Robert Collins

2 hours ago, Snowbro said:

I was really looking forward to the mavic pro 2; sold the air, as I thought this would be miles better. I haven't been impressed by footage I have seen so far. Unless everyone who has made a video on it so far has messed up, it looks very very soft. The massive sensor cropping or pixel binning hell, isn't really what I had in mind. The P4P quality looks so much better sadly, I really don't want to cart a drone that big around when I travel though. Maybe an unsharp mask can fix it enough, I guess time will tell. 

Funnily enough, I have been reading things a little differently. Here is a comparison of the Mavic 2 Pro to the Phantom 4 Pro....

Lets leave aside the different white balance. Now I do agree that the Phantom 4 Pro footage is definitely 'sharper' than the Mavic 2 Pro. But I have to say I like the Mavic 2 Pro image better. I want to bring out the old cliche that the Mavic 2 Pro image looks more cinematic but actually to me the Phantom 4 Pro image just looks 'oversharpened'. However, these things are pretty subjective.

And while I say it is 'subjective' look at the sharpening artifacts on the train at around 1:48 of the Phantom 4 Pro video - it is a sure sign of 'oversharpening' (a constant problem with the Mavic Pro 1 because the other choice was blotchy noise reduction.)

All I can say is that if you look at @Cliff Totten Mavic 2 Pro footage which you can download here....

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1c-k4pnmzrEwuwfnumzATMr4W4o__iI7l?usp=sharing

...they appear much sharper than Billy's with a sharpening setting of +1. Again I think they are a little too sharp but that is personal taste....

54 minutes ago, Mmmbeats said:

Can you pull multiple exposures off a sensor and still achieve 180° shutter?

In a theoretical sense yes.

Imagine that the correct exposure was:

1/200 f2.8 @ 25fps @ base iso

You could put on a 2 stop exposure ND and have...

1/50 f2.8 @ 25fps @ base iso = 180 degree

Alternatively (assuming (big assumptions) 0 delay between each exposure and buckets of image processing power) you could take

4 x 1/200 f2.8 @ 100fps @ base iso and 'mean average' (take each pixel value and divide by 4) and end up with an identical result (same motion) but less noise

But we havent yet seen this sort of computational photography 'much' in larger sensors with probably the Red Helium being an exception...

https://www.dxomark.com/red-helium-8k-dxomark-sensor-score-108-a-new-all-time-high-score2/

18 hours ago, sanveer said:

The mount size difference between full frame and M43 is actually pretty small (it seems to be a phenomenon endemic to all ILCs, since even the tiny 1inch sensor sensor, the Samsung NX1 has a much larger mount to the size of the sensor). I also noticed that M43 contact points for lenses are further away from the rim of the mount, closer towards the sensor (and apparently 11, instead of the 10 appears on the Sony FF sensors). Panasonic could push the contact point at the very corner, a few more millimetres closer to the rim of the mount, for accommodating a larger sensor (and maybe introduce a new lens lineup). 

I am guessing, therefore, that not only can an APS-C size sensor fit on M43 size mount camera (like the JVC LS300), but something much closer to a Full Frame sensor, could, as well. Though, how the lenses handle such a large sensor, would need to be tested.

I therefore think Panasonic should explore the possibility of putting a sensor larger than APS-C in a camera that does not have IBIS (like the GM Series and the GH5s), with higher usable ISO.

It could have two versions, one with much higher pixel count (24-28MP), and the other with much larger pixels (12-18MP with pixels larger than the ones on the GH5s). It seems quite doable. If they could adapt the present M43 lenses, it would be amazing.

What it definitely needs to have is PDAF (especially for high speed photography and continuous autofocus in video), 14-bit colour and a little more innovation (15-20 fps for sports photography, a new Log Profile since the old VLog is taking away dynamic range from the sensor's full capacity. 

They should price it at $2000, targeting both the A7iii and the A7s series. 

 

Personally I dont think Panasonic needs a 'bigger' sensor. And while a bigger sensor in the current mount may be possible, it will probably be of little use in most cases because of the image circle form their existing lenses.

My feeling is that sensor 'size' should in theory become 'less' important over the next 10 years rather than 'more' important due to computational photography that we are already seeing in say smartphones (most notably the Pixel 2.)

Theoretically at least we should be able to see...

1) Better DR through 'HDR'

2) Better low light performance 'by median averaging'

3) A built in variable ND 'by mean averaging'

4) Higher resolution through 'pixel shifting'

...all achieved by combining multiple exposures into each shot...

