I returned my M3 and still waiting for a refund, I purchased another as I needed it for a project.. I am seeing similar qualities as the previous drone, center is very good quality then not too far from center it degrades and more on the left.. does anyone else have a dng that I can have a look at, I am worried all of the M3's are like this..
I had this issue with the mavic 2 and after the first replacement I had a good copy... I am not sure if I have just been given two bad copys.
Thanks

Skyris Posted at 12-6 16:13
I returned my M3 and still waiting for a refund, I purchased another as I needed it for a project.. I am seeing similar qualities as the previous drone, center is very good quality then not too far from center it degrades and more on the left.. does anyone else have a dng that I can have a look at, I am worried all of the M3's are like this..
I had this issue with the mavic 2 and after the first replacement I had a good copy... I am not sure if I have just been given two bad copys.
Thanks

Must add that I shot at f5.6 and this should be fine to sharpen the edges, any higher I feel we start to see diffraction

I bought a manufacturer-certified refurbished Air 2S this week. I am seeing very similar problems with sharpness in the left half of all images. Neighbouring areas on all sides are sharp however. Very odd. Here's an improvised test chart photographed at ~1m distance showing the areas affected.

...and here's a 100% crop in Lightroom showing a real world flight shot focused on the same area.

Dom G Posted at 1-27 11:42
I bought a manufacturer-certified refurbished Air 2S this week. I am seeing very similar problems with sharpness in the left half of all images. Neighbouring areas on all sides are sharp however. Very odd. Here's an improvised test chart photographed at ~1m distance showing the areas affected. [view_image]

I had the same issues with the Mavic 2, had a replacement and was good, crahsed it and the third was bad..
Had the same issues with the Air2s sold it
Had the same issue with the mavic 3, replaced it and the new one is not that great.
Mixed bag these mavics... it must be difficult to get that tiny lens to looks sharp across the frame but it hard to know you have a bad one when others are good

Skyris Posted at 1-27 12:24
I had the same issues with the Mavic 2, had a replacement and was good, crahsed it and the third was bad..
Had the same issues with the Air2s sold it
Had the same issue with the mavic 3, replaced it and the new one is not that great.

My Spark didn't seem to have this problem and that's a smaller sensor. None of my smartphones have ever had this problem. I think DJI should make it clear exactly what their quality control threshold is. Canon would never accept this on any camera sensor or lens, regardless of size.

I have bought also DJI mavic 3 some weeks ago but unfortunately I'm not satisfy with the photos . (Videos are perfect) but not photos specially when I take photo near a subject such people . Resolution is very very law
How can I fix it . Does anyone else have same problem ?

Nikzad Lily Posted at 7-31 00:40
I have bought also DJI mavic 3 some weeks ago but unfortunately I'm not satisfy with the photos . (Videos are perfect) but not photos specially when I take photo near a subject such people . Resolution is very very law  
How can I fix it . Does anyone else have same problem ?

Shoot in DNG, make a custom DNG color profile and that's all you can do appart from exposing correctly (Edit: and shoot at F/3.2).

If anyone is wondering why photo quality is quite simmilar to the Air2S and inferior to Autel Evo Lite despite having a better sensor is just because the poor quality of the lens.

Have you ever opened a DNGs of the M3 in RAWDigger? If you do you'll see that the lens circle of image don't cover the entire sensor, so the image has to be cropped, deformed and interpolated by the embeded DNG lens profile so you already begin with a far from optimal image with unevitable soft corners.



If you want image quality, due to physical properties of the light and the lens, the circle of image has to be a bit wider than the sensor because all lenses tend to be more sharp and have less aberrations in the center of the circle.

On drones you allways have to make compromises, if you want a 4/3 sensor and a compact camera body, a wight of less than 900g and a cheap product to mass produce... The result in the M3 is to make a cheap lens and try to solve that by embeding a lens profile.

PS: On the other hand, as pointed in another post, we need a proper color profile for the DNGs as the inbuilt one has clipping issues in the pinks and magenta.

