The Air 2S will be around for a while yet,as they still need a model in their midrange
Yes, and they did. Until they did, the 16" remained on sale for those who required a larger screen. I'm not saying that DJI won't replace the Air 2S with a new design. Of course they will. I am arguing against your point that DJI will pull the Air 2S from sale.
You are the one arguing that your 16 inch intel i9 is a perfect device and that you don’t care about improvements because you don’t need them and in way you don’t believe the M1 performance improvements because why would apple make their more expensive MacBooks obsolete?
That's not what I'm saying at all. At no point have I said any of those things. In fact, I've said that if the Mini 3 beats the Air 2S on IQ I will go and buy one straight away.
What makes you think it's only one of those options?
Yeah sorry with “you” I meant as a collective I don’t meant individual people. Most of ‘you’ were claiming the stuff indicated by my example. i already seen some footage and I understand the airframe design and the buyers remorse will be pretty extreme
Why would there be any buyers remorse? If it really does beat the Air 2S on everything then people will have had 12 months of enjoying their Air 2S before getting rid of it.
i agree but I mean in some topics people were advising other users to buy mini 2 and air2s, mere weeks ago. I understand if you need 16 inch you had to get the intel one. But then they show the mini led screen, thermal design, battery life, performance, and so on and at that time I believe there would be quite some buyers remorse especially when outside the return period and If you plan to use the device for years
My understanding is that f1.7 on small sensor is not the same as f1.7 on a large sensor. In terms of light and depth of field. So 1.7 on Mini may not be better than 2.8 on air2 because different size sensor.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.
Quote from online photo website -- " The crop sensor affects your field of view (how close you are to your subject), your depth of field (how thin your focus plane is/how much background blur you’ll get) and the amount of TOTAL light hitting the sensor (same amount of light per square inch of sensor, but less total light because you have less sensor area) and therefore your image quality.". Crop sensor being smaller sensor.