And smaller sensors have an advantage here because they can typically get more 'exposures' faster off a sensor and blend them with less image processing power and less heat. So for instance we see 1080 240 off the GH5 that we dont see in FF.

I dont see Panasonic achieving anything by moving away from its strengths (especially at the US$2k level) - namely ibis. And most importantly I dont think they will go anywhere but backward unless they sort out their weaknesses - such as c-af.

15 minutes ago, MdB said:

I think people have a very skewed idea of what 'dominating' means. 

28-75mm is amazing (but imperfect). It is light and not intended to be 'rugged', but is built to a very good standard. 50mm f/1.8 is way better than the Canon 50mm STM and somewhat better than the Nikon 50mm AF-S. 85mm f/1.8 is the best of it's ilk by anyone as far as I can tell. I'm not sure how the bokeh really plays into your argument. 

Canon don't make lenses in that range because by the time you are bolting on a massive 200mm f/2 IS lens, you might as well use the one they already make, with adapter. This is something Canon actively promote as a benefit of the EF-M system. So in effect they are already making those lenses (and many more expensive ones too). 

That's because that is where the money is. Nobody but fanboys cares one iota about volume when there is no profit in it. Lower tiers are being relentlessly dumped because those markets are moving to smartphones. Canon also had a bewildering array of Powershots when that market was disappearing. Doesn't mean they are doing well out of it. 

Incorrect. People who are buying these cameras are much more likely to buy lenses and yes at those prices and (much) higher. This is called attachment rate and this is what manufacturers are aiming for. People who buy a base model DSLR and kit lens don't ever buy lenses. When they buy a new one, they buy again with kit lens (so could buy any brand). High end mirrorless is where all the attachment rate happens. Nobody is (completely) ignoring the lower end (except Nikon), Sony release new RX100's every year (really popular with the DSLR + kit lens crowd) and they have plenty of APS-C models to choose from and the kinds of lenses entry level users buy (if any). They don't need to release a new camera every week to have something comparable in this segment. Heck the A6000 is still getting compared to the M50. What Sony don't bother with is an array of expensive APS-C specific lenses, but for entry level there are plentiful options. 

Fujifilm are the same. So are Panasonic. So are Olympus. 

Canon have only played in that area to date, because yes there is volume and because they weren't wanting to cannibalise sales of 6Ds and 5Ds etc. 

Sony had 'affordable' lenses from day dot for the market they were aiming. 

Those lenses might be getting headlines, because they are new. They won't be volume movers, but are halo products that help move lower tier products, including the ones you think make up the majority of the market. People buy Canons because the person they know who is a 'camera person' said they can't go wrong with one. Or the spotty store clerk sold them one because that's the one they heard of. But in the top end of town things are very different. Thus Sony selling more FF cameras than anyone in the 1st 6 months this year. Canon are selling lots of 1500Ds (in volume), but in the markets we are interested in thats not the case. 

Considering they have these uninspiring models in the FF sector at the moment (one of which I own over the 'inspiring' models) and can't beat Sony in FF sales, what makes you think they are suddenly going to with a FF mirrorless? They haven't been able to do that with mirrorless APS-C and I don't see that changing if they keep being 'uninspiring'. 

And now FF. Canon ran away from the US mirrorless market with their tails between their legs with the joke that was the EOS M1 (I owned like 6 over the years). People overestimate Canon's abilities and market power by a factor of about 10 I reckon. 

Yep. That lens is phenomenal! Too bad it isn't coming to the Nikon Z any time soon, that lens alone would sell me on a Z6. 

I dont disagree with the notion that the 'big margins' are in the 'high end' products. I just fundamentally disagree with you about how the camera market actually works.

You see you (and another poster) have expressed a view that people are inherently drawn to buy into a brand by their 'halo' products. I just dont think that is the case. I think the camera market a bif like 'drugs'. They buy into the the market through 'gateway drugs' - drugs that are sold at little or no profit but get you 'addicted' to the drug dealer/brand. So most people buy into cameras at the lower end/ lower margin point - say a Nikon D3500, a couple of zooms and a 50 1.8 prime (the D3000 series accounts for 50% of Nikon's sales.) The reason they buy in at the lower end is that they dont really know how seriously they are going to take it - indeed many/most buyers dont take it much further.

But a proportion through a combination of encouragement and enthusiasm gradually move up the company's value chain. The 50 1.4 replaces the 50 1.8, the D7500 replaces the D3500 etc.. So the point of the gateway drug approach is that it gets you addicted to the brand and the brand can then take you up the value chain. So you need to capture the bottom end of the market in order to sell at the high end (unless you are Leica).

