A major test for my new Mini 2 today.


I  was never really happy with the image quality on my Mini 1. The jpg had  limited editing ability. As a photographer, it's mainly the still  images I capture.

This taken today with my shiny Mini 2 as a panorama  and the resulting DNG file edited in Adobe Lightroom.
First is the full image (not full quality here to keep within the forum 2MB limit)), the second is a crop of the same image showing the detail captured.

I'm impressed and happy.

looks nice, you did it manually i assume, as the automatic panorama dng files are having white balance issues.

If you are so finicky about image quality, why persevere with a camera with a tiny sensor and fixed aperture?
Raw files won't overcome those limitations.

Labroides Posted at 12-1 15:53
If you are so finicky about image quality, why persevere with a camera with a tiny sensor and fixed aperture?
Raw files won't overcome those limitations.

Dear Labroides, I'm afraid you're a bit behind with your Phantoms ... You wouldn't believe what these little Mavic toys can deliver these days ...

Mini2 quality is more than enough... yep, it's a mobile phone camera, but you can put it anywhere in the tridimensional space, so it beats any two dimensional (handheld) camera.

Of course you can put an SLR on a big bulky and expensive drone, pay a pilot course, obtain a permit for the flight... Or you can just bring the mini2 with you anywhere, and fly it anywhere, and just be able to capture the shot you want in a 3 Km area without anyone even noticing.

Ease of use beats quality unless you are being payed a lot for the job. Mini2 is coming with me anywhere, while an air 2 with 3 batts would stay home for the most part of the time.

The mini sensor is the same size as the Mavic Pro. So it's more than capable of producing good quality images. Actually better than the MP with the much more powerful Ambarella processor.

My advice though if you want the very best quality image, is to shoot manual at ISO 100. It will minimise any noise in the images which can be an issue with smaller sensor sizes.

Huginn Keningar Posted at 12-1 17:27
Mini2 quality is more than enough... yep, it's a mobile phone camera, but you can put it anywhere in the tridimensional space, so it beats any two dimensional (handheld) camera.

Of course you can put an SLR on a big bulky and expensive drone, pay a pilot course, obtain a permit for the flight... Or you can just bring the mini2 with you anywhere, and fly it anywhere, and just be able to capture the shot you want in a 3 Km area without anyone even noticing.

Of course you can put an SLR on a big bulky and expensive drone, pay a pilot course, obtain a permit for the flight... Or you can just bring the mini2 with you anywhere, and fly it anywhere

Those aren't the only options available to you.
DJI make a couple of consumer drones with camera sensors 4 times larger and with controllable apertures.

itsdavesdrone Posted at 12-1 18:32
The mini sensor is the same size as the Mavic Pro. So it's more than capable of producing good quality images. Actually better than the MP with the much more powerful Ambarella processor.

My advice though if you want the very best quality image, is to shoot manual at ISO 100. You will need ND filters to be able to reduce it to that though but it will minimise any noise in the images which can be an issue with smaller sensor sizes.

My advice though if you want the very best quality image, is to shoot manual at ISO 100. You will need ND filters to be able to reduce it to that though but it will minimise any noise in the images which can be an issue with smaller sensor sizes.

My advice would be to learn a bit more about photography.
Whatever you are thinking about ND filters is quite wrong

itsdavesdrone Posted at 12-1 18:32
The mini sensor is the same size as the Mavic Pro. So it's more than capable of producing good quality images. Actually better than the MP with the much more powerful Ambarella processor.

My advice though if you want the very best quality image, is to shoot manual at ISO 100. You will need ND filters to be able to reduce it to that though but it will minimise any noise in the images which can be an issue with smaller sensor sizes.

Wait a minute ... Why would I need a ND filter for still aerial photography? Set the ISO to 100, set to manual, fixed aperture on whatever it is, and adjust shutter speed only ... What am I missing here, not having access to MM2?

Hello there Corsairoz. Thank you for reaching out and for sharing your positive feedback for the image quality of your DJI Mini 2. By the ways great captures. Thank you for your support and keep on flying.

