What is a reasonable wish list for Mavic 3 Pro?Say under $2200.

[offtheback]

I'd like a slightly wider angle lens as standard(25mm equivalent).Optical and/or sensor stabilization to work in conjunction with gimbal.Not the same thing but Olympus+Panasonic have lens and in body stabilization synced and can go to 6.5 stops.Interchangeable lenses would sure be fun.A less noisy sensor if it exists with near the same resolution.Longer flight time would be wonderful but I have 7 batteries so I'd rather not break the bank to buy 5 new ones(if that was the new ratio)I mostly do stills and am sure video people have their own wish list.I look forward to your own wish lists!
Micro 4/3 sensor if DJI can break the laws of physics?

 

[zocalo]

Must have for me is the EU's new UAV Class Marking. Not really applicable outside the EU+UK, but not having that will quite severely limit how close we can fly to people and buildings in a few years' time.

Other than that, mostly incremental improvements across the board for me (also mostly stills), with a particular focus on:

• Less noise in low-light exposures.
• More wind resistance - IBIS+gimbal might also be useful if so
• Longer flight times
• Modest increase in resolution - say to 24MP - plus the multishot superhigh-MP mode of the Zoom (can't bump the MP too much without re-introducing noise)
• Maybe retain compatibility with M2 batteries, if introducing an improved kWh capacity model?
• More flexibility in max altitude limits, viz. altitude above ground level compared to home point. Think trying to fly up the side of a mountain; I might want to go considerably more than 100m above the home point, but still never exceed 50m AGL.

Interchangeable lenses would be good - somewhere around 24mm is a good compromise, but 17mm, 35mm and 50mm, would also be very useful for me, although less so for the 50mm. For those doing building inspections and similar, maybe even longer options, despite the likely privacy concerns when the more paranoid members of the media/public get wind of it?

Also, given the popularity of after market filters, it's really past time DJI implemented an easier (tool free!) way of mounting those as well. In a similar vein, some standardised hardpoints for mounting strobes via a clip/screw of some kind would be useful for those of us that fly when light levels are lower and/or want to improve visibility of the aircraft.

 

[Jet skier]

I would like true 360° obstacle avoidance.
4K at 60 FPS.
Compatibility with smart controller.
Batteries that don’t expand.
Retain the go for app.
Auto record !!
Added color profiles for video.
Improved gimbal that doesn’t do any jumping around.

 

[offtheback]

Must have for me is the EU's new UAV Class Marking. Not really applicable outside the EU+UK, but not having that will quite severely limit how close we can fly to people and buildings in a few years' time.

Other than that, mostly incremental improvements across the board for me (also mostly stills), with a particular focus on:

• Less noise in low-light exposures.
• More wind resistance - IBIS+gimbal might also be useful if so
• Longer flight times
• Modest increase in resolution - say to 24MP - plus the multishot superhigh-MP mode of the Zoom (can't bump the MP too much without re-introducing noise)
• Maybe retain compatibility with M2 batteries, if introducing an improved kWh capacity model?
• More flexibility in max altitude limits, viz. altitude above ground level compared to home point. Think trying to fly up the side of a mountain; I might want to go considerably more than 100m above the home point, but still never exceed 50m AGL.

Interchangeable lenses would be good - somewhere around 24mm is a good compromise, but 17mm, 35mm and 50mm, would also be very useful for me, although less so for the 50mm. For those doing building inspections and similar, maybe even longer options, despite the likely privacy concerns when the more paranoid members of the media/public get wind of it?

Also, given the popularity of after market filters, it's really past time DJI implemented an easier (tool free!) way of mounting those as well. In a similar vein, some standardised hardpoints for mounting strobes via a clip/screw of some kind would be useful for those of us that fly when light levels are lower and/or want to improve visibility of the aircraft.

Great list!With a much wider angle lens it would likely take some significant restructuring of the layout to avoid part of the aircraft from being in the photo.Good idea about longer flight time/new battery with option to use old batteries.IBCW but more MP on same size sensor=more noise?

 

[offtheback]

I would like true 360° obstacle avoidance.
4K at 60 FPS.
Compatibility with smart controller.
Batteries that don’t expand.
Retain the go for app.
Auto record !!
Added color profiles for video.
Improved gimbal that doesn’t do any jumping around.

Batteries that don't expand?!Are you mad sir??