And that being said... all around is the best camera; performance in sunsets/sunrise/bluehour/nightime is just unbeatable atm. Due to the sensor size you get a nice dynamic range and deep blacks with lots of information but it's totally unpolished for photography.

Huginn Kenningar Posted at 7-31 03:31
Shoot in DNG, make a custom DNG color profile and that's all you can do appart from exposing correctly.

If anyone is wondering why photo quality is quite simmilar to the Air2S and inferior to Autel Evo Lite despite having a better sensor is just because the poor quality of the lens.

Just like all raw images there need to be lens corrections and these corrections are added to the software by developing software. Dji dng bakes in the lens corrections to cover distortion and vignetting you see in this image. For instance if you pop in your raw image to LR you will not need to correct vignetting or distortion and for other software programs like luminar who just updated mavic 3 dng files it will be the same.
You can also check and you will see files after are 20.1 mp as per advertising of the lens. Almost all lens both in drones and handheld require corrections for raw images.

Nikzad Lily Posted at 7-31 00:40
I have bought also DJI mavic 3 some weeks ago but unfortunately I'm not satisfy with the photos . (Videos are perfect) but not photos specially when I take photo near a subject such people . Resolution is very very law  
How can I fix it . Does anyone else have same problem ?

Resolution is very very low
How can I fix it . Does anyone else have same problem ?
What do you mean about resolution being low?
The image size (resolution) should always be 5280 x 3956 and nothing should change that.

Without seeing a sample image, no-one knows what your problem is so it's not possible to help.
If you upload an original, full-size image file to dropbox or similar and post a link here, that will help to identify the issue.

Huginn Kenningar Posted at 7-31 03:31
Shoot in DNG, make a custom DNG color profile and that's all you can do appart from exposing correctly.

If anyone is wondering why photo quality is quite simmilar to the Air2S and inferior to Autel Evo Lite despite having a better sensor is just because the poor quality of the lens.

How can you offer to help when you have no idea what his issue is?

hallmark007 Posted at 7-31 04:50
Just like all raw images there need to be lens corrections and these corrections are added to the software by developing software. Dji dng bakes in the lens corrections to cover distortion and vignetting you see in this image. For instance if you pop in your raw image to LR you will not need to correct vignetting or distortion and for other software programs like luminar who just updated mavic 3 dng files it will be the same.
You can also check and you will see files after are 20.1 mp as per advertising of the lens. Almost all lens both in drones and handheld require corrections for raw images.

How do you even know his images are dng files or what might be wrong with them?
It's pointless offering solutions without any idea what the problem is.

Labroides Posted at 7-31 05:06
How do you even know his images are dng files or what might be wrong with them?
It's pointless offering solutions without any idea what the problem is.

“Have you ever opened a DNGs of the M3 in RAWDigger? If you do you'll see that the lens circle of image don't cover the entire sensor, so the image has to be cropped, deformed and interpolated by the embeded DNG lens profile so you already begin with a far from optimal image with unevitable soft corners.”

Above is what he wrote !!!

Do you think he’s talking about Jpegs ?

So in order to find the best settings to improve image quality, and due to this drone having a diaphragm, I performed a test to set wich is the optimal diaphragm to get the best quality (less distortions and diffraction).

I put a sample in front of the landed drone, exported the DNGs to TIFF 16bits without unsharp mask and noise reduction (but of course with the embedded lens profile, as you can't get rid of it while editing the DNGs in Lightroom) and compared the results both visually in Photoshop and with a plot profile in ImageJ.

So the conclusion is that F/3.2 gives the best sharpness, so shoot in pro mode and stick to F/3.2 and 100ISO for the best results (unless night time, which sticking to 100 ISO and F2.8 will give you a slightly faster exposure).

From F/3.5 upwards, the decrease in sharpness is quite noticeable due to diffraction, and it only gets worse every third you close and the increase of depth of field usually means nothing to aerial photography.

hallmark007 Posted at 7-31 05:44
“Have you ever opened a DNGs of the M3 in RAWDigger? If you do you'll see that the lens circle of image don't cover the entire sensor, so the image has to be cropped, deformed and interpolated by the embeded DNG lens profile so you already begin with a far from optimal image with unevitable soft corners.”