Looks amazing

Labroides Posted at 12-1 18:34
Of course you can put an SLR on a big bulky and expensive drone, pay a pilot course, obtain a permit for the flight... Or you can just bring the mini2 with you anywhere, and fly it anywhere

Those aren't the only options available to you.

And most likely 4 times the price. Accept it, the Mini 2 is a very capable little drone which people are absolutely loving.

This was at auto ISO and Auto WB. I am a photographer and do understand the technicals.

I shot with the auto panorama, auto white balance and auto everything else.

What I did do was to stitch the images together in Lightroom, and NOT the DJI software. As a part of that process the images are colour balanced as well as aligned. I recommend trying it, its way better than in the in-DJI results.

And for me, portability is the key. I'm not a pixel peeker. I'm confident that images such as this will print up to a large size if needed. And certainly fine for any use I plan for it.

I'm happy with my little Mini 2.

C

djiuser_F8NERRlBIjoJ Posted at 12-1 23:56
And most likely 4 times the price. Accept it, the Mini 2 is a very capable little drone which people are absolutely loving.

If paying 3 times as much is too much for you and you don't really want image quality, enjoy your entry-level drone.
But don't fool yourself about what it's capable of.

Great Shots    

It looks good (considering the image was taken with a small camera )

Awesome shots

I really would like to see a comparison of 3 pics ... can someone show this ? So an original jpg (of course with good photo settings), an edited jpg and an edited raw. I doubt an edited jpg is worse than an edited raw. Ok, I must say...it's always subjective...e.g for me the sky of the picture above doesn't look good....others will say "beautiful sky".

Labroides Posted at 12-1 18:38
My advice though if you want the very best quality image, is to shoot manual at ISO 100. You will need ND filters to be able to reduce it to that though but it will minimise any noise in the images which can be an issue with smaller sensor sizes.

My advice would be to learn a bit more about photography.

right indeed.

ND filters will breng down the amount of light, but won't reduce the noise level of the sensor.

I'm still amazed of what comes out of the RAW pics of this little drone. I rather use my M2P for the better still pictures. But, this one is great for portability when I don't drag my camera bag with me or at places where there are limitations to fly with a bigger drone. I think it is more acceptable by a lot of "non-flying" people because of the lesser noise. At least the image quality is better than my first mavic pro.

Matthew Dobrski Posted at 12-1 18:47
Wait a minute ... Why would I need a ND filter for still aerial photography? Set the ISO to 100, set to manual, fixed aperture on whatever it is, and adjust shutter speed only ... What am I missing here, not having access to MM2?

Hi Matthew,

the only reason, why you should use ND filters in still photography is to reduce the shutter speed. That could be interesting to show movement in water in landscape photography. ND has absolutely no other effects than to slow down your shutterspeed. No effect on sensor noise at all.

Very nice captures!

By the way what is that Pyramid shaped building?

videoeditman Posted at 12-2 05:51
By the way what is that Pyramid shaped building?

It's actually a folly. Its a memorial of a rich landowner to his favourite horse.....  in 1734.

There are plaques on the interior and exterior of the monument, which read:
"Underneath lies buried a horse, the property of Paulet St. John Esq., that in the month of September 1733 leaped into a chalk pit twenty-five feet deep afoxhuntiing with his master on his back and in October 1734 he won the Hunters Plate on Worthy Downs and was rode by his owner and was entered in the name of "Beware Chalk Pit"

jonny007 Posted at 12-2 04:44
I really would like to see a comparison of 3 pics ... can someone show this ? So an original jpg (of course with good photo settings), an edited jpg and an edited raw. I doubt an edited jpg is worse than an edited raw. Ok, I must say...it's always subjective...e.g for me the sky of the picture above doesn't look good....others will say "beautiful sky".

JPG is a compressed 8 bit file with embedded color profile, which means you can't do much editing and things like the unsharp mask, white balance or the noise reduction filter have already been applied by the camera.

With a RAW file you can start by applying your own DNG profile made with an X-Rite Color Checker or just use any other standard color profile and then start to edit based on your own knowledge. For any photographer, editing a full depth unprocessed image will always deliver much better results than editing a JPG or use the JPG edited by the camera.

