This photo quality aint good enough, don't you think?

[rmb]

I think you should look at the samples that I provided. But the short of it is. Here is a single frame from 2 videosView attachment 2380 View attachment 2381 . It's butt ugly

Pleas click to see full resolution. I keep saying it, but all I see is watercolor

 

[F6Rider]

I read this thread and got worried as I have been thinking some of my photos have looked soft, and chalked it up to my not using the focus correctly. So today I took a few and paid close attention to the focus. Here is 2 samples, I am not a photography expert by any means so would welcome any comment as to whether my camera is working properly or not.

 

[Rick]

I read this thread and got worried as I have been thinking some of my photos have looked soft, and chalked it up to my not using the focus correctly. So today I took a few and paid close attention to the focus. Here is 2 samples, I am not a photography expert by any means so would welcome any comment as to whether my camera is working properly or not.
View attachment 2384 View attachment 2385

Are those photos taken as stills from the camera or extracted as stills from video? They look like they were taken from video shot in 1080p60 from the amount of moiré showing in the tiles of the roof tops.
However, quality is subjective, and whilst moiré effect is to be avoided, there are ways to set the still camera up to improve a subject's end result rather than leaving it all to chance. Also raw images can be enhanced much better in post production than compressed jpegs can, and settings in the camera should accommodate the available light, colour and contrast best suited to the subject's environment.
By the way, your first photo looks perfectly acceptable to me, although the moiré distortion in the second is too distracting.
The camera on the Mavic is no Hasselblad, but it's a lot better than a mobile phone's still image camera of a few years ago, and other than throwing your phone camera as high in the air as possible on self timer, you have a much better chance of getting an acceptable image with a drone from a vantage point that is not otherwise possible without the aid of a helicopter, aeroplane or extremely long stick.

 

[F6Rider]

Are those photos taken as stills from the camera or extracted as stills from video? They look like they were taken from video shot in 1080p60 from the amount of moiré showing in the tiles of the roof tops.
However, quality is subjective, and whilst moiré effect is to be avoided, there are ways to set the still camera up to improve a subject's end result rather than leaving it all to chance. Also raw images can be enhanced much better in post production than compressed jpegs can, and settings in the camera should accommodate the available light, colour and contrast best suited to the subject's environment.
By the way, your first photo looks perfectly acceptable to me, although the moiré distortion in the second is too distracting.
The camera on the Mavic is no Hasselblad, but it's a lot better than a mobile phone's still image camera of a few years ago, and other than throwing your phone camera as high in the air as possible on self timer, you have a much better chance of getting an acceptable image with a drone from a vantage point that is not otherwise possible without the aid of a helicopter, aeroplane or extremely long stick.

Both shots were taken at the same time, and are stills with AWB in JPG with no style or color. I am just trying to determine if I have a camera issue, or a photographer issue.

 

[Rick]

Camera seems fine. A shutter speed adjustment may have helped with the second image and a reduction in sharpness a notch or two.

 

[longrange]

Not sure what some of you are expecting from this camera. Those pics are a lot better then I would expect from a toy with a camera. Yes this is a $999 toy so let's remember that. It's not a $3000 aerial photography tool.


Sent from my iPad using MavicPilots

 

[johnsimatos]

Not sure what some of you are expecting from this camera. Those pics are a lot better then I would expect from a toy with a camera. Yes this is a $999 toy so let's remember that. It's not a $3000 aerial photography tool.


Sent from my iPad using MavicPilots

This right here, it has a 1/2.3" sensor. You can still get some good shots with it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[longrange]

This right here, it has a 1/2.3" sensor. You can still get some good shots with it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. And the pics on this thread look great for this cheap camera. I just think people are expecting too much from a toy. If perfect is the expectation then maybe order from the "commercial " tab on the dji site. The mavic has delivered more then I expected for $999.


Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots

 

[Will Vardy]

I'm looking at all the photos posted on this thread and thinking to myself 'they aint bad' (sorry... Had do it!). But seriously they are closer to my phone than my dslr and that's pretty much were I would expect them to be. Can better photos be achieved? Anyone got any really good ones they could post for comparison? Seems to be very little mavic stills out there in Google land

 

[Rick]

Not sure what some of you are expecting from this camera. Those pics are a lot better then I would expect from a toy with a camera. Yes this is a $999 toy so let's remember that. It's not a $3000 aerial photography tool.


Sent from my iPad using MavicPilots

So some owners may be expecting too much, but I wouldn't describe the Mavic as a toy. Its cheaper than something that produces better images that is more expensive, but it doesn't make it a toy. I wouldn't allow a child to use a Mavic unassisted. The props can lacerate skin and flesh, especially that of a child. Generally a toy is for a young child. This drone can travel miles from its home point and can cause all sorts of trouble if flown recklessly or in ignorance of the law. It can capture great footage in cinematic style and can do it autonomously. Calling it a toy reduces the respect it should command given the capabilities of the technology and the danger it can pose in the wrong hands.

