Hi Can someone from dji please asnwer this as soon as possible, I have an x7 on order and not sure if i should cancel and keep the x5s or continue waiting for the x7

I use the DJi Inspire for a mixture of video and stills but mainly still photogrpahy as my dji s900 is too large to use in most cases..

What is the aspect ratio for stills? what is the total resolution of the still when using the 16mm

I have read the 16mm is only for super35mm does this lock it down to 16:9 and wider? can I get the full asp-c 4:3 ratio?

Go to the SPECS for the X7:

https://www.dji.com/zenmuse-x7/info#specs

Note:  

Sensor Size (Still): 23.5×15.7 mm

Effective Pixels: 24 MP

Photo Sizes:  3:2, 4:3, 16:9

If you do the math the maximum coverage is the 3:2 aspect ratio for stills.

I would also note that the maximum video size that supports full FOV is 6016 x 3200 which is 18 megapixels and is 17:9 aspect ratio.

I have received my X7 and will be flight testing it on Wednesday Nov. 29th.  I can tell you the exact coverage after that test.

Ray Maxwell

rmaxwell.dccnet Posted at 2017-11-28 17:14
Go to the SPECS for the X7:

https://www.dji.com/zenmuse-x7/info#specs

Thanks Ray, I was also concerned with the lens as the 16mm states it's only for super35mm and the super 35mm is a crop of the apsc sensor, I need full use of the apsc sensor for photography..
did you purchase the 16mm?looking forward to hearing the experiecnce with the x7

Skyris Posted at 2017-11-28 17:30
Thanks Ray, I was also concerned with the lens as the 16mm states it's only for super35mm and the super 35mm is a crop of the apsc sensor, I need full use of the apsc sensor for photography..
did you purchase the 16mm?looking forward to hearing the experiecnce with the x7

About super 35 mm, the size of the sensor is 23.5x15.7 mm which is similar to APS-C. It will show a better performance in dealing with shallow depth of field, large dynamic range, and high signal-noise ratio. Hope the info can help you.

Hi Skyris,

I finally decided that I could shoot some test images in my basement without really flying the Inspire 2.

So here are the results from the X7 with the 16 mm lens mounted.  I have all four lenses and will test them all when I do the flight tests.

Aspect ratio:            Pixels

          3:2           6008 x 4000

        16:9           6008 x 3368

           4:3           5240 x 3928

There you have it.

Ray Maxwell

rmaxwell.dccnet Posted at 2017-11-28 22:09
Hi Skyris,

I finally decided that I could shoot some test images in my basement without really flying the Inspire 2.

Champion, thanks for that, If you can still let me know how they go up in the air, would love to see a dng sample from the 16mm, still not sure whether to cancel my order... if the lens is sharp at 100% im very keen and will keep it but I have seen a sample already and its not that great (hoping that the lens wasn't calibrated properly), looked the same as the x5s and there is not much extra resolution when you overlay a 5280x3956 image over a 6016 x 4000

It is actually amazing that with the first units now dispatched there isn't any full review on some blog already...

ukaleq Posted at 2017-11-29 03:02
It is actually amazing that with the first units now dispatched there isn't any full review on some blog already...

I completely agree, I remember when the x5s was released Cinema 5d had a great review with demos and comparison charts, there has been nothing like this.

Skyris Posted at 2017-11-29 01:11
Champion, thanks for that, If you can still let me know how they go up in the air, would love to see a dng sample from the 16mm, still not sure whether to cancel my order... if the lens is sharp at 100% im very keen and will keep it but I have seen a sample already and its not that great (hoping that the lens wasn't calibrated properly), looked the same as the x5s and there is not much extra resolution when you overlay a 5280x3956 image over a 6016 x 4000

Sorry folks. The weather here is not cooperating with my planned flight tests.  Looks like rain for the next four days.

Ray

rmaxwell.dccnet Posted at 2017-11-30 12:31
Sorry folks. The weather here is not cooperating with my planned flight tests.  Looks like rain for the next four days.

Ray

thanks,, keep me posted

rmaxwell.dccnet Posted at 2017-11-28 22:09
Hi Skyris,

I finally decided that I could shoot some test images in my basement without really flying the Inspire 2.

Hi Rmaxwell did you manage to take the x7 up in the air, can you send me a dng sample from the air, preferably pointing at a building if possible thanks.