Above is what he wrote !!!

Above is what he wrote !!!
Above is what who wrote?
Go back and start again ... the member with a problem was Nikzad Lily.
You are replying to Huginn Kenningar, who was offering suggestions without any idea what the problem was.

Do you think he’s talking about Jpegs ?
I'm not a mindreader so I don't know.
He made no mention of jpg or dng files.

Huginn Kenningar Posted at 7-31 05:54
So in order to find the best settings to improve image quality, and due to this drone having a diaphragm, I performed a test to set wich is the optimal diaphragm to get the best quality (less distortions and diffraction).

I put a sample in front of the landed drone, exported the DNGs to TIFF 16bits without unsharp mask and noise reduction (but of course with the embedded lens profile, as you can't get rid of it while editing the DNGs in Lightroom) and compared the results both visually in Photoshop and with a plot profile in ImageJ.

Why waste all that effort typing solutions when he hasn't provided anything to tell what his issue might be.

Labroides Posted at 7-31 06:38
Above is what he wrote !!!
Above is what who wrote?
Go back and start again ... the member with a problem was Nikzad Lily.

Your right I was replying Huginn and he mentioned a problem with Raw images, I answered it. And you have a problem with that. Tut,,

hallmark007 Posted at 7-31 06:54
Your right I was replying Huginn and he mentioned a problem with Raw images, I answered it. And you have a problem with that. Tut,,

I'm also correct when I say that HK was replying to NL in regards to NL's problem.

And you have a problem with that.
Only trying to explain something simple to you.
Perhaps if you read 3 or 4 more times you might work it out?

Labroides Posted at 7-31 06:57
I'm also correct when I say that HK was replying to NL in regards to NL's problem.

And you have a problem with that.

Nah it’s actually you that has this wrong. You’ll never admit it but I’ll explain once again.

As you said no point in offering up anything or replying to Nikzad, so I didn’t because no information.
But I did reply to Huginn, because there was information from him and he was clearly referring to a known problem with “RAW” files but you read it as I was somehow I was replying to Nikzad, but I wasn’t and if you bothered to read the posts you would have realized that. But you seem more interested In chastising people who don’t conform your jaundiced views on these matters.

hallmark007 Posted at 7-31 04:50
Just like all raw images there need to be lens corrections and these corrections are added to the software by developing software. Dji dng bakes in the lens corrections to cover distortion and vignetting you see in this image. For instance if you pop in your raw image to LR you will not need to correct vignetting or distortion and for other software programs like luminar who just updated mavic 3 dng files it will be the same.
You can also check and you will see files after are 20.1 mp as per advertising of the lens. Almost all lens both in drones and handheld require corrections for raw images.

Yep, all drones come with embedded lens corrections, wich despite the fact the lenses are not interchangeable, they should be optional, because embedded profiles are not perfect and any photographer could do a better job if they want.

We should have the option to deactivate the embedded lens corrections and apply our own corrections (or leave them uncorrected), it should be the photographer's decision, not the manufacturer decision (on the M3 doesn't have any sense to remove the embedded profile because image don't cover the entire sensor, so you'll allways have to crop, but in other drones like the 2S where the circle of image covers the entire sensor it should be optional).

On the other hand, and that was the problem I was pointing, the Mavic 3 is the only drone that I had in wich the image circle doesn't cover the entire sensor, on all the other drones I had (Mini 2, Air2S and Evo Lite+) the image circle of the lens covered the entire sensor.

Original DNGs are 5280x3956 (20.89MP), then the frame is cropped to roughly 5016x3762 (18.87MP) to get rid of the vignetting (wich is not lens vignetting you get on most optics, is lack of circle of image) and then upsampled to 5272x3948 (20.81MP), thus you lose quality, edges become soft, artifacts appear, and you can't do anything about it.

A good optical design leaves a margin between the end of the sensor and the end of the circle of image, because near the limit of the circle of image, the quality of the image is always going to be crappy. But on the M3 that near limit area is in fact a great part of the end image.