Olympus is proof of this. They have moved relentlessly upmarket and all they have achieved is less and less ILC sales and mounting losses with a US$58m loss forecast this year. Canon on the other hand with its gateway drug approach makes more money than everyone else put together. They may not make much money out of their entrance products but it is those purchases that get in the customers to sell them the high end/high margin products.

I saw this at B&Hphoto today and it pretty much sums up why Canon will dominate in mirrorless....

You see it lists the top 3 'best sellers' in FE lenses.

Never mind that the 28-75 2.8 is supposed to be plasticky, the 50 1.8 is supposed to be horrible and the 85 1.8 isnt supposed to have great bokeh. At the end of the day consumers 'buy value/cheap'. The same applies to APSC where Fuji offers the 'quality/expensive product' but where its market share is so low nobody actually knows what it is. While Canon with minimal efforts is making great inroads. Fuji is releasing an 'amazing' US$6,000 200mm F2' while Canon doesnt sell an EOS-M lens over US$500. Look there is always a market for high end, ground breaking, mtf chart lenses which are inevitably very expensive - but it just isnt a very big one.

All the mirrorless manufacturers are going relentlessly upmarket leaving a large gaping hole for Canon to walk through.

You see the great achievement of Nikon and Sony in FF mirrorless is to create fabulous high tech FF mirrorless at 'relatively affordable' price of under US$2,000. But it is a complete waste of time if even the most basic of your lenses are over US$500 a pop. Sure Sony has now 'eventually' got a few affordable lenses but there simply arent many (especially compared to Canon and Nikon DSLRs.) Both Sony and Nikon are absorbed with huge amounts of hubris - Nikon bringing out a US$6,000 58 0.95 with manual focus  (before a basic long zoom) and Sony is promoting its lightweight, 3kg, US$12,000 400 2.8.....

So in all likelihood Canon will enter the FF mirrorless market with a totally underwhelming camera, with lenses that are uninspiring (but you wont have to have to make the excuse they look good value against Leica.) And much to everyone's irritation but no surprise they will walk away with the market

1 hour ago, Robert Collins said:

I assume both these files are 8 bit?

Would love to see 10bit v 8bit

Would also be interested in +1 sharpness v 0 sharpness

Oh and whether you can fly in auto exposure without exposure flicker due to the variable aperture.

2 hours ago, Cliff Totten said:

Here 'ya go.

Mavic-II Pro - UHD - 100mbp/s H.264 .mp4 container

Profile is "standard"  Sharpness +1   Contrast -3   Saturation 0

Both files are directly off the card and are short. One is Full "FOV" view and teh other is HQ crop view both on the exact same scene. (remember, the color is flat rec709)

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1c-k4pnmzrEwuwfnumzATMr4W4o__iI7l?usp=sharing

This is the real thing.....Enjoy!!

CT

 

I assume both these files are 8 bit?

I am slightly surprised at Nikon's approach to lens pricing. I do get the if Sony charges a premium for its mirrorless lenses why shouldnt Nikon? But the price of lenses for the FE mount is the achilles heal of the system and why it isnt all that popular even with all the stellar reviews. (and why I rarely ever recommend it even though I use it.)

I just think Nikon will find it difficult to get much traction amongst photographers. The budget conscious consumer is unlikely to spend US$4000 for a Z6, a zoom and a couple of primes when he can buy a D750 and similar lenses for US$2500. And are the pros going to really trade in a couple of G primes for US$200 each in order to buy two 1.8 primes for US$1400. The cost of witching to mirrorless looks very high.

Of course for video guys the Z system makes a lot more sense because it adds a lot more value and also video guys are used to paying eyewatering prices for equipment.

But I dont see Canon going down this route. The popularity of its mirrorless cameras is largely due to its pricing and particularly its pricing of lenses. You cant even buy an ef-m lens for over US$500.

An interesting take on Mavic 2 Pro v zoom...

5 hours ago, Danyyyel said:

Very interesting for behind the scene experience in video, my surprise when I saw so much drone shot and thought why did they use so much drone shot in a video about Nikon. LOL. Overall colours etc seems very good. He talks a lot about stabilization in video which he says is very very good, he also says autofocus was very good even if he did not know too much what he was doing.

 

Its an interesting video and the short he shot looks very good. His enthusiasm for the camera seems both genuine and infectious.