 

[longrange]

So some owners may be expecting too much, but I wouldn't describe the Mavic as a toy. Its cheaper than something that produces better images and is more expensive, but it doesn't make it a toy. I wouldn't allow a child to use a Mavic unassisted. The props can lacerate skin and flesh, especially that of a child. Generally a toy is for a young child. This drone can travel miles from its home point and can cause all sorts of trouble if flown recklessly or in ignorance of the law. It can capture great footage in cinematic style and can do it autonomously. Calling it a toy reduces the respect it should command given the capabilities of the technology and the danger it can pose in the wrong hands.

It's a toy!!!! Just like my $2500 rc car. Sorry if u think I disrespected a piece of plastic. It deserves attention and care while flying. Respect?? Don't think so.


Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots

 

[Lee Hughes]

I disagree with the toy comment. I think many of us feel it is a tool to expand our film and photography tools. This "toy" cost more than my last DSLR camera and I do not view that as a toy.


Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots

 

[Rick]

It's a toy!!!! Just like my $2500 rc car. Sorry if u think I disrespected a piece of plastic. It deserves attention and care while flying. Respect?? Don't think so.


Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots

You're missing the point. Ten years ago this machine would have been a semi professional photographer/videographer's tool of choice for aerial capture. National broadcasters would have used the images it can produce. Now its a consumer product because the technology has moved on and you can spend more money on better quality kit. Respect for the dangers that this machine can pose and respect for the technology that the guys at DJI have produced should not be misconstrued as personifying a piece of metal and plastic.

 

[makg]

So some owners may be expecting too much, but I wouldn't describe the Mavic as a toy. Its cheaper than something that produces better images that is more expensive, but it doesn't make it a toy. I wouldn't allow a child to use a Mavic unassisted. The props can lacerate skin and flesh, especially that of a child. Generally a toy is for a young child. This drone can travel miles from its home point and can cause all sorts of trouble if flown recklessly or in ignorance of the law. It can capture great footage in cinematic style and can do it autonomously. Calling it a toy reduces the respect it should command given the capabilities of the technology and the danger it can pose in the wrong hands.

My crotch rocket is a toy, and it's a heck of a lot more dangerous than my Mavic. There's a saying, "people don't grow up, their toys just get more expensive."

 

[longrange]

You're missing the point. Ten years ago this machine would have been a semi professional photographer/videographer's tool of choice for aerial capture. National broadcasters would have used the images it can produce. Now its a consumer product because the technology has moved on and you can spend more money on better quality kit. Respect for the dangers that this machine can pose and respect for the technology that the guys at DJI have produced should not be misconstrued as personifying a piece of metal and plastic.

No you are missing the point. Today in the real world it is a toy. No disrespect to dji but that is what it is. Your interpretation of my comment was inaccurate so you are kind of arguing with yourself here.


Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots

 

[Lee Hughes]

Toy or not, we should expect at least the quality of film that is presented in the DJI promotional videos. The mush photograph in this thread did not represent that. The operator/consumer should be able to achieve those results with reasonable technical skills.


Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots

 

[longrange]

My crotch rocket is a toy, and it's a heck of a lot more dangerous than my Mavic. There's a saying, "people don't grow up, their toys just get more expensive."

Now if u put props on your bike it is no longer a toy. Hahahahaha


Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots

 

[CyberdyneSystems]

I'm happy with the photo results, these are all jpegs from the Mavic, any post processing was just done with the iOS photo editing features. And yes I had permission to fly at the gas plant.

 

[MavicPro83]

Nearly all the crappy shots are in poor light with questionable camera settings. Regardless of if it's a toy or not it does seem like expectations may be a bit high. There's a reason that Mavic's are on the cheaper end of the DJI range and you have to expect to make such an amazing machine commercially viable something has to give. To me it seems for the price point and incredible portability the image quality is solid.

Check out this post by a fellow forum user if you want to see the quality that can be achieved from this machine...

Took the Mavic to Ethiopia

 

[Logger]

...they are closer to my phone than my dslr and that's pretty much were I would expect them to be. Can better photos be achieved? Anyone got any really good ones they could post for comparison? Seems to be very little mavic stills out there in Google land

I agree. Yet to see a Mavic still shot that jumps out as being tack sharp. There is a dearth of quality Mavic stills to admire and imitate.

For now I have accepted that less than sharp is all that can be expected for an amateur and have tried to be creative in other ways. Using AEB to create colorful HDR shots and Litchi to create panoramas. For stills I just take screen grabs from 2.7k and accept them for what they are. Usually the gee whiz factor of the aerial perspective makes up for the lack of sharpness.