In fact, this is what you lose from the crop (above the full image exported with Rawdigger with the circle of image vignetting and with the approx crop painted on red, and then how you get it from Lightroom):





So yep, sensor cropping and lack of camera matching color profiles is a huge issue for a drone that pretends to be professional. They announce it as a 4/3 20MP sensor, which is not, is around 18.8MP and then upsampled, and they announce it has Hasselblad color profile, which it hasn't for the DNGs, and no professional photographer will ever shoot in JPG (wich has an atrocious editing embedded).

This "profesional" drone is far away from the modern FF mirrorless standard as far as for editing options and customization options. I can customize every single useful aspect of the post-process on my R6, and even my old 6D or my 30D from the Cretaceous had more options to customize what I wanted and didn't want to be applied on the image.

...but still the best drone you can get, sadly.

PS: Just look at this approx chart and remove the crop of the M3 sensor... well, not so far from the Air2S (wich ofc also crops a bit, but edges on the 2S could be usable if the lens profile would be optional). Still it's a better sensor with more dynamic range and with shadows full of details, but still you are not getting what you paid for.

Labroides Posted at 7-31 05:05
How can you offer to help when you have no idea what his issue is?

Because if he is complaining about low res he may be using the previews and low res images you get on the phone instead of the actual DNGs on the SD card/internal memmory.

Only the first paragraph was a guess to that subject, the rest of the post was following that "Unhappy Image Quality" this thread was about.

Huginn Kenningar Posted at 7-31 09:14
Because if he is complaining about low res he may be using the previews and low res images you get on the phone instead of the actual DNGs on the SD card/internal memmory.

Only the first paragraph was a guess to that subject, the rest of the post was following that "Unhappy Image Quality" this thread was about.

Perhaps he is looking at the preview image, but he'd never work that out from what you wrote.

My first test images have similar results.  Quite a bit of chroma which the embedded profile still doesn't correct.  And, my findings were that f/5.6 was the sharpest, losing sharpness when going in either direction.  Anything above f/8 went into nearly unusable levels of softness... less so of an issue in video mode, but no good in stills mode.

Regarding the original post, I call those "zones" and I have only seen it once in my 35 career in a zoom lens about 12 years ago. But I am now seeing it in my new Mini 3 Pro and it is exactly like this, makes no sense when one considers typical wide angle image degradation in terms of image circle. I have gotten it to even up a bit by hitting focus in the right side but it is a fixed F1.7 lens so there is only so much I can do.

But this drone, they need to be doing far better in terms of Q/C. I was thinking about getting an M3 this week and then while looking for DNG files from the telephoto lens tonight, saw this. Let me just say the image quality I get from my EVO II Pro Enterprise is darn near perfect, only slight loss of sharpness in the very corners. It smokes my Mini-3 and M2P and the M2P is far better than the original samples I am seeing that started this thread.

I really do hope they tighten things up in terms of image quality, it's the deal maker / breaker for me these days...

KS-6 Posted at 8-11 19:06
Regarding the original post, I call those "zones" and I have only seen it once in my 35 career in a zoom lens about 12 years ago. But I am now seeing it in my new Mini 3 Pro and it is exactly like this, makes no sense when one considers typical wide angle image degradation in terms of image circle. I have gotten it to even up a bit by hitting focus in the right side but it is a fixed F1.7 lens so there is only so much I can do.

But this drone, they need to be doing far better in terms of Q/C. I was thinking about getting an M3 this week and then while looking for DNG files from the telephoto lens tonight, saw this. Let me just say the image quality I get from my EVO II Pro Enterprise is darn near perfect, only slight loss of sharpness in the very corners. It smokes my Mini-3 and M2P and the M2P is far better than the original samples I am seeing that started this thread.