 

[zocalo]

Great list!With a much wider angle lens it would likely take some significant restructuring of the layout to avoid part of the aircraft from being in the photo.Good idea about longer flight time/new battery with option to use old batteries.IBCW but more MP on same size sensor=more noise?

My use of 17mm would mostly be for shooting pretty close to straight down, e.g. for those pattern shots that can be so effective, or ground surveys where resolution isn't all that critical. It's definitely not going to be very useful for typical video shoots where the camera is normally at a more level setting due to the props continually being in the shot - unless the camera is out on some kind of stalk to keep the props out of the field of view. Good luck designing a gimbal for that arrangement!

On the MP vs. noise front, more photosites in a given sensor means they are physically smaller, which means they'll capture less photons during a given exposure, thus making them more prone to noise, so it's always going to be a compromise. For video, there's little point having more photosites than you need for a given horizontal video resolution (keeping in mind that camera sensors are typically something like 4:3 rather than 16:9), and if you are serious about 8K then you're probably going to want much more control and flexibility than something the size of a Mavic is likely to provide for some time - if ever. IMO, the current M2P resolution to noise ratio is pretty much perfect for it's intended user base, so allowing for improvements in tech a bump to somewhere around 24MP seems feasible. That could potentially give video shooters a bump to 6K (which could then be cropped or upsampled), but also keep noise down to reasonable levels for stills shooters that are more likely to be active around the twilight blue and golden hours and want noise-free shots with longer exposure times that can still produce quality A3+ / A2 prints.

 

[Thomas B]

60 mph max speed

 

[Camino Ken]

60 mph max speed

Just curious........ Why?

 

[offtheback]

Just curious........ Why?

The need for speed!

 

[PHZ]

For me:
A two battery system like the Inspire 2, so when one fails, or blows out of the aircraft, it is not an automatic aircraft destructor.
Batteries that don’t swell up and become unusable after 30 charges (I have had 3). That comes out to about $5/flight.
A 1” sensor (or larger) that actually uses all the sensor without line skipping.
Interchangeable lenses or cameras, so one Mavic can be both the Zoom and the high quality color processor. Also, 12 bit color processing.
Better object tracking with a 60mph speed to stay with faster objects.
Even better wind handling/stability. Closely aligned with previous wish.
Capability to actually use two controllers, like the Mavic Pro or the Inspire 1 or 2. So the RPIC can keep eyes on the aircraft (a CFR Part 107 requirement), while the photographer/videographer can frame the shot.
A mechanical shutter like the Phantom Pro V2. So you can get better maps.
A built in strobe visible for three statute miles which can be toggled from DJI Go4.
Rated for cold weather to 0 degrees F.

Otherwise, I think I will just stick with my M Pro 2.

 

[offtheback]

For me:
A two battery system like the Inspire 2, so when one fails, or blows out of the aircraft, it is not an automatic aircraft destructor.
Batteries that don’t swell up and become unusable after 30 charges (I have had 3). That comes out to about $5/flight.
A 1” sensor (or larger) that actually uses all the sensor without line skipping.
Interchangeable lenses or cameras, so one Mavic can be both the Zoom and the high quality color processor. Also, 12 bit color processing.
Better object tracking with a 60mph speed to stay with faster objects.
Even better wind handling/stability. Closely aligned with previous wish.
Capability to actually use two controllers, like the Mavic Pro or the Inspire 1 or 2. So the RPIC can keep eyes on the aircraft (a CFR Part 107 requirement), while the photographer/videographer can frame the shot.
A mechanical shutter like the Phantom Pro V2. So you can get better maps.
A built in strobe visible for three statute miles which can be toggled from DJI Go4.
Rated for cold weather to 0 degrees F.

Otherwise, I think I will just stick with my M Pro 2.

Hmmm...we may be over $2200.

 

[surfbird]

I would like true 360° obstacle avoidance.
4K at 60 FPS.
Compatibility with smart controller.
Batteries that don’t expand.
Retain the go for app.
Auto record !!
Added color profiles for video.
Improved gimbal that doesn’t do any jumping around.

What do you mean with 'Auto record'?
Just curious

 

[zocalo]

Just curious........ Why?

Yes, why would you need 60mph? Other than racing (for which there are much better options) I can see that the extra power to achieve that speed might be useful if you frequently find yourself needing to fly into headwinds, but other than that? It's not like you can't shoot footage at (say) 30mph and then increase the frame rate by a factor of two to give the same effect after all.

