Landey
 lvl.4
Germany
Offline
|
My Nano Plus is on transit from Hong Kong to Germany.
As DJI didn't give any proof of the Mini 3 a) coming at all, b) it's camera being better than the one of Mini 1 and 2, I decided to stop waiting.
I got hold of RAW pictures of the same subjects taken with Mavic 3 and Nano Plus, had a close look and compared them.
These are my findings (translated from German to English via Google Translate for laziness reasons, so expect some strange formulations):
---
I took out two DNGs, developed them with Affinity Photo and post-processed them: exposure, contrast, white balance, slightly sharpened, slight S-curve, some "clarity".
Both photos look good, the photo of the Mavic still looks a bit more natural to me in the end result, although of course I wasn't there.
In terms of sharpness, both don't differ much, the Nano brings a little more detail and more dynamics, the Mavic shows slight chromatic aberration, the Nano has quite strong vignetting and distortion towards the corners of the image - I couldn't compensate because I lack the lens profile. The nano removes the vignetting perfectly in JPGs, but the distortions towards the corners of the image can also be seen in the JPGs. Noise is similar on both cameras, with a slight edge on the Nano. As expected, the Nano emphasizes yellow tones a little more. Both cameras deliver fairly good RAW footage that is easy to work with. Through processing, you can achieve a very similar level of sharpness with both sensors, so they don't do anything to each other. The main difference lies in the internal JPG post-processing, which is much more aggressive with the Nano.
With the JPGs, both manufacturers are of course waving around quite a bit, the Nano overdoes it when it comes to sharpness, which shows the typical “sharpness worms” that often occur with sensors with two green or yellow subpixels. There is still a better algorithm missing, the Nano is still on an older (before subscription rip-off) Lighroom level. DJI takes a slightly more conservative approach, the resharpening isn't as obvious.
If you don't zoom in, the nano photos appear crisper right away and convey a stronger impression of depth - this may also be due to the probably slightly better dynamic range.
Post-processing gets both cameras to about the same level; but it's just extra work. If you just want to show off a few photos or videos that everyone thinks are great right away, the Nano is a good choice. If you want it to be more natural, you have to use the RAW files on the Nano. With the Mavic, on the other hand, you get more natural pictures with the JPGs, you have to use RAW if you want it to be as crisp as with the Nano.
In the end, both cameras are on a similar level; it just depends on what you get from the memory card "in the first place" and what you want to achieve through post-processing. I'm lazy by nature, so I'll probably buy another Nano+ - everything looks impressive from the get-go; and if I want it to be more natural, I just take the RAW photos. It is amazing that Autel was able to fit such a good camera into a drone that weighs less than 250 g. If the Mavic 3 were also under 250g, I would have a hard time choosing. But since I don't feel like massive restrictions and the financial "purchase resistance" of the Mavic 3 is quite unpleasant, only the Nano Plus comes into question.
---
That's my findings working with real RAW images from both cameras.
The Mini 2 camera is NO match at all, let's face it.
So if DJI fails to get the Mini 3's camera up to Mavic 3 level (which I doubt), it still won't be a match to the Autel's picture quality.
But - the world is full of wonders, you never know. 
I'll of course keep my Mini 2: It's a great and swift drone, flies like hell - and it's unbeatable given the price.
|
|
lvl.1
Captain
First Officer
lvl.3
lvl.2