Skyris Posted at 2017-12-4 18:34
Hi Rmaxwell did you manage to take the x7 up in the air, can you send me a dng sample from the air, preferably pointing at a building if possible thanks.

I plan to fly the X7 tomorrow (Tuesday Nov. 5th)...forecast is for clear weather.

Ray

rmaxwell.dccnet Posted at 2017-12-4 19:48
I plan to fly the X7 tomorrow (Tuesday Nov. 5th)...forecast is for clear weather.

Ray

Thanks Ray, very interested.. I have around a week until I can cancel my order, I have just seen a dng from the 35mm at f4 100iso on inspire pilots forum https://inspirepilots.com/threads/sample-images-and-videos.18519/
and it looked very soft and the corners were mushy. very worried

rmaxwell.dccnet Posted at 2017-12-4 19:48
I plan to fly the X7 tomorrow (Tuesday Nov. 5th)...forecast is for clear weather.

Ray

Hi Ray sorry to be pushy but how did you find the x7, did you get any stills?

Skyris Posted at 2017-12-5 14:54
Hi Ray sorry to be pushy but how did you find the x7, did you get any stills?

OK folks...here they are...Straight out of the X7 16mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm lenses.  7 degrees C light winds.  They were not all taken at the same height.  See the meta data on the files for more info.  See the files on Dropbox for meta data.
I am not sure why, but the 24 mm shot refuses to upload to the DJI forum.
The images have been downsized when posted here on the DJI forum.
Here is a link to the orginal JPEG files on Dropbox...     https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mujcv ... siKg0tT3NdcW4a?dl=0

Let me know if this works.
I might point out that the RAW DNG files can be sharpened in Adobe RAW and look even better.

Ray

Thanks for sharing Ray.
By the looks of these images, the 24mm and 50mm are the sharpest. They look good.
16mm doesn't look to bad either but the 35mm looks quite mushy at 100%, do you find this? I have seen a few samples on inspire pilots forum from the 35mm lens and they don't look that fantastic.
What are your thoughts Ray so far?

Thanks for the pictures.
I have to open that with a proper software but that doesn't look convincing to me. I still have the impression that my older-generation APS-C sensor camera (Fuji X100S) does much better despite the lower pixel count.

Skyris Posted at 2017-12-6 02:34
Thanks for sharing Ray.
By the looks of these images, the 24mm and 50mm are the sharpest. They look good.
16mm doesn't look to bad either but the 35mm looks quite mushy at 100%, do you find this? I have seen a few samples on inspire pilots forum from the 35mm lens and they don't look that fantastic.

I am pleased with the results so far.  I am sure that I can get good 16 x 20 prints out of any the still images.  I also think that I can sell the video to the local movie production companies and TV stations.

I rate the overall system of the Inspire 2 and X7 as very good.

Ray

rmaxwell.dccnet Posted at 2017-12-6 09:57
I am pleased with the results so far.  I am sure that I can get good 16 x 20 prints out of any the still images.  I also think that I can sell the video to the local movie production companies and TV stations.

I rate the overall system of the Inspire 2 and X7 as very good.

I have added a RAW DNG to the folder on DropBox, that was shot with the 24 mm lens.  Look at the difference in the lettering on the sign on the right side of the image as compared to the JPEG version.  You can see how much better the DNG comes out.

Ray

rmaxwell.dccnet Posted at 2017-12-6 11:59
I have added a RAW DNG to the folder on DropBox, that was shot with the 24 mm lens.  Look at the difference in the lettering on the sign on the right side of the image as compared to the JPEG version.  You can see how much better the DNG comes out.

Ray

Thanks Ray. ill have a look

ukaleq Posted at 2017-12-6 08:12
Thanks for the pictures.
I have to open that with a proper software but that doesn't look convincing to me. I still have the impression that my older-generation APS-C sensor camera (Fuji X100S) does much better despite the lower pixel count.

The 35m and 16mm look like they are going to score very low on the dxo mark making them the most expensive poor quality lenses built....
the 24mm looks acceptable i think especially from the air
I have seen a good 16mm shot from a guy on you tube

ukaleq Posted at 2017-12-6 08:12
Thanks for the pictures.
I have to open that with a proper software but that doesn't look convincing to me. I still have the impression that my older-generation APS-C sensor camera (Fuji X100S) does much better despite the lower pixel count.

I do have to agree though this is not acceptable for the prices of the camera and lenses.

Skyris Posted at 2017-12-6 12:35
I do have to agree though this is not acceptable for the prices of the camera and lenses.

