exaggerating the advantages of the larger sensor, log profile, and hlg. First, the sensor is 1", not aps-c or full frame. It is still a small sensor camera. The advantage is thus, somewhat better dr and lowlight performance but not greatly, "no comparison" better, especially since the A2 sensor punches above its weight for its size. Secondly, whether or not we say 10-bit hlg is "true" hdr or not, hdr that is achieved through using two separate exposures as with the A2 will always produce higher dr than hdr produced from one exposure. That's why it is done that way with photography. If I want an hdr photo I'd much rather work with two jpgs at two separate exposures rather than one raw image, even from a larger sensor. Third, I agree about the 10-bit log profile being a pretty big advantage because of how much latitude it gives you for grading, but cinelike does give you some grading ability as well, and multiple reviewers have talked about how surprised they were at how well the A2 image stood up to a heavy grade. Again, the A2 punching above its weight with newer tech. Finally, no way are stills "no comparison" better with the M2. The 48mp stills, under the right lighting conditions, are a useful tool the mp2 doesn't have, the A2 sensor punches above its weight, and again, we are comparing a small sensor with a less small but still small sensor. This is not Gopro vs. full frame.
Add in the 4k60, the 1080p240, and the fact that the m2p video image is relatively soft at the wider option because of the way the image is scaled down, the image quality advantage of the m2p is not huge. Add in the other, newer-tech advantages of the A2 such as the better tracking and oa, and it is indeed quite close to being as good as the m2p, while being half the price.
As a professional photographer and videographer who likes big sensors, I say you are GREATLY exaggerating the advantages of the larger sensor, log profile, and hlg. First, the sensor is 1", not aps-c or full frame. It is still a small sensor camera. The advantage is thus, somewhat better dr and lowlight performance but not greatly, "no comparison" better, especially since the A2 sensor punches above its weight for its size. Secondly, whether or not we say 10-bit hlg is "true" hdr or not, hdr that is achieved through using two separate exposures as with the A2 will always produce higher dr than hdr produced from one exposure. That's why it is done that way with photography. If I want an hdr photo I'd much rather work with two jpgs at two separate exposures rather than one raw image, even from a larger sensor. Third, I agree about the 10-bit log profile being a pretty big advantage because of how much latitude it gives you for grading, but cinelike does give you some grading ability as well, and multiple reviewers have talked about how surprised they were at how well the A2 image stood up to a heavy grade. Again, the A2 punching above its weight with newer tech. Finally, no way are stills "no comparison" better with the M2. The 48mp stills, under the right lighting conditions, are a useful tool the mp2 doesn't have, the A2 sensor punches above its weight, and again, we are comparing a small sensor with a less small but still small sensor. This is not Gopro vs. full frame.
Add in the 4k60, the 1080p240, and the fact that the m2p video image is relatively soft at the wider option because of the way the image is scaled down, the image quality advantage of the m2p is not huge. Add in the other, newer-tech advantages of the A2 such as the better tracking and oa, and it is indeed quite close to being as good as the m2p, while being half the price.
As a professional photographer I also would never give up aperture control to save a few dollars. Aperture control is critical for photographers, mostly because of how you can change depth of field as needed, such as to blur out the background for portraits. As a drone user, I would certainly give up aperture control to save 800 (not "a few") dollars, since this control over depth of field is rarely needed in this case, with small sensors and large distances causing everything to be in focus even at f2.8. I woul miss the other main benefit of aperture control on a drone, which is being able to slow down shutter speed, but to some degree I could use iso control combined with nd filters for the same purpose. That, coupled with the fact that the m2p's image quickly gets softer after f5.6, leads me to not give much weight to its variable aperture advantage. Some weight, but not $800 worth.As a professional photographer I would never give up aperture control to save a few dollars. Fixed aperture cameras are for phones and amateurs. Something about the internet where people have to write walls of text to justify their purchases and try and convince other people.
Your doing it again. And you just stated your buying the Air. If you weren't buying the Air you wouldn't have posted anything. You get what you pay for, and this couldn't be more true for photography. I will gladly pay a few extra dollars to get better images and video. If your making good money, $800 isn't really that much for what you gain.As a professional photographer I also would never give up aperture control to save a few dollars. Aperture control is critical for photographers, mostly because of how you can change depth of field as needed, such as to blur out the background for portraits. As a drone user, I would certainly give up aperture control to save 800 (not "a few") dollars, since this control over depth of field is rarely needed in this case, with small sensors and large distances causing everything to be in focus even at f2.8. I woul miss the other main benefit of aperture control on a drone, which is being able to slow down shutter speed, but to some degree I could use iso control combined with nd filters for the same purpose. That, coupled with the fact that the m2p's image quickly gets softer after f5.6, leads me to not give much weight to its variable aperture advantage. Some weight, but not $800 worth.
As for people writing walls of text to try to justify their purchases, seems like it's mainly m2p owners doing that. I don't have either drone. I have the m2 zoom, and I'm certainly not trying to justify hanging on to it. I'm going to sell it to finance getting the better and cheaper Air 2. I also used to champion the Skydio 2 as the best all-around drone, but had no problem changing my tune when it became clear that the Air 2's tracking and oa had improved enough to give it the edge over all. I strive very hard to avoid motivated reasoning and it bothers me when others do things like cherry picking and exaggeration.
Sure i would have posted something if not intending to buy. I posted a lot in favor of the Skydio 2 without buying it. And if i buy the Air 2 and am disappointed by it, or a Skydio 3 comes along and blows it out of the water i won't try to justify my purchase. Indeed, i could end up not buying the Air 2 if evidence comes out that it has some serious problem people haven't yet noticed. I follow the evidence, not rationalize and justify after the fact.Your doing it again. And you just stated your buying the Air. If you weren't buying the Air you wouldn't have posted anything. You get what you pay for, and this couldn't be more true for photography. I will gladly pay a few extra dollars to get better images and video. If your making good money, $800 isn't really that much for what you gain.
Most lenses have a aperture sweet spot and it isn't F2.8. Futhermore, why anyone calling themselves professional would buy an inferior drone like the zoom is beyond me. Your in the sky, fly closer to the subject. There is your zoom.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.