Hi, I am seeing it on 2 x Mavic 2 pros, 2 x Mavic 3's, Air 2s and the Mini 3 pro. Its bad that they send good samples out to youtubers that give it amazing reviews then the copies we receive aren't that great.
I am to really disappointed. The only way I can get the images out to clients is to shoot a few shots in slightly different directions, stitch them together to mask out the blurry spots. its a bad way to work but there isnt much else out there. Autel have a much better picture quality, the nano blows the mini 2 and mini 3 out of the water for detail.... It wasnt great for hovering capabilities..
The camera is the most important part for me on the drone, great to have all the sensors but camera is way more important. I just hope they get this right one day.

Skyris Posted at 8-11 19:32
Hi, I am seeing it on 2 x Mavic 2 pros, 2 x Mavic 3's, Air 2s and the Mini 3 pro. Its bad that they send good samples out to youtubers that give it amazing reviews then the copies we receive aren't that great.
I am to really disappointed. The only way I can get the images out to clients is to shoot a few shots in slightly different directions, stitch them together to mask out the blurry spots. its a bad way to work but there isnt much else out there. Autel have a much better picture quality, the nano blows the mini 2 and mini 3 out of the water for detail.... It wasnt great for hovering capabilities..
The camera is the most important part for me on the drone, great to have all the sensors but camera is way more important. I just hope they get this right one day.

Yeah...let's just say I am hanging on to my Mavic 2 pro. I have 6 still healthy batteries and it all runs flawlessly.

I guess my ideal next drone from DJI would be a Mavic 3 body but with a sharp across the field fixed lens that is maybe not quite so wide and fast. It would also have the portrait option on the gimbal like the Mini-3 does.

Hard to tell how much effort they are going to put into it with the new regs coming online next year...

Well, it's all about compromises, in the end foldable drones are nothing more than glorified webcams and the M3 is making the right choices in most aspects. Agile, <900g design, two optics, high dynamic range, "big" sensor.

If you want the best quality the best thing to do is to pick a hexacopter and attach an FF camera to it, but due to it's weight you won't be able to fly it legally in most places and due to it's bulkiness you won't be flying that thing too much. You can just bring the M3 or a <250g drone with you every day, and in less than 5 min you are flying almost anywhere.

The first time I flew the Mini 2 I instantly noticed that  although being a "webcam", nothing can beat the ability to put the camera in any point of the three-dimensional space and doing that at 30-60Km/h. It's almost like using "photo mode" free camera in videogames.

Autel 1" camera has better optical quality, but has less FOV (82º) and the drone flyes worse/less agile than the 2S/M3. I find the FOV of the Air2S (88º 22mm equivalent) or the bit narrower M3 (84º 24mm equivalent) to be a better choice for aerial photography.

Best quality on the M3 is DNG, F/3.2 and 100ISO. You can bring down the exposure time to even 2-6s depending on the wind conditions and end up with a crisp photo. We are reaching the point of diminishing returns on foildable drones, you won't find anything better than the M3 in the next 5 years at least. FF and true 1" on a foldable <900g will never happen, at least with the current Li-Po batteries, so we'll just see better 4/3 cameras and sensors and better flying behavior.

Just like the R6 and the 6D are 10-12 years appart from each other but you wouldn't be able to tell wich one is wich on a print. R6 destroys the 6D with it's auotofocus and just makes your life as a photographer super easy, but in the end pics are basically the same. We are at that point with drones now.

Huginn Kenningar Posted at 8-12 09:24
Well, it's all about compromises, in the end foldable drones are nothing more than glorified webcams and the M3 is making the right choices in most aspects. Agile,

I have been shooting aerials for over 35 years and the hardware that is not a drone includes small high / fixed wing, helicopters, C-130, P3 Orion and even the back seat of a twin seat F-18. The vast majority of my best selling and strongest aerials have been done with the 35mm equivalent 35mm to 200mm, I find the super wide shots get weak and pointless fast.

The photo in my avatar my wife took of me using a gyro mounted Hasselblad has a 180mm lens on it, equal to about a 105mm in 35mm format. We were at 15,000 feet in a 210 Centurion.

The slightly narrower FOV of the EVO II has been a very welcome aspect in regards to the above, I have had zero issues in flying the EVO. I have toyed with the idea of the Mavic 3 Pro because of the telephoto lens now being able to shoot raw but there are no DNG files to be found that would tell me how it does. And then there is the topic of this thread...