Hi Folks,
In some ways I think you are missing the point of this system.  This is a fully integrated flying camera.  Maybe you can buy a set of lenses for less money that will score higher at DXO.  But the object of the game is to tell a story with a video or still image with good quality.  Note that the STORY is at the center of this requirement.  Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape used to warn photographers not to get caught up in "pixel peeking".  You have to look at the whole system.

Tell me where you can buy a SYSTEM of this quality that can tell a STORY like the one in these links for a lower price.





Good shooting and story telling,

Ray Maxwell

P.S. If you join Luminous Landscape...search for my name...I wrote several articles for them.

https://luminous-landscape.com

I am stuck between a rock and a hard place, I understand what you are saying Ray and wish my clients always looked at the whole picture but some need to zoom in 100% to my images to add cg renders into them for photomontages.. It makes me feel like I am handing over images taken from a toy.. If I could use my large hexa with Sony A7r2 I would..
I had a shoot last night at dusk in a residential area, even though it was completely legal and on private land the noise from the inspire annoyed a neighbour enough for him to come over swearing and threatening to get the baseball bat if I had used the hexa I would say he would have brought the bat the first time... I need the inspire for city work and tight residential launch areas... I also need the upgrade to larger sensor but Dji have us in the corner with the control of this market and charging what looks to be the most expensive prime 2.8 on the market and they are not good at all. I need a bunch of lenses for my work and here in Australia we pay a lot more, I didn't mind paying $800 for Olympus or $1000 for Dji 15mm but for the x7 its $2199 each lens here...
But still I have bought the camera and one of the lenses, they look slightly better than the x5s.. so I guess it's a step forward but I they have set the bar high here, what are faster lenses going to cost and next gimbal with sensor, it's scary.

rmaxwell.dccnet Posted at 2017-12-7 22:34
Hi Folks,
In some ways I think you are missing the point of this system.  This is a fully integrated flying camera.  Maybe you can buy a set of lenses for less money that will score higher at DXO.  But the object of the game is to tell a story with a video or still image with good quality.  Note that the STORY is at the center of this requirement.  Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape used to warn photographers not to get caught up in "pixel peeking".  You have to look at the whole system.

Ok I get your point although if you are more concerned about the story than the video/photo quality a phantom might do the trick as well. But I see absolutely no reason why a camera and lens attached to a drone should cost 3 times as much as their terrestrial counterparts. In fact I see an obvious reason: the monopoly of DJI.

Look at the price of a very light, APS-C camera like the new Fuji X-E3: It's $900 with a similar sensor. Of course with the X7 you also have a gimbal, but the camera itself should cost even less since there is no viewfinder,LCD screen, etc. And the most ridiculous thing is of course the price of the lenses.

Hi Ray,

thanks for these. I'm wondering if you would mind posting the DNG from the 35mm. I hear people dissing it, but I'm thinking that has more to do with the fact that the 24mm shot is taken from a much closer vantage point than the 35mm, (that and the NR on DJI's jpegs is horrific). Ian Cresswell's studio tests of the 35mm showed it to be the best performer in the Lot, but others have reported the 35mm being soft as well. There certainly could be some sample variation at play, being DJI is rather new at this lens business.

That said, the 24mm shot in DNG form looks stellar, I love how well the highlights recover....

Barry Goyette Posted at 2017-12-8 09:42
Hi Ray,

thanks for these. I'm wondering if you would mind posting the DNG from the 35mm. I hear people dissing it, but I'm thinking that has more to do with the fact that the 24mm shot is taken from a much closer vantage point than the 35mm, (that and the NR on DJI's jpegs is horrific). Ian Cresswell's studio tests of the 35mm showed it to be the best performer in the Lot, but others have reported the 35mm being soft as well. There certainly could be some sample variation at play, being DJI is rather new at this lens business.

Hi Folks,

I have uploaded the DNG files for 16mm, 35mm, and 50mm files.

Check the meta data for settings.  They are not all at the same aperture or shutter speed.  Do note the low shutter speeds.  All are at ISO 200.

While we are "pixel peeking"...many of you have casually mentioned that the camera has a gimble.  Check this specification..."Angular Vibration Range        ±0.005°"...This is amazing and has a lot to do with the sharpness of the images I have uploaded.  No matter how sharp the lens is...if it is not stable...you know the rest of that story.  Remember it is the SYSTEM that counts.

I refer to my Inspire 2 as a "flying tripod".

