Few months ago, dji released the mavic air2, and like everyone else did, I was surprised that a $799 drone is capable of shooting 4k60, 8k hyperlapse ,airsense ,10km range.
However, I was a little bit skeptical about the "48MP photo".
Sure, the mavic air 2 has a larger sensor(1/2"CMOS) than the original air, but the mavic 2 pro has a 1" 20MP sensor-this makes no sense (at least to me)
Can anyone explain to me whether the MA2's sensor is a genuine 1/2" 48MP sensor, and how is dji able to cram that much pixels in such a small area?

At the top of the forum page is a Search box...type in 48MP.  Or go to YouTube.  There's way too much information to try and post it here in reply to your question.

The Air2 uses a 12mpx quad bayer sensor and can use it to read x 4 colour points from each photo site ergo 4 x 12 = 48 but not in the truest sense of 48 mpx & at a cost in light performance. The image detail will be greater from the Pro 2 using the larger sensor at native resolution but in good light the Air 2 in 48mpx mode can offer some ok output.

That's the basics but more detail on older forum posts & also may YT videos on the subject.

Can anyone explain to me whether the MA2's sensor is a genuine 1/2" 48MP sensor, and how is dji able to cram that much pixels in such a small area?
It's complicated but try this:
https://www.gsmarena.com/quad_bayer_sensors_explained-news-37459.php

It's all about being able to offer a big number of MP for marketing purposes.
For the people that think a bigger number must be better.

Labroides Posted at 8-9 17:27
Can anyone explain to me whether the MA2's sensor is a genuine 1/2" 48MP sensor, and how is dji able to cram that much pixels in such a small area?
It's complicated but try this:
https://www.gsmarena.com/quad_bayer_sensors_explained-news-37459.php

So size doesn't matter??  Thank, God!!!  

Having the 24mm vs 28mm of the M2P makes it a great alternative to the P4PV2.0.

BaynhamPhoto Posted at 8-9 07:13
The Air2 uses a 12mpx quad bayer sensor and can use it to read x 4 colour points from each photo site ergo 4 x 12 = 48 but not in the truest sense of 48 mpx & at a cost in light performance. The image detail will be greater from the Pro 2 using the larger sensor at native resolution but in good light the Air 2 in 48mpx mode can offer some ok output.

That's the basics but more detail on older forum posts & also may YT videos on the subject.

Thanks for your information

BaynhamPhoto Posted at 8-9 07:13
The Air2 uses a 12mpx quad bayer sensor and can use it to read x 4 colour points from each photo site ergo 4 x 12 = 48 but not in the truest sense of 48 mpx & at a cost in light performance. The image detail will be greater from the Pro 2 using the larger sensor at native resolution but in good light the Air 2 in 48mpx mode can offer some ok output.

That's the basics but more detail on older forum posts & also may YT videos on the subject.

So in great light it can provide exceptional performance over the M2?

All this detailed talk about the Bayer sensor has given me a headache ;-)

AntDX316 Posted at 8-9 20:50
So in great light it can provide exceptional performance over the M2?

I believe I said ok not superior

Rustic17 Posted at 8-9 18:07
So size doesn't matter??  Thank, God!!!

BaynhamPhoto Posted at 8-10 02:05
I believe I said ok not superior

You said in good light it's ok output but in great light then it's great output?  I've seen the photos so it really does prove to be true.

AntDX316 Posted at 8-10 03:13
You said in good light it's ok output but in great light then it's great output?  I've seen the photos so it really does prove to be true.

Next to my full frame setup its never gonna stand up to scrutiny but as long as you're happy with the output thats all that matters.

There is no replacement for a full 48mpx sensor but given the Air 2 price point & sensor size we were never seeing one with any performance. We might see a 24-26mpx sensor on the Pro 3 but better still would be optical zoom & aperture adjustment blending the zoom & pro 2 features only time will tell.

AntDX316 Posted at 8-10 03:13
You said in good light it's ok output but in great light then it's great output?  I've seen the photos so it really does prove to be true.

Good light or great light don’t mean you get good/great photographs. Good photographer’s and great photographers get good and great photographs.

BaynhamPhoto Posted at 8-10 07:26
Next to my full frame setup its never gonna stand up to scrutiny but as long as you're happy with the output thats all that matters.

There is no replacement for a full 48mpx sensor but given the Air 2 price point & sensor size we were never seeing one with any performance. We might see a 24-26mpx sensor on the Pro 3 but better still would be optical zoom & aperture adjustment blending the zoom & pro 2 features only time will tell.

You can get a full-frame in the air but to have everything sharp requires a huge lens at a high aperture and a long duration shutter speed unless you shoot at a higher ISO.  I have a 61MP camera so I know.  It doesn't matter if you have 61MP if you have blur in the shot (low shutter speed) it's not going to be sharp.

hallmark007 Posted at 8-10 11:39
Good light or great light don’t mean you get good/great photographs. Good photographer’s and great photographers get good and great photographs.