Huginn Kenningar Posted at 8-12 09:24
Well, it's all about compromises, in the end foldable drones are nothing more than glorified webcams and the M3 is making the right choices in most aspects. Agile,

Your right with the hexas, better picture quality but you just cant use them on most jobs. I have had 2 hexas and 1 octa and they are 1. too noisy and 2. so much much vibration in the camera and 3. yes long time to set up.
Even the Inspire 2 can be too noisy for most of my projects early in the morning.
The M3 is a great drone, stable, quiet but the camera lets it down, DJI just need to quality check cameras before being shipped out, the people on youtube who review them seem to get far better copies, I have downloaded files from their sites and they look great but the copies I seem to get have the defocused spots in random places. you need to go through a few drones to find a good one.
If you have a good copy of the M3 camera you have yourself a very good drone.

The mavic 2 lens though slightly narrower gave better quality throught the frame, I would prefer a slightly narrower lens than one that they cant get right.

Skyris Posted at 2021-12-6 16:13
I returned my M3 and still waiting for a refund, I purchased another as I needed it for a project.. I am seeing similar qualities as the previous drone, center is very good quality then not too far from center it degrades and more on the left.. does anyone else have a dng that I can have a look at, I am worried all of the M3's are like this..
I had this issue with the mavic 2 and after the first replacement I had a good copy... I am not sure if I have just been given two bad copys.
Thanks

My two day old Mavic 3 Cine is showing exactly the same issue, total garbage image quality out of the main camera for $5K. I sent support a message with a link to controlled tests. I also flew all 4 of my drones and the Mavic 3 was by far the worst. The Mini 3 was a bit inconsistent, mostly better or equal, sometimes worse. The M2P beat it in every case and the EVO II just blew them all away, near perfect image quality.

This is super frustrating, no excuse at this price point.

FB: GeoDrone4K Posted at 2021-11-22 22:25
Is Hasselblad quality, stop complaining )))))
That is happening when you buy a half made drone, wait for the updates.

This is a nonsense comment.

KS-6 Posted at 8-18 19:47
My two day old Mavic 3 Cine is showing exactly the same issue, total garbage image quality out of the main camera for $5K. I sent support a message with a link to controlled tests. I also flew all 4 of my drones and the Mavic 3 was by far the worst. The Mini 3 was a bit inconsistent, mostly better or equal, sometimes worse. The M2P beat it in every case and the EVO II just blew them all away, near perfect image quality.

This is super frustrating, no excuse at this price point.

Are you on the latest firmware everywhere?

Droningalex Alex B. Posted at 8-25 16:21
Are you on the latest firmware everywhere?

Yes to the latest firmware on what is now TWO of these drones that have garbage image quality.

The first one from two weeks ago was unacceptable in the left upper corner but it was gradual. The replacement I got earlier this week shows it more like the original poster's first one, an odd isolated zone of blurry image quality regardless of aperture.

I am just stunned at how bad this main camera is in every single sample I have ever seen. How can anyone who is spending $2,000 to $5,000+ on this say it is ok when Mini 3 pro's and Mavic 2 Pros are just utterly *spanking* it??

This is just fully F__ked up!!

KS-6 Posted at 8-27 14:16
Yes to the latest firmware on what is now TWO of these drones that have garbage image quality.

The first one from two weeks ago was unacceptable in the left upper corner but it was gradual. The replacement I got earlier this week shows it more like the original poster's first one, an odd isolated zone of blurry image quality regardless of aperture.

I own a mini 3 and M2p and they don’t even com close to spanking the M3 quite the opposite….

hallmark007 Posted at 8-27 14:57
I own a mini 3 and M2p and they don’t even com close to spanking the M3 quite the opposite….

I'd love to see a sample, because every single one I have encountered is not good.

I just showed my wife the comparisons of all mine and she noticed right away. And we are talking resolving power, in focus areas and overall sharpness, not dynamic range, etc.