Edited Mini 2 DNGs above, JPGs straigt from the camera below... you can edit JPGs, but it's a little bit nonsense having the DNGs at your disposal:

Labroides Posted at 12-2 01:45
If paying 3 times as much is too much for you and you don't really want image quality, enjoy your entry-level drone.
But don't fool yourself about what it's capable of.

He is not fooling himself. He just likes his mini 2 and the images he gets with it. The same as you with your phantoms, I guess. Nothing wrong with that!

JohnDG Posted at 12-2 05:41
Hi Matthew,

the only reason, why you should use ND filters in still photography is to reduce the shutter speed. That could be interesting to show movement in water in landscape photography. ND has absolutely no other effects than to slow down your shutterspeed. No effect on sensor noise at all.

"ND has absolutely no other effects than to slow down your shutterspeed."

Not true at all. An ND filter reduces the amount of light arriving at the sensor. Depending upon the camera features, you can use that to open the aperture, slow the shutter or increase the ISO level for whatever reason you wish.

Geebax Posted at 12-2 15:23
"ND has absolutely no other effects than to slow down your shutterspeed."

Not true at all. An ND filter reduces the amount of light arriving at the sensor. Depending upon the camera features, you can use that to open the aperture, slow the shutter or increase the ISO level for whatever reason you wish.

the mini 2 has fixed aperture. Putting the ISO higher will only raise the amount of noise.
Changing the aperture on a M2P or phantom could change depth-of-field, but on the Mini it makes only sense to slow the shutter.

JohnDG Posted at 12-2 15:30
the mini 2 has fixed aperture. Putting the ISO higher will only raise the amount of noise.
Changing the aperture on a M2P or phantom could change depth-of-field, but on the Mini it makes only sense to slow the shutter.

Yes, you can use ND filters in photos to get some nice smooth water movements and things like that. They are obviously better used with video for natural motion blur but when I fly I have them on sometimes because I shoot pics and videos in between. Just have to be wary that some things like cars moving can get motion blur on them with nd filters. I tend to do one battery as video mainly then when I come back to swap batteries take off the filter and get some sharper pics with faster shutter speeds.
Either way, some people here saying the camera is crap becsause the sensor is so small etc is talking garbage. That's like saying mobile phone pics are garbage. We all know that isn't true and like I said the Mavic Pro and things like Mavic Air had the same sensor size and those produce some great images. Technology has come a long way. It's always the same guys arguing about stuff they obviously have no idea about. They come on here trying to sound like they know everything but they know nothing... lol

Huginn Keningar Posted at 12-2 14:58
JPG is a compressed 8 bit file with embedded color profile, which means you can't do much editing and things like the unsharp mask, white balance or the noise reduction filter have already been applied by the camera.

With a RAW file you can start by applying your own DNG profile made with an X-Rite Color Checker or just use any other standard color profile and then start to edit based on your own knowledge. For any photographer, editing a full depth unprocessed image will always deliver much better results than editing a JPG or use the JPG edited by the camera.

Nice job on these, and a good demo of the advantages of RAW.

itsdavesdrone Posted at 12-2 16:16
Yes, you can use ND filters in photos to get some nice smooth water movements and things like that. They are obviously better used with video for natural motion blur but when I fly I have them on sometimes because I shoot pics and videos in between. Just have to be wary that some things like cars moving can get motion blur on them with nd filters. I tend to do one battery as video mainly then when I come back to swap batteries take off the filter and get some sharper pics with faster shutter speeds.
Either way, some people here saying the camera is crap becsause the sensor is so small etc is talking garbage. That's like saying mobile phone pics are garbage. We all know that isn't true and like I said the Mavic Pro and things like Mavic Air had the same sensor size and those produce some great images. Technology has come a long way. It's always the same guys arguing about stuff they obviously have no idea about. They come on here trying to sound like they know everything but they know nothing... lol

We all know that isn't true and like I said the Mavic Pro and things like Mavic Air had the same sensor size and those produce some great images. Technology has come a long way.
yeah yeah ... the Mini 2 is the best flying camera in the world because technology has come so far.
Nothing else can match it