But what really struck me through the video was how it seems like a DSLR shooter who has just had a mirrorless epiphany. Lightweight on a small gimbal, longer drone flights, ibis is like a gimbal built into the camera, accurate focusing. I particularly liked his comment at the 38th minute....

'This was the big breakthrough for me..... all of a sudden the ability to shoot video while looking through the electronic viewfinder - game changing - completely game changing for a guy like me.,...'

7 minutes ago, Luke Mason said:

Please read carefully, the HDR mode is achieved with a single exposure, through interleaved readout (alternating lines between high gain/low gain). Exposure bracketing is a separate feature.

Many Sony sensors have this feauture and recently introduced a second gen algorithm called Quad Bayer HDR.

The HDR capture mode available on the Mavic drones will capture multiple photos with different exposures, then automatically pull the “best” parts of each frame and merge them to produce the final high dynamic range image. This is done in-camera. Personally, I feel like the in-camera method produces a rather flat image. Most photographers agree and will use the alternative method, called AEB capture mode, for better results. The Phantom 4 Pro and the Mavic Pro/Platinum & Air all have AEB capture mode in the app settings.

https://djiphotoacademy.com/hdr-photos-with-your-dji-drone/

And as an aside combining high and low gain in a single exposure will not achieve higher dynamic range as the highest dynamic range of a sensor is achieved at its lowest gain.

3 minutes ago, Luke Mason said:

As I've said earlier, the higher dynamic range quote is for HDR stills mode, the Ambarella SoCs are capable of interleaved exposure, essentially it's like Magic Lantern's "dual ISO" feature. On Mavic Air, HDR stills offer a DR of 13.2EV.

But 'dynamic range in HDR mode' just isnt a thing. And if it becomes a 'thing' you will soon have phones claiming 15 stops of DR. You are trying to measure the underlying DR of the sensor, not the DR you can 'create' through merging multiple exposure bracketed shots. If we go down this route we will also end up with incredible (as in unbelievable) iso performance due to median averaging and super high resolutions due to pixel shifting....

Here are a couple of screenshhots taken from Casey Neistats video

First we have the Mavic 1 v Mavic 2 zoom. They might have the same sensor size but the image quality seems to have come a long way.

Next we have the Mavic 2 pro v the Mavic pro zoom

A clear win for the Mavic 2 Pro here. But I would add that the difference in quality is often less than I have shown here. One thing I like about the zoom is the way the 'zoom' is implemented. Zoom from 24mm to 48mm in the app and it it smoothly and slowly makes the zoom in camera.

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Surely they can back off the clampdown on the NR?

There isnt a separate NR adjustment with the Mavic. It is lumped in with sharpening. Set sharpening to 0 or below and you get buckets of noise reduction and blotchy shadows. Setting sharpening to +1 gets rid of the noise reduction but does cause other problems. DJI resolved the problem with the Mavic Air.

39 minutes ago, jonpais said:

80% of productions currently record in Prores, and we’ll soon see Prores RAW widely adopted in the industry, so good luck with that!

If your argument is that Apple holds the rights, then by that logic, we should throw out all patents!

Just out of curiosity - what precisely do you mean by ‘shamelessly so’? You mean like a woman of ill repute showing off her wares on 8 mile road? ?

I dont agree. We have been through all this with stills. JPEG is a universal open format that everyone uses - I doubt we would use it, if it was a format licensed from Canon. DNG is a 'raw format' that Adobe claims is 'open' but as it owns it, it hasnt received widespread adoption apart from in Adobe products in the last 10 years.

Inherently a raw video format doesnt have any need of ownership/patents because it is simply a format for 'raw data' coming off the sensor. It is not trying to cure cancer. And conceptually making 'raw' proprietary is an 'oxymoron' rather like paying a clothes company for the privilege of walking around in the raw.

If you think that paying a company for the privilege of taking 'raw' data off a sensor is a workable concept then I just think you are being heroically optimistic. Of course, Apple would presumably argue that 'prores raw' isnt actually 'raw' but is 'doctored raw' which is fine apart from the fact they are misrepresenting what they are selling in the first place.

BTW can we have a source for the '80% of productions currently record in prores'?

5 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

From Thein Ming himself

About Hasselblad connection.

