Why Mini 3 Pro beats Air2S 4K image quality

[test2000Anafi]

Why Mini 3 Pro beats Air2S 4K image quality;

Both have 2,4 micron pixel sizes; with Air2S having a slightly bigger sensor.
So people assume a win for the Air2S.
However, the 3 Pro f/1.7 aperture is vastly superior to the f/2.8 aperture on the Air2S

The sensor configuration on mini 3 Pro can do true HDR on a single readout. This means the dynamic range will be vastly superior as a result as well.

I cannot get confirmation on which exact sensor this is, but the specs align with the rumoured sensor going into the main wide angle camera on the iPhone 14 pro.
Just posting this for future reference btw

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

How do you know it beats whatever?
Have you seen images from it or are you just making guesses based on supposed specifications?

 

[test2000Anafi]

How do you know it beats whatever?
Have you seen images from it or are you just making guesses based on supposed specifications?

A little bit of both I guess. In some comparison videos with default settings there is more shadow details for the 3 pro, however it could also be that they push the mid-detail a little bit though processing. (I believe the Autel nano + does a similar thing) but in general it looked much more ‘fresh’ with less muddy shadow details if that makes any sense

 

[Skyryder]

The Air 2s is a 1" sensor, it's not just "slightly bigger" anymore than the Mini 3 is going to be slightly bigger than the Mini 2. It's not all about Megapixel size. Larger sensors always handle the light more evenly.

 

[Rilot]

It also will beat Mavic 3 image quality. I saw it on the internet so it must be true.

If it does beat Air 2S image quality then great. I will buy one right away.

 

[Faster]

@test2000Anafi
The Air 2S sensor is not just slightly bigger, is 24% bigger than the Mini 3 sensor. Mini 3 camera won't get more light than the Air 2S and won't be better.
I agree Mini 3 is a step above this predecessor just like any upcoming model of a man made product compared to the model it is replacing.
You are obsessed with this drone and continues trying to prove something that's not real. Your delusional thoughts have led you to argue with many other members of this forum about the Mini 2, the Air 2S, the M3 being subpar compared to the Mini 3, something that is unrealistic and way beyond the truth. Mini 3 won't have better wind resistance than the Air 2S, Mini 3 won't have better camera than the Air 2S, Mini 2 is in fact better than Mini and really was an upgrade. My friend, Mini 3 won't be the best drone ever made, period!
I really feel sorry for you. Having faith in something is good but expecting miracles in another story, fighting against the world imposing your ideas when you are not right, would never have good consequences.

 

[Jet skier]

Why Mini 3 Pro beats Air2S 4K image quality;

Both have 2,4 micron pixel sizes; with Air2S having a slightly bigger sensor.
So people assume a win for the Air2S.
However, the 3 Pro f/1.7 aperture is vastly superior to the f/2.8 aperture on the Air2S

The sensor configuration on mini 3 Pro can do true HDR on a single readout. This means the dynamic range will be vastly superior as a result as well.

I cannot get confirmation on which exact sensor this is, but the specs align with the rumoured sensor going into the main wide angle camera on the iPhone 14 pro.
Just posting this for future reference btw

The mini three should be a good matchup to the nano plus

 

[test2000Anafi]

The Air 2s is a 1" sensor, it's not just "slightly bigger" anymore than the Mini 3 is going to be slightly bigger than the Mini 2. It's not all about Megapixel size. Larger sensors always handle the light more evenly.

30% bigger is slight, at least compared to the difference in aperture which if you know how to read it is several stops better

 

[Meta4]

However, the 3 Pro f/1.7 aperture is vastly superior to the f/2.8 aperture on the Air2S

30% bigger is slight, at least compared to the difference in aperture which if you know how to read it is several stops better

You don't understand much about photography, do you?
f1.7 and f2.8 are just numbers.
Neither is is vastly superior to the other or an indication of the image quality they might produce.

 

[Dave Maine]

Generally lenses are better sharper at least, stopped down a couple of stops. f1.7 lenses will be sharper at f2.8 or 4. The dynamic range of a camera system is determined by the sensor, not the lens.

 

[test2000Anafi]

You don't understand much about photography, do you?
f1.7 and f2.8 are just numbers.
Neither is is vastly superior to the other or an indication of the image quality they might produce.

Low light performance ( and a result noise level) has nothing to do with image quality ? Looks like we both don’t understand much about photography

 

[Meta4]

Low light performance ( and a result noise level) has nothing to do with image quality ? Looks like we both don’t understand much about photography

You never mentioned anything about low light.
But even in low light, one lens having a fixed aperture of f1.7 and another at f2.8 tells you nothing about image quality.
It simply means that one is 1.3 stops faster.

 

[EsaT]

30% bigger is slight, at least compared to the difference in aperture which if you know how to read it is several stops better

Area of 1" sensor is ~65% bigger.
(some possible variation depending on aspect ratios)

Both have 2,4 micron pixel sizes

Back to primary school to learn math.
Or then decide it has just not so "media sexy" 12MP.