Ray Maxwell

ukaleq Posted at 2017-12-8 06:09
Ok I get your point although if you are more concerned about the story than the video/photo quality a phantom might do the trick as well. But I see absolutely no reason why a camera and lens attached to a drone should cost 3 times as much as their terrestrial counterparts. In fact I see an obvious reason: the monopoly of DJI.

Look at the price of a very light, APS-C camera like the new Fuji X-E3: It's $900 with a similar sensor. Of course with the X7 you also have a gimbal, but the camera itself should cost even less since there is no viewfinder,LCD screen, etc. And the most ridiculous thing is of course the price of the lenses.

Its a gimbal with sensor and board, all the processing is in the drone. Its not a whole camera and shouldnt be almost double the x5s

rmaxwell.dccnet Posted at 2017-12-8 10:55
Hi Folks,

I have uploaded the DNG files for 16mm, 35mm, and 50mm files.

Hi Ray, Just wondering what the 24mm iso was as the dng is saying iso of 800 and jpg is 200, they both also have different shutter and aperture values.  

That 16mm is either out of focus, bad copy or just bad.. is sooo mushy, the 35mm is not great. the 24 and 50 look ok but just.

Skyris Posted at 2017-12-8 14:54
That 16mm is either out of focus, bad copy or just bad.. is sooo mushy, the 35mm is not great. the 24 and 50 look ok but just.

Hi Skyris,

I have replaced the 24mm DNG images with the correct frame that matches the JPEG frame.
I am curious what application you are viewing and converting the RAW DNG files with.  I am using Adobe Bridge, Adobe RAW, and Photoshop.  All are the latest CC versions.  I am quite happy with all of the images and was surprised at how good the corners of the 16mm have turned out.  They appear to produce what the MTF data that DJI has published in their specifications.  I am judging by a quick look using the above applications.

Ray

The raw files look indeed much better than the Jpg.

rmaxwell.dccnet Posted at 2017-12-8 15:28
Hi Skyris,

I have replaced the 24mm DNG images with the correct frame that matches the JPEG frame.

Hi Ray, I am also up to date with Adobe. and checked in adobe raw, I am not saying your photography is bad at all but the 16mm at 100% crop is mush, the grass looks like it has been taken with a cell phone.


I have 10x better sharpness with a $400 lens than these $2199 lenses... I am going to stop complaining.. its not going to achieve anything.... I just have to accept that DJI have the market and we have to surrender to it until they get competition and then maybe we will see realistic pricing... they build great drones... absolutely stable most times and great range, cameras will get there one day.

Fwiw, EXIF Tool shows the 16mm as being made by Panasonic.   The 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm are all Sigmas.

Odd the 50mm shows the Light Source as "Fine Weather."  The 24 and 35mm both show Light Source as "Daylight."  The Pan. 16mm shows "Fluorescent" which seems odd.

I think it's interesting some of the invective being thrown at these lenses. From what I can tell based on the various test I've seen, including these, the lenses are pretty much what you'd expect. Given the OLPF, and the sensor resolution on the X7, they are all resolving about at the limit of what is possible, (the 16mm being the weakest but only in the corners) and frankly, anyone who says they have a $400 lens that outperforms these hasn't done a side by side scientific comparison to prove anything. (and of course that $400 slr lens doesn't have to balance on a tiny gimbal under an aircraft). The only reason the 35mm seems to do poorly here is due to the fact that the shot in question is a whole lot more pulled back than the other lenses, pure and simple. At 100% with a little sharpening, all of these lenses look great, again, given the OLPF.
That OLPF is going to be a point of contention for the stills guys, who've become accustomed to aliased, false detail on previous DJI cameras including the X5s. As the x7 is specifically a cinema camera, that happens to shoot stills, we have to look at the reasons for dji including a stronger anti-aliasing filter in this new camera. (the reason being that aliasing is problematic for moving images and that their customer for the x7 would prefer a system that doesn't alias).

I do believe the lens set for the x7 is overpriced, but not due to quality. It's overpriced mostly due to speed and marketplace. If we're comparing these to Aps-c or 35mm still glass, these lenses should be 400 or less, but given that they are purpose built, lightweight, specific to a niche product like the x7, lenses, it appears that DJI would prefer to sell less at a higher price than more at a lower price. It probably makes business sense, even though it may not make sense to the average customer.