"However, the idea of a ‘Hasselblad’ camera is not just medium format – it’s accurate color and tonal reproduction with the most appropriate components at various points in the imaging chain, from lenses to sensor to image processing algorithms and circuitry. We are a small company and will never claim to make the chips ourselves – that’s just not economically possible. But the secret sauce lies in tying it all together, which can be done at many format sizes "

About making a standalone camera as small that can be used on a handheld gimbal

"Not quite that simple: gimbals are most effective with lower moving mass; this means everything that does not have to move (i.e. everything apart from sensor and lens) is in the body of the drone – that’s processing, power and some of the gimbal motors. It cannot be that small…"

You do know that Ming Thein is the Chief of Strategy at Hasselblad? Or not?

https://www.hasselblad.com/press/press-releases/hasselblad-appoints-ming-thein-as-chief-of-strategy/

39 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

That's not entirely accurate. People have preferences on color science, and that is a valid reason to prefer one camera over another, even if there is no objective measure of which color/look is "better."

Well it sort of is. Because when you admit you are talking about 'color preferences' and that there is 'no objective measure' you are not dealing with 'science' at all! But I argued this once before and people simply declared they ]'preferred' their own definition of science over mine.

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I don't get it? It was such a missed opportunity for Panny. It is not going to sell, and now it will wither on the vine. Crazy thought process on Panasonic's part. ?

Yup I dont get either. As far as I can see, Panasonic keeps shooting themselves in the foot at the moment. Companies need to play to their strengths. You would think that Panasonic would have given a decent amount of care and attention to the LX100ii because of the amount of love and attention the LX100 received from customers (and even reviewers - has any other Panasonic compact received a gold award from DPR.)

I will be buying the LX100ii (well the Leica skinned version) because my GF loves the LX100 so much and has used it pretty much on a daily basis for 4 years....

(Yeah dont ask!!) But Panasonic have really killed my enthusiasm for this line with their inherent laziness....

5 hours ago, Trek of Joy said:

Given overall market share numbers - I'd bet Canon and Nikon are likely 1-2 in lenses, no way Sigma and Tamron are moving more lenses than the kit lenses on CaNikon's plastic DSLR's.

Nikon has 25% of the overall market as seen in the graph below and Canon is pushing toward 50%. CIPA says 19 million lenses were shipped last year, and Nikon's annual report says they shipped 4.6 million, though Nikon's fiscal year runs through March 2018, and that is the slowest quarter for sales on a calendar year basis so they aren't perfectly aligned - especially since 2018 has been down YOY compared to 2017. I'm too lazy to try and find all the quarterly numbers to make everything match up, but that's still over 24%. Japan is obviously different, Olympus is huge there. Much like how Fuji is supposedly the #1camera brand in Thailand.

Chris

 

 

Cant really argue with those numbers.

Thinking about it. My numbers were from BCN who measure sales at the retail level. My guess would be that if a camera ships with a kit lens (or even two kit lenses) they classify it as a 'camera sale' rather 'a camera and lens sale'. So they are only counting independent lens sales. Just a guess but those percentages from BCN make more sense in that context.

10 hours ago, wolf33d said:

Exactly lol. The only marketing shit now is the full sensor avoidance when sides only work in Tripod mode and active track... which I both never use

And DJI says they wont be effective in 'active track max'.

Those side sensors are going to cause more problems than they solve.

23 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Wait... what? I thought Canon/Sony/Nikon are the top three in the world? 

 

Nope in terms of market share (2017, Japan only because that is all the data we have available (without paying) - BCN.)

The top 3 manufacturers of ILC lenses are:

Canon 22%

Sigma 16%

Tamron 14%

Source:https://www.canonrumors.com/bcn-rankings-are-out-canon-continues-to-dominate-dslrs-further-growth-in-mirrorless/

So, to me, effectively excluding Tamron and Sigma from your lens mount may well prove a mistake for Nikon....

47 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Sony and Panasonics financial reports dissagrees with you.

There is nothing in Panasonic and Sony financial reports to indicate that 'producing cameras' loses money while they 'make money' out of lenses because they are all lumped together...

Plus, if you think about it for five minutes you will figure out that its comon sense. Or do you seriously think that the entire development of the Z-line cost $5 and will be covered by selling one camera? Of course not. You are not that stupid.

I do get the point you are making. For instance, Olympus has a 45%+ gross margin in its imaging division but the imaging division loses money every year. So if you lump in SG&A, R&D and marketing you can 'claim' that selling cameras doesnt make them money.

But if you look at the BCN numbers for sales you will see that most of the top sellers are 'base model cameras + 2 x zoom lenses' (whereby either the lenses are sold cheap or the body or both.) And given that most of those buyers dont ever buy an additional lens (they are already at 2x body) it doesnt make sense to sell the body based on lens sales.