For photography I picked the "cheap" M3 combo, so it ended costing me around 1800€ on Amazon, which seems ok compared to my previous Air2S and Lite+. Cine versions with the SSD have the same photo quality than the "cheap" one so as a photographer I didn't find it interesting.

Drones are designed with the videography side of things in mind rather than photography. It's not like they are photography cameras that can make videos, like most DSLRs/mirrorless... they are video cameras that can take stills. The lens is cheap and has vignetting and the DNGs get cropped and resampled, but for videography the sensor is already cropping the corners of the image circle, so IQ is not that bad, but for photography...

Autel drones have better optical quality (at least the 1" camera), and other DJI drones image circle covers the entire sensor (Air2s, Mini2, Mini3, etc) and don't crop the image that far. Based on my testing, M3 has the poorest lens around but the best sensor, so you'll get better dynamic range/less noise, but sharpness is not that good because poor optical quality and cropping/upscaling.

With that vast experience you have doing aerial photography with good equipment I think you'll find foldable drones can't keep up with the IQ, maybe you should think of getting a big drone with a big gimbal and use a FF camera on it, it's more bulky, but IQ of a R5 or R6 and a nice lens will just destroy the "webcam" you have on foldable drones and it will cost around the same than the M3 cine version.

Huginn Kenningar Posted at 8-28 03:26
For photography I picked the "cheap" M3 combo, so it ended costing me around 1800€ on Amazon, which seems ok compared to my previous Air2S and Lite+. Cine versions with the SSD have the same photo quality than the "cheap" one so as a photographer I didn't find it interesting.

Drones are designed with the videography side of things in mind rather than photography. It's not like they are photography cameras that can make videos, like most DSLRs/mirrorless... they are video cameras that can take stills. The lens is cheap and has vignetting and the DNGs get cropped and resampled, but for videography the sensor is already cropping the corners of the image circle, so IQ is not that bad, but for photography...

I have thought about a larger bird with a proper camera system but since I am more than happy with the Mavic 2 Pro and especially the EVO II Pro, I think I can hold off awhile.

That being said, the stitched files I am getting out of the 7X cam after souping them in DXO Pure Raw are just amazing, easily DSLR like quality and 30-60MP in size to boot.

That makes keeping or parting with this drone a hard choice to make.

KS-6 Posted at 8-28 11:19
I have thought about a larger bird with a proper camera system but since I am more than happy with the Mavic 2 Pro and especially the EVO II Pro, I think I can hold off awhile.

That being said, the stitched files I am getting out of the 7X cam after souping them in DXO Pure Raw are just amazing, easily DSLR like quality and 30-60MP in size to boot.

You cannot compare the premium optics from EvoII Pro and the DAC signal from Sony IMX383 from Autel with the cheap Mavic 3 and a sensor that is totally lame implemented.
Probably sensor is better, but at this point I consider returning M3 as is far from the quality expected. Cannot pay more than EvoII Pro and get lame quality in video...
And is too bad, as the capabilities of M3 could be better than Autel, but DJI was again like all chineze companies: cheap and low cost materials in order to increase profits.

Geo_Drone Posted at 9-1 00:46
You cannot compare the premium optics from EvoII Pro and the DAC signal from Sony IMX383 from Autel with the cheap Mavic 3 and a sensor that is totally lame implemented.
Probably sensor is better, but at this point I consider returning M3 as is far from the quality expected. Cannot pay more than EvoII Pro and get lame quality in video...
And is too bad, as the capabilities of M3 could be better than Autel, but DJI was again like all chineze companies: cheap and low cost materials in order to increase profits.

You do realize that autel is a Chinese company and the choice of 5% of drone users , obviously the other 95% know nothing about videography/photography…

hallmark007 Posted at 9-1 03:13
You do realize that autel is a Chinese company and the choice of 5% of drone users , obviously the other 95% know nothing about videography/photography…

I do realize...also compared both, it can be seen the quality from Autel in video, also the quality of DJI in drone. Too bad that cannot be mixed, would be a perfect drone:  Autel camera and DJI body.