CloudVisual
Core User of DJI
Flight distance : 97545420 ft
United Kingdom
Offline
|
CalebSpillyards Posted at 8-13 10:30
clearly not ideal conditions, but thats the way the cookie crumbles when he sun is going down and there are epic cascading waterfalls and crazy swell. Noise was to be expected, the banding seems excessive. ive pushed my 5d mark 1 - 4 and my r5 to very high noise levels testing, and in other not ideal conditions and while ive gotten a lot of noise in color and luminance channels ive never seen banding like this that was in the entire clip. but then again admittedly im not as knowledgeable about the sensors and cameras on the mavics. 1600 wouldn't do anything on my dslr slomotion or not. Why is it so much worse on these cameras?
I'm left scratching my head at your comment...
You're asking; why would a full frame camera perform so much better than a flying MFT sensor. I also owned a 5D and currently own an R5 and these are cameras that professionals are happy to rely on. You can't compare these DSLR cameras to what is essentially a stripped down, consumer-grade, flying camera. DJI had to cut a lot of corners to get a lightweight drone to market.
What you're basically saying is, I can't understand why my Honda can't keep up with my Ferrari.
Granted, banding isn't something I'd expect from a camera being pushed too far, but I never venture into any ISO higher than 400 on these drones due to the noise issues. I firmly beleive though, that slomo and high ISO could lead to some unusual artefacts given the bitrate constraints combined with noise.
If you want to get the same results as you do from your DSLRs then you need to look at the Inspire 3 series, which aligns with the pro-level you're asking for.
|
|