It's always the same guys arguing about stuff they obviously have no idea about. They come on here trying to sound like they know everything but they know nothing... lol


LOL .. this from the guy that said .. My advice though if you want the very best quality image, is to shoot manual at ISO 100. You will need ND filters to be able to reduce it to that though but it will minimise any noise in the images which can be an issue with smaller sensor sizes.
If you have much photographic knowledge, you aren't very good at communicating it.

itsdavesdrone Posted at 12-2 16:16
Yes, you can use ND filters in photos to get some nice smooth water movements and things like that. They are obviously better used with video for natural motion blur but when I fly I have them on sometimes because I shoot pics and videos in between. Just have to be wary that some things like cars moving can get motion blur on them with nd filters. I tend to do one battery as video mainly then when I come back to swap batteries take off the filter and get some sharper pics with faster shutter speeds.
Either way, some people here saying the camera is crap becsause the sensor is so small etc is talking garbage. That's like saying mobile phone pics are garbage. We all know that isn't true and like I said the Mavic Pro and things like Mavic Air had the same sensor size and those produce some great images. Technology has come a long way. It's always the same guys arguing about stuff they obviously have no idea about. They come on here trying to sound like they know everything but they know nothing... lol

Well Dave,

I mainly do landscape photography. You always want to get as much sharp as possible. It's different from portrait photography where you sometimes want to blur out things using a wider apperture.
Where you do want to use ND filters is to get motion blur, like water or to emphazise speed like with cars.

I mainly use a M2P, because it gives a good quality and fits in my camera bag with my other gear. I did buy a Mini2, because it has RAW and withstand the wind a bit better than the first edition. Can't compare it with the pictures I get from the M2P, but I can't compare the price either. Using AEB, I found that the Mini2 gave me surprisingly nice pictures, considering the low price. It's light, small and easy to breng in it's own little bag. I used it to get some surveying of the property where I'm building my new house. The only thing that is important for me are the RAW images. I got detail, color, sharpness.

You can't compare it with a drone that is more than 4 times expensive. For it's price, you get a whole lot and the pics aren't bad at all.  The Mini2 won't replacing my M2P in my camera bag. It has it's own purpose for me. Small, light and less noisy. Good for the places where I can't fly my M2P because of regulations. The main thing in photography is that you get the picture, no matter the quality. It is better to get the picture than not having a picture.

Corsairoz Posted at 12-2 07:14
It's actually a folly. Its a memorial of a rich landowner to his favourite horse.....  in 1734.

There are plaques on the interior and exterior of the monument, which read:

Nice picture. And thanks for the explaination, that adds a lot to the story.

Keep up the good work and fly safe.

JohnDG Posted at 12-2 18:42
Well Dave,

I mainly do landscape photography. You always want to get as much sharp as possible. It's different from portrait photography where you sometimes want to blur out things using a wider apperture.

Yeah for sure man. I love my mini but ended up getting an Air 2 because I'd sort of outgrown it. Things like strong winds and the gimbal jump was a nightmare on the mini when I was doing topdowns, having to correct it all the time was annoying. Even the new mini has more problems with gimbal jumps in sport mode and high winds due to it's increased pitch angle. It's good for what it is though and the camera quality is good enough for most things.

JohnDG Posted at 12-2 15:30
the mini 2 has fixed aperture. Putting the ISO higher will only raise the amount of noise.
Changing the aperture on a M2P or phantom could change depth-of-field, but on the Mini it makes only sense to slow the shutter.

Your post was a geneal comment, it did not seem aimed at the Min, and neither was my answer. If you look again, I said "depending upon the camera features".

Huginn Keningar Posted at 12-2 14:58
JPG is a compressed 8 bit file with embedded color profile, which means you can't do much editing and things like the unsharp mask, white balance or the noise reduction filter have already been applied by the camera.

With a RAW file you can start by applying your own DNG profile made with an X-Rite Color Checker or just use any other standard color profile and then start to edit based on your own knowledge. For any photographer, editing a full depth unprocessed image will always deliver much better results than editing a JPG or use the JPG edited by the camera.