I would happily agree that low end bodies are sold on 'low margins' on the basis of a gateway drug approach but that is a different matter.

You know as well as I that they will need to sell alot of the Z bodys before it starts making them money.

Again I agree that they obviously need to sell a lot of Z bodies to 'make money' but that isnt quite the same as saying that selling a 'z body' loses money. I also suspect gross margins are higher for lenses than bodies (which would make sense).

I personally think that 'Sony' has a different 'business model' than Canon and Nikon. Sony is basically a 'sensor manufacturer' rather than a 'camera manufacturer'. So they are basically trying to get as much 'sensor' in a body as possible. As such it actually makes sense for them to sell 'larger sensor cameras' at a lower margin than 'smaller sensor cameras' because they are already making money on the sensor. Nikon and Canon and are camera manufacturers - so it makes sense for them to take the 'gateway drug' route of selling smaller sensor cameras at a lower margin on the basis that it is a 'gateway addiction' to their higher margin cameras and lenses.

So honestly I see every reason for Sony to pressurize Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus and Fuji to sell their 'cameras at a loss' because Sony sells (pretty much) all their sensors and then is effectively subsidizing their sensor.

I would readily admit though, that I am rather surprised at Nikon's pricing of mirrorless - which simply follows Sony's strategy of selling bodies at a discount (which works out well for Sony as they sell Nikon their image sensors) and lenses at a premium. I was expecting the opposite - cameras at a premium and lenses at a relative discount - which I am pretty sure will be Canon's strategy.

 

13 minutes ago, Cliff Totten said:

There is a good chance this is a line skipping or pixel binning process. It's hard to say for sure though. We know that Sony has created a high tech "full pixel readout" for their fantastic scaling engines but DJI does not buy Sony SOC's. DJI buys Sony sensors and uses Ambarella image processors on Phantom and Mavics. 

The original Mavic Pro used a dinosaur Ambarella A9 processor that has the absolute worst temporal noise reduction algorithm. It SEVERELY scrubbed the life out of everything below middle grey it's temporal analysts artifacts caused a "pulse" every 15 frames. (a lot of people blamed 60mbp/s h.264 when it was really that disgusting noise reduction circuit to blame)  Total junk chip that dates back to the GoPro 3. The Phantom 4 Pro uses the Ambarella H1 and it's pretty good. The Mavic Air used the Ambarella H1 and doesn't suffer that same noise reduction Hell that the Mavic Pro does and gives you 100mbp/s too.

Today we have the Ambarella H2, H22 and H3 chips which are far more powerful than the H1 now. It's going to be interesting to see what video processor that DJI used for these new Mavics. The Ambarella H3 can do 4k at 120fps and 8K at 30p!

It's very possible that DJI is making these motherboard designs usable for the new Phantom 5 too. This allows them to buy H3 or H2 chips, do all the programming work together and only activate features the need for each model and leave others hidden. This saves lots of programming man hours.

To see this HORRIBLE Ambarella A9 vs Ambarella H1 noise reduction lab analysis comparison, check out my video here. I think it will answer a lot of people's questions about DJI Mavic image quality problems.

https://youtu.be/5WDc9PKCDm0?t=1m30s

CT

 

Very interesting (although knowledge well above my pay grade.)

And I can certainly feel your pain with the Mavic Pro and its noise reduction circuit.

(BTW I am not trying to rag on DJI here (I think I can be classed as a fanboy)). I have pre-ordered the Mavic Pro 2. I just want to know exactly what I have ordered and cut the through the spec sheet bullshit.

11 minutes ago, Luke Mason said:

With all of the processing going on in a small drone, supersampling 5.7K doesn't seem practical due to power/thermal constraints. Ideally you'd want a 1" sensor with less pixel to strike a balance between photo and video, but the Sony 1" 20MP one is the only model DJI has access to.

My thinking was that DJI was offering a choice between '4k supersampled 5.7k' 8 bit and cropped '4k 10 bit'. But you may well be right and that limited sensor options means that there isnt really a full read out of the sensor in the first place.

6 minutes ago, AaronChicago said:

That's kind of a bummer but isn't the 1" sensor 4x bigger than the Mavic Pros? 1.3 crop isn't too bad.

Well the maths sort of works like this.

1.5x crop = 1.5 x 1.5x = 2.25x

20mp / 2.25 = 8.9mp which about equals 4k (1:1)

...So 4x bigger sensor is nice but if you throw away half the sensor in video either through 'pixel binning' or 'cropping' it is an improvement but it aint great.....