I didn't mean shot composition.  I meant the more light that comes in, at a higher shutter speed, the better the pixels can be accentuated, the better the photo.

AntDX316 Posted at 8-10 21:50
I didn't mean shot composition.  I meant the more light that comes in, at a higher shutter speed, the better the pixels can be accentuated, the better the photo.

I think it’s pretty clear, you know the specs about gear, but nothing about photography or taking pictures. It doesn’t matter if you have a 100mp camera it will only take photographs as good as the photographer controls it to take.
You keep mentioning sharp which shows how little you actually know about photography and what you do know comes from a 15 minute vlog on you tube. None of it matters. Photography is subjective if you want to comment on it do, but your lack of knowledge is clearly showing.

AntDX316 Posted at 8-10 21:46
You can get a full-frame in the air but to have everything sharp requires a huge lens at a high aperture and a long duration shutter speed unless you shoot at a higher ISO.  I have a 61MP camera so I know.  It doesn't matter if you have 61MP if you have blur in the shot (low shutter speed) it's not going to be sharp.

You can get a full-frame in the air but to have everything sharp requires a huge lens at a high aperture and a long duration shutter speed unless you shoot at a higher ISO.
OK .. so to get sharp photos, I need a huge lens, high aperture and a very slow shutter speed?
I must be doing it all wrong then.
Still I thought the images from my SLR were reasonably sharp with a little lens and 1/500th at F5.6.
How huge should the lens be?

I have a 61MP camera so I know.
Just imagine how much smarter you'd be if you had this:  https://www.phaseone.com/en/Photography/XF-Camera-System

But would you know which end of the camera to look into?

hallmark007 Posted at 8-10 23:30
I think it’s pretty clear, you know the specs about gear, but nothing about photography or taking pictures. It doesn’t matter if you have a 100mp camera it will only take photographs as good as the photographer controls it to take.
You keep mentioning sharp which shows how little you actually know about photography and what you do know comes from a 15 minute vlog on you tube. None of it matters. Photography is subjective if you want to comment on it do, but your lack of knowledge is clearly showing.

go to Elitecaptures7.com then Macro section and even check out the other sections while you are there too

Labroides Posted at 8-11 00:04
You can get a full-frame in the air but to have everything sharp requires a huge lens at a high aperture and a long duration shutter speed unless you shoot at a higher ISO.
OK .. so to get sharp photos, I need a huge lens, high aperture and a very slow shutter speed?
I must be doing it all wrong then.

I've taken some interior photographs for some clients already.  I have a Sigma 14mm f/1.8 on a Sony A7RIV.

To get an all around corner-to-corner sharp image you need it to be super still at a high aperture.  I like to shoot at ISO-50 and f/13 or higher.  f/16 makes it last super long and if there is a slight movement it will come out like f/13 just with time wasted but from what I've seen they look the same for both interior and exterior.  f/13 and even f/16 is not enough for the 20mm G f/1.8.  At f/22 it's more corner-to-corner sharp but the diffraction is kind of bad.

I don't really care too much for who is wrong or right, I'm just speaking from first-hand experience.  I just want to get the shots and finish the job.  It sometimes takes super long to get a good photo.  Just to get a good insect shot took a lot of time in the heat w/ the 90mm G Macro and most of the images were garbage.  It is not enjoyable.

I've already known about the Phase XF and the RED.  Whole point to get into this activity was to show poeople things that cannot usually be seen or to prove things to people w/ evidence.  I'm already so far beyond decent that going too much further is unnecessary.

If you guys would understand, you too would realize this behavior is a waste of time and very inefficient.  Just get what you need to know and move on w/ the understanding.  There are tons of Other activities to involve in other than just this.  I do not want to get hung up on this.

I can say that I just got into this activity way after all of you have but years of experience does not mean Black Belt level in photography.  With technology, if you teach people a few things w/ better equipment they could be able to outshine everyone else with worse day one.  It's really all about the settings and setup here, we can say editing too but there are no muscles to develop such a baseball or golf swing.  There is no need to stretch like gymnastics for years.  Just, try not to be suicidal knowing that you guys know less now.

But seriously, if we go on improper intel it can bring us closer to dying or worse through increasing the chance.

AntDX316 Posted at 8-10 21:46
You can get a full-frame in the air but to have everything sharp requires a huge lens at a high aperture and a long duration shutter speed unless you shoot at a higher ISO.  I have a 61MP camera so I know.  It doesn't matter if you have 61MP if you have blur in the shot (low shutter speed) it's not going to be sharp.