Thanks Huginn Keningar for the comparison. As I said, it is always a subjective opinion whether and how good a picture is. It depends on personal preferences, so there are people who like it warmer (more reddish), others natural (more greenish) or colder (more bluish) or again others who prefer bright candy colors. I find your 2nd and 4th picture nice, the 1st and 3rd too red/purple FOR ME. I think you can get (almost) the same result if you edit the JPG, but ok, you're right, if you have DNG available, it makes sense to edit this one. Here 2 pictures of my Mini 1, a manual panorama of 3 pictures. Below JPG directly from the camera, above JPG edited.

Geebax Posted at 12-2 21:53
Your post was a geneal comment, it did not seem aimed at the Min, and neither was my answer. If you look again, I said "depending upon the camera features".

It is totally technically correct what you said, Geebax.

It doesn't make much sense thou to get an higher ISO, as you want to keep the noise low.

And in landscape photography, you do want as much sharpness you can get. So, having a wider aperture isn't something you want either. The one and only purpose that makes sence for still landscape photography is to reduce your shutterspeed, to get motion blur in water or moving objects.

Depending on the light, I sometimes use high ND values on my M2P, depending on the light and wind. The wind sometimes makes it difficult using those filters, althou the M2P is quite good handling wind. My only purpose to make use of ND filters in still photography is to show movement in water.

I'm not so much of a videographer. My drone usage is more for landscape photography.

jonny007 Posted at 12-3 00:26
Thanks Huginn Keningar for the comparison. As I said, it is always a subjective opinion whether and how good a picture is. It depends on personal preferences, so there are people who like it warmer (more reddish), others natural (more greenish) or colder (more bluish) or again others who prefer bright candy colors. I find your 2nd and 4th picture nice, the 1st and 3rd too red/purple FOR ME. I think you can get (almost) the same result if you edit the JPG, but ok, you're right, if you have DNG available, it makes sense to edit this one. Here 2 pictures of my Mini 1, a manual panorama of 3 pictures. Below JPG directly from the camera, above JPG edited.

[view_image]

For example If you had the DNG of that photo you could probably "rescue" some information of those upper left clouds, or from the shadows of the trees... Rescuing the highlights/shadows is one of the principal benefits of RAW files.

I've been shooting RAW on all my cameras since 2006 and never turn back to JPGs, just import them to Lightroom and the workflow it's super easy.

The more bits of depth you get, the more you can play before clipping shadows, highlights, colors, etc, no matter the result, you can still blow up highlights in DNGs or change colours, add noise or whatever you want. RAWS are just a bigger playroom than JPGs, and you can still shoot 2.000 DNGs with a 64GB 14€ microSD card, so no reason to stick to JPGs unless you want to upload it immediately as you fly.

Before 2006, I shooted mostly JPGs because on DSLRs of that era you had lots of limitations in the buffer size or the size of the XD cards, but nowadays 64GB cards are super inexpensive, HDDs are super inexpensive, Lightroom it's super easy to use and you get all the information the sensor gathered to play around.

On the mini 2 I only shoot JPG on the 360 panoramas, but for a professional 360 work I'd use the DNGs stitched with PTGui and you get a 170MP image

Huginn Keningar Posted at 2020-12-2 14:58
JPG is a compressed 8 bit file with embedded color profile, which means you can't do much editing and things like the unsharp mask, white balance or the noise reduction filter have already been applied by the camera.

With a RAW file you can start by applying your own DNG profile made with an X-Rite Color Checker or just use any other standard color profile and then start to edit based on your own knowledge. For any photographer, editing a full depth unprocessed image will always deliver much better results than editing a JPG or use the JPG edited by the camera.

On the pictures with the semis, if you zoom in on the bikers, you can really see the difference in quality.

Very cool thank you

Am I alone in thinking that a lot of the time too much is done on editing photos? Quite a few times I have viewed photographs/videos on here and thought, "no, it just looks fake". Colours are too vivid, sea/sky too blue, grass too green etc etc. What is wrong with seeing things in their natural colours/states. I'm remembered of the old adage, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".