With far more (marketing) pixels in notably smaller sensor pixel size is far smaller...
And with fixed size of "support circuitry" actual light gathering area has smaller percentage of that at least without backside illumination. (though better micro lenses can mitigate some of that)
Hence per pixel quality is standard crappy with not much light gathered and limited dynamic range from fast saturation of tiny photosite.

Achieving real quality needs binning 2x2 pixels to one to average noise at quarter the resolution.
Or every other row can be read earlier/at shorter exposure to avoid saturation and increase dynamic range.
But Quad Bayer sensor also means actual colour resolution is far lower than 48MP, because colour data is only gotten in 2x2 pixel chunks.

Quad Bayer vs Quad Pixel AF: what they are, how they work and how they differ

Quad Bayer and Quad Pixel AF are two very similar technologies with utterly different impact on the cameras that use them. Find out what OM Digital Solutions is doing with its OM-1 and learn about the secret behind two of the best video ILCs on the market.

www.dpreview.com

You don't understand much about photography, do you?
f1.7 and f2.8 are just numbers.
Neither is is vastly superior to the other or an indication of the image quality they might produce.

F2 collects twice the light of f2.8.
F1.7 goes another half "stop" further. (full doubling at f1.4)
That makes three times the light. (per same exposure time)

Though resolution wise optical quality demands go up like exponentially at those apertures and there's no stopping down to lower resolution decreasing effect of optical aberrations.

 

[test2000Anafi]

Area of 1" sensor is ~65% bigger.
(some possible variation depending on aspect ratios)

Back to primary school to learn math.
Or then decide it has just not so "media sexy" 12MP.

With far more (marketing) pixels in notably smaller sensor pixel size is far smaller...
And with fixed size of "support circuitry" actual light gathering area has smaller percentage of that at least without backside illumination. (though better micro lenses can mitigate some of that)
Hence per pixel quality is standard crappy with not much light gathered and limited dynamic range from fast saturation of tiny photosite.

Achieving real quality needs binning 2x2 pixels to one to average noise at quarter the resolution.
Or every other row can be read earlier/at shorter exposure to avoid saturation and increase dynamic range.
But Quad Bayer sensor also means actual colour resolution is far lower than 48MP, because colour data is only gotten in 2x2 pixel chunks.

Quad Bayer vs Quad Pixel AF: what they are, how they work and how they differ

Quad Bayer and Quad Pixel AF are two very similar technologies with utterly different impact on the cameras that use them. Find out what OM Digital Solutions is doing with its OM-1 and learn about the secret behind two of the best video ILCs on the market.

www.dpreview.com

F2 collects twice the light of f2.8.
F1.7 goes another half "stop" further. (full doubling at f1.4)
That makes three times the light. (per same exposure time)

Though resolution wise optical quality demands go up like exponentially at those apertures and there's no stopping down to lower resolution decreasing effect of optical aberrations.

great insight!

Video resolution will be around 4000 horizontal anyway, so in it's primary mode/use case which I believe is 4K video recording, I think they will use the sensor configuration because it allows the higher dynamic range. You are certainly right that the 48MP is pure marketing and not really usable

 

[TheRock]

Where's the DJI link that says a Mini 3 is a real thing?

 

[test2000Anafi]

Where's the DJI link that says a Mini 3 is a real thing?

Good call, it’s probably a social construct

 

[test2000Anafi]

Generally lenses are better sharper at least, stopped down a couple of stops. f1.7 lenses will be sharper at f2.8 or 4. The dynamic range of a camera system is determined by the sensor, not the lens.

how would you explain this then:

Looks like f1.9 is objectively sharper compared to f2.8
Or are you saying the bitrate and video processing on the Nano+ that much better compared to air2S?

 

[SimonP]

What a nonsense topic which lacks an understanding of photography, compares something that is a “thing” and has been assessed widely against something that isn’t yet a “thing”, and we have no phototographice evidence, and to top it off we have reference to an iPhone 14 which is also not “a thing”. I can’t believe that I am contributing to this rubbish statement.

 

[Artemis]

It is interesting to me how camera specs are at the top of everyone’s list, I understand why it’s important to pros who make money with their drones, but for the average flyer once You have gotten to the point of video and pictures being excellent then improvements are just nice to have. Kinda feel that way about phones too. Anyway the sensors and flight characteristics are The important stuff. But honestly I don’t even get why people care about the drone being able to follow you around through the woods… who does that , it’s technically cool but I fail to see the purpose. I do think the preprogrammed flight options are cool to give you nice shots of a target but seems they should be lumped together so that you have footage of every angle/flyby of a target to choose from in post editing. …ie instead of having to do each one separately

 

[test2000Anafi]

It is interesting to me how camera specs are at the top of everyone’s list, I understand why it’s important to pros who make money with their drones, but for the average flyer once You have gotten to the point of video and pictures being excellent then improvements are just nice to have. Kinda feel that way about phones too. Anyway the sensors and flight characteristics are The important stuff. But honestly I don’t even get why people care about the drone being able to follow you around through the woods… who does that , it’s technically cool but I fail to see the purpose. I do think the preprogrammed flight options are cool to give you nice shots of a target but seems they should be lumped together so that you have footage of every angle/flyby of a target to choose from in post editing. …ie instead of having to do each one separately

like with phones exactly; it is what you don't have that you project as being useless