You didnt ask about sharpness but light does not directly equate to sharpness only the ability to use a faster shutter, this in relation to focal length & aperture can impact sharpness and/or DOF in your image. I can photograph in low light obtaining sharp results if the platform the camera is on is stable enough and subject is static. The answer to your question is yes the more light the better the output from the sensor but I thought I covered that already, how you determine how good it is from ok to awesome remains personal analysis and again if you are happy with the output the rest is a pretty moot point.  If the outout is usable I dont see the need for tech specs, science or otherwise just use it, if its not change the tool

BaynhamPhoto Posted at 8-11 03:48
You didnt ask about sharpness but light does not directly equate to sharpness only the ability to use a faster shutter, this in relation to focal length & aperture can impact sharpness and/or DOF in your image. I can photograph in low light obtaining sharp results if the platform the camera is on is stable enough and subject is static. The answer to your question is yes the more light the better the output from the sensor but I thought I covered that already, how you determine how good it is from ok to awesome remains personal analysis and again if you are happy with the output the rest is a pretty moot point.  If the outout is usable I dont see the need for tech specs, science or otherwise just use it, if its not change the tool

I always like the ability to use faster shutter and low ISO.  Obviously it may not be good if the light reflections keep bouncing off the elements inside the lens creating a milk effect if the coatings aren't good.

The only way to tell is to shoot in bright daylight and compare both.  Doing a 48MP one shot is great.  Even if it comes out to look like 20MP that is still great.  Mavic Air is Half the price of the M2P.  When you fly commercially the drones can pay for themselves so looking at the price becomes no object in this area.

AntDX316 Posted at 8-11 03:54
I always like the ability to use faster shutter and low ISO.  Obviously it may not be good if the light reflections keep bouncing off the elements inside the lens creating a milk effect if the coatings aren't good.

Obviously it may not be good if the light reflections keep bouncing off the elements inside the lens creating a milk effect if the coatings aren't good.
Is that still an issue if you use a huge lens?

Labroides Posted at 8-11 04:12
Obviously it may not be good if the light reflections keep bouncing off the elements inside the lens creating a milk effect if the coatings aren't good.
Is that still an issue if you use a huge lens?

With the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 it's not but the lens flare is bad.  The 24-240mm has nice lens flare and it's Great for video for the versatility.  I don't get hundreds and thousands for the jobs I do like other photographers so the equipment I use, it's overkill.  It's just cool to use them and get some money for it that goes towards it's cost.

AntDX316 Posted at 8-11 01:24
I've taken some interior photographs for some clients already.  I have a Sigma 14mm f/1.8 on a Sony A7RIV.

To get an all around corner-to-corner sharp image you need it to be super still at a high aperture.  I like to shoot at ISO-50 and f/13 or higher.  f/16 makes it last super long and if there is a slight movement it will come out like f/13 just with time wasted but from what I've seen they look the same for both interior and exterior.  f/13 and even f/16 is not enough for the 20mm G f/1.8.  At f/22 it's more corner-to-corner sharp but the diffraction is kind of bad.

“Just to get a good insect shot took a lot of time in the heat w/ the 90mm G Macro and most of the images were garbage.  It is not enjoyable.“

Was this just more babbling, you spent 6 or so posts talking about sharpness, then out of nowhere you talk about macro, I’m not certain what macro has to do with sharpness or as you refer to it high aperture.
It really sounds like you read a couple of books and didn’t understand them. Maybe post your photos to explain, not really interested in the real estate photos as 90% of those are taken by bad Hobbyists photographers.

hallmark007 Posted at 8-11 04:22
“Just to get a good insect shot took a lot of time in the heat w/ the 90mm G Macro and most of the images were garbage.  It is not enjoyable.“

Was this just more babbling, you spent 6 or so posts talking about sharpness, then out of nowhere you talk about macro, I’m not certain what macro has to do with sharpness or as you refer to it high aperture.

look at the Architecture section to see the sharpness

Click on Buildings page 2+

AntDX316 Posted at 8-11 04:14
With the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 it's not but the lens flare is bad.  The 24-240mm has nice lens flare and it's Great for video for the versatility.  I don't get hundreds and thousands for the jobs I do like other photographers so the equipment I use, it's overkill.  It's just cool to use them and get some money for it that goes towards it's cost.

I don't get hundreds and thousands for the jobs I do like other photographers.
Really ??    Why not??
You should be ... you use a huge lens?
I was sure that all of us photographers of us were getting that sort of money.

AntDX316 Posted at 8-11 04:50
look at the Architecture section to see the sharpness

Click on Buildings page 2+

You’re a waffler you’ve been waffling around here for so long , you make no sense I’m just hoping you already know this, because if you don’t you might have more problems than you think. Object of the forum is to help not confuse and particularly not confuse yourself .......

Labroides Posted at 8-11 06:27
I don't get hundreds and thousands for the jobs I do like other photographers.
Really ??    Why not??
You should be ... you use a huge lens?

Because the requirement is just a basic DSLR or else they hire other people.

hallmark007 Posted at 8-11 08:01
You’re a waffler you’ve been waffling around here for so long , you make no sense I’m just hoping you already know this, because if you don’t you might have more problems than you think. Object of the forum is to help not confuse and particularly not confuse yourself .......

yeah, we need to start striving on just talking about the results instead of arguing with each other