The published MTF charts on these lenses would indicate they are capable of impressive detail. I don't think we're seeing, with the x7, what these lenses are capable of. That will come in  a full frame high MP still focused camera, with a less aggressive OLPF.

Barry Goyette Posted at 2017-12-9 11:19
I think it's interesting some of the invective being thrown at these lenses. From what I can tell based on the various test I've seen, including these, the lenses are pretty much what you'd expect. Given the OLPF, and the sensor resolution on the X7, they are all resolving about at the limit of what is possible, (the 16mm being the weakest but only in the corners) and frankly, anyone who says they have a $400 lens that outperforms these hasn't done a side by side scientific comparison to prove anything. (and of course that $400 slr lens doesn't have to balance on a tiny gimbal under an aircraft). The only reason the 35mm seems to do poorly here is due to the fact that the shot in question is a whole lot more pulled back than the other lenses, pure and simple. At 100% with a little sharpening, all of these lenses look great, again, given the OLPF.
That OLPF is going to be a point of contention for the stills guys, who've become accustomed to aliased, false detail on previous DJI cameras including the X5s. As the x7 is specifically a cinema camera, that happens to shoot stills, we have to look at the reasons for dji including a stronger anti-aliasing filter in this new camera. (the reason being that aliasing is problematic for moving images and that their customer for the x7 would prefer a system that doesn't alias).

you don't need to do a side by side comparison.. these look mush and my $400 lens looks ace its 85g so they have built it extremely light too..
I have just bought the sharpest lens built by sony zeiss the 55mm its half the price of these... and destroys them

Skyris Posted at 2017-12-9 17:01
you don't need to do a side by side comparison.. these look mush and my $400 lens looks ace its 85g so they have built it extremely light too..
I have just bought the sharpest lens built by sony zeiss the 55mm its half the price of these... and destroys them

Well Skyris,  You make a hell of an argument there  :-) I have absolutely no idea why DPReview.com and photozone.de, et al waste their time standardizing their tests, when they could just call you to tell them what's mush and what's not mush. FWIW...I've seen all these lenses on a very high resolution test chart and they really don't have much "mush" to them, they all resolve at nyquist for this sensor, which means they probably resolve more. Period.

You and I have no argument over price. The DJI lenses are way too expensive, but until you can get your magic $400 lens to hang off an inspire, we don't have much else to talk about.

Sorry i didnt realise that every sample dng someone had sent in hadnt focused properly.
All I am saying is that every sample I have seen has been soft and mushy at 100% I am only talking about sharpness here, my $400 lens suffers from poor vignetting at f 2.8-f4 but can be corrected in post the sharpness cant (well to a certain degree)...
The x5s was an expensive camera and the stills werent that great and had been fighting to get sharp stills on every shoot for my clients.
with the new increase in sensor, new lenses built esspecially for this camera and masssive increase in price I was hoping for great IQ.
DJI never released still shots for us to zoom into (had to ask numeorus times) and had to wait for customer samples.. they all look good until you zoom in to 100%.

my $400 lens that I purchased essepcillay was to hang a sony a7r2 to the inspire

the $400 lens at 100%


X7 35mm at 100%


The Chromatic Aberation looks terrible too..... geez... I just dont see why people cant see this.....

Barry Goyette Posted at 2017-12-9 17:47
Well Skyris,  You make a hell of an argument there  :-) I have absolutely no idea why DPReview.com and photozone.de, et al waste their time standardizing their tests, when they could just call you to tell them what's mush and what's not mush. FWIW...I've seen all these lenses on a very high resolution test chart and they really don't have much "mush" to them, they all resolve at nyquist for this sensor, which means they probably resolve more. Period.

You and I have no argument over price. The DJI lenses are way too expensive, but until you can get your magic $400 lens to hang off an inspire, we don't have much else to talk about.

I didn't realise that the lenses had been professionally tested, I'll have a look at this.
You must understand that I have bought one of these expensive lenses blindly expecting greatness and im not seeing this at the moment, worried

Skyris Posted at 2017-12-9 22:23
I didn't realise that the lenses had been professionally tested, I'll have a look at this.
You must understand that I have bought one of these expensive lenses blindly expecting greatness and im not seeing this at the moment, worried

Hi Folks,

I have put more work into this project that I had originally intended.  This is my last post on this topic.  Here is a 100% section from the 35mm shot where I used my standard Adobe Camera RAW and Photoshop setting to reduce the effects of the anti-aliasing filters used in cameras optimized for video work.

Ray