That's definitely going to have a hit on battery life when used (which you obviously don't *have* to), but I can also see that ending up being a classification problem with some of the new rules and regulations being brought in around the world. Besides velocity, The EU has already been looking at the potential impact force of out of control drones as one data point to categorise them while trying to take safety into account, and I suspect other jurisdictions may do similar - more speed = more potential energy = more kinetic energy on impact. If so, then it's quite likely that this would mean the stand-off distance between where you are operatating and uninvolved persons/livestock/structures will be increased, and I'm not sure I'd want that price tag for the ability to do 60mph (or fight stronger headwinds).

 

[offtheback]

Yes, why would you need 60mph? Other than racing (for which there are much better options) I can see that the extra power to achieve that speed might be useful if you frequently find yourself needing to fly into headwinds, but other than that? It's not like you can't shoot footage at (say) 30mph and then increase the frame rate by a factor of two to give the same effect after all.

That's definitely going to have a hit on battery life when used (which you obviously don't *have* to), but I can also see that ending up being a classification problem with some of the new rules and regulations being brought in around the world. Besides velocity, The EU has already been looking at the potential impact force of out of control drones as one data point to categorise them while trying to take safety into account, and I suspect other jurisdictions may do similar - more speed = more potential energy = more kinetic energy on impact. If so, then it's quite likely that this would mean the stand-off distance between where you are operatating and uninvolved persons/livestock/structures will be increased, and I'm not sure I'd want that price tag for the ability to do 60mph (or fight stronger headwinds).

If the drone had the potential to go 60 MPH but software limited it to the current 44 MPH,would that be a tool to fight headwinds?Don't know if that's possible but sounds good.

 

[Christianpeso]

Yes, why would you need 60mph? Other than racing (for which there are much better options) I can see that the extra power to achieve that speed might be useful if you frequently find yourself needing to fly into headwinds, but other than that? It's not like you can't shoot footage at (say) 30mph and then increase the frame rate by a factor of two to give the same effect after all.

That's definitely going to have a hit on battery life when used (which you obviously don't *have* to), but I can also see that ending up being a classification problem with some of the new rules and regulations being brought in around the world. Besides velocity, The EU has already been looking at the potential impact force of out of control drones as one data point to categorise them while trying to take safety into account, and I suspect other jurisdictions may do similar - more speed = more potential energy = more kinetic energy on impact. If so, then it's quite likely that this would mean the stand-off distance between where you are operatating and uninvolved persons/livestock/structures will be increased, and I'm not sure I'd want that price tag for the ability to do 60mph (or fight stronger headwinds).

Why? Personally because I want it to go fast. I think some people don't realize that everybody who flys these drones are not doing it to get the best video footage or pictures. I fly because it is fun. I have about 6 drones and my favorite to fly is the original Mavic Pro because I modded it to fly faster, and that's straight, back, up, and down.

Also, it still baffles me that people say "why would you need x?" Because we can. That is how you get better technology. That is how you keep pushing tech forward. I'm pretty sure 10 years ago people were saying "why would you need to go 45mph?".

 

[zocalo]

Why? Personally because I want it to go fast. I think some people don't realize that everybody who flys these drones are not doing it to get the best video footage or pictures. I fly because it is fun. I have about 6 drones and my favorite to fly is the original Mavic Pro because I modded it to fly faster, and that's straight, back, up, and down.

Also, it still baffles me that people say "why would you need x?" Because we can. That is how you get better technology. That is how you keep pushing tech forward. I'm pretty sure 10 years ago people were saying "why would you need to go 45mph?".

Sure, everyone has their own specific usage case. Many of us almost certainly have a strong preference towards either stills or video, which can have quite different requirements at times, and I don't have any issues with people that might want a feature that's not of particular importance to me, especially since I might at some point find it useful for something.

Asking for more "speed" through struck me a bit at odds with the primary purpose of the Mavic, and I wondered if I was missing something subtle that I might be able to benefit from. "More power", sure, anyone who has encountered an expected strong headwind will appreciate that, but the post specifically implied velocity, and there are much better (and cheaper) UAVs if all you want to do is go fast and do some aerobatics for a while. Of course, if you are doing photos/video as well and so will have a Mavic anyway, then it's definitely going to be better (and cheaper) if you can meet all your needs in a single aircraft.