Besides the apertures, wondering if there are any other difference between:
Mavic 3 Pro ½ inch 166mm Telephote lens (f/3.4)vs
Original Mavic 3 ½ inch 162mm Telephoto lens (f/4.4)

If so, what are the specs?  
I read a lot of complaints about the M3's ½ inch telephoto lens.  That it was basically unusuable for media content.  Too blurry, pixilated etc...
Wondering if the M3 Pro addressed those concerns and pumped up the hardware a little.  
Thx


/l , [____],
l----L -OlllllllO-
()_) ()_)------)_)

Hi, McDego. Thank you for reaching out. The telephoto lens from the Mavic 3 and Mavic 3 Pro has no differences. The same lenses were used with the Mavic 3 Pro drones. Also, there's no known issue with the telephoto lens of the Mavic 3 but in case you experience any issues, please don't hesitate to contact us. We'll be more than happy to assist you. Thank you for your support.

DJI Gamora Posted at 5-10 01:53
Hi, McDego. Thank you for reaching out. The telephoto lens from the Mavic 3 and Mavic 3 Pro has no differences. The same lenses were used with the Mavic 3 Pro drones. Also, there's no known issue with the telephoto lens of the Mavic 3 but in case you experience any issues, please don't hesitate to contact us. We'll be more than happy to assist you. Thank you for your support.

The Pro has a lens with aperture f/3.4, The original Mavic 3 has f/4.4. That is quite a big difference. If it is the same lens, why is the aperture larger in the Mavic 3 Pro? In other words, how can the lens in the Pro let in more light to the sensor if it is the same lens and sensor?

Besides the apertures, wondering if there are any other difference between:
It's a completely different lens and comes up very well in my early testing. my testing

If so, what are the specs?
You posted them above.

I read a lot of complaints about the M3's ½ inch telephoto lens.  That it was basically unusuable for media content.  Too blurry, pixilated etc...
The original tele lens wasn't as bad as some users thought.
It wasn't blurry at all.
Pixelated?  Whoever suggested that doesn't know what the word means.

I managed to get some very nice images with it, but if you increased ISO, the tiny sensor didn't handle that very well.
But the new improved tele camera is conspicuously better.
I'm very pleased with it and will be using it a lot.

Labroides Posted at 5-10 04:39
Besides the apertures, wondering if there are any other difference between:
It's a completely different lens and comes up very well in my early testing. my testing

Thx for the reply. I think I’m sold.

ArcticPhoto Posted at 5-10 02:32
The Pro has a lens with aperture f/3.4, The original Mavic 3 has f/4.4. That is quite a big difference. If it is the same lens, why is the aperture larger in the Mavic 3 Pro? In other words, how can the lens in the Pro let in more light to the sensor if it is the same lens and sensor?

Good point. Thx for the reply.

Labroides Posted at 5-10 04:39
Besides the apertures, wondering if there are any other difference between:
It's a completely different lens and comes up very well in my early testing. my testing

Agree completely. I have the M3 Cine and found the telephoto to be pretty decent when used correctly. But the new 166mm is measurably better in terms of overall resolving power.

ArcticPhoto Posted at 5-10 02:32
The Pro has a lens with aperture f/3.4, The original Mavic 3 has f/4.4. That is quite a big difference. If it is the same lens, why is the aperture larger in the Mavic 3 Pro? In other words, how can the lens in the Pro let in more light to the sensor if it is the same lens and sensor?

Hi, ArcticPhoto. Thank you for the correction, as per checking with our relevant team, there are telephoto lens differences between the Mavic 3 and Mavic 3 Pro. Please see the details on the image below:

Thank you for your kind understanding.

Higher resolution and wider f3.4

Definitely not the same, images I've seen from it look better imo, sharper for sure.
The m3 7x was good... if the thing got focus dead on