Hi All,

I am a professional photographer and over the past couple of years I have been using the Air 2s to shoot stills with good results (its not a Nikon D850 but it works).
I am giving thought to moving up to a bigger drone (in the under 2Kg class) and I am wondering if anyone on this forum can tell me their experience between shooting stills on the Air 2s and the newer Mavic 3 Pro.

More specifically, I am wondering if there is much visual difference in the RAW file between the two drones at the 24mm setting.
The image below is typical of some of my work... this was shot half an hour after sunset with a 1/2 second exposure.

cheers, Ants

I have upgraded from the Air2s to the Mavic 3 Pro and without knowing exactly what aspects of the raw files you are primarily interested in, I can give a few general comments regarding the differences/improvements I have found.
(I primarily use DxO PhotoLab for post-processing so I refer to my experience using that program with the 3Ppro.. It has profiles for each of the 3 cameras so it does do some tweaking automatically that helps)
The main camera has a marked improvement in dynamic range and MUCH better low-light sensitivity (as expected with a larger sensor). I find that there is more "wiggle-room" in the Mavic 3 Pro camera files.
The color seems more accurate and the white balance is mostly very close to what I like even while on AWB
The adjustable aperture adds that flexibility as needed.
The auto-focus (when used since I find myself on manual (infinity) most of the time) is smoother and more accurate.
I must mention the options of having those 2 other cameras/lenses/focal lengths and how much those options mean to the composing and framing. Especially the 3x/mid-lens. The quality is excellent and is a very close color match to the main camera so it requires very little tweaking if going between the 2 while shooting.
I tried a Mavic 3 Classic (with just the main camera) before buying the Pro and I do believe that they improved the Pro's main camera through either firmware or lens since when comparing each camera's files, the Pro is noticeably better as far as image clarity and detail.
If you have any specific concerns about what aspect of the raw files you are interested in, let me know and I'll see if I can refer to them

I have zero experience with the high end drones, but I love that shot!

Honestly, much of the difference in the cameras are small. I have a Pro, but am now trying to sell it. I, me personally , do not like the images. I found I liked the M3 images better. I found both the tele lenses to be rather soft, softer than I care for. I also found the Pro's wide Hasselblad images to be a bit color shifted, which can be fixed. I just like the image as shot to be as close as possible to what I want in the end result. Again, much of this is personal preference. I also like the fact the M3 is much lighter than the M3Pro, so it is faster into the wind and the battery lasts longer. I rather settled on a M3 Cine, since their price came down a lot on the release of the M3Pro Cine. I have also become rather fond of the Anamorphic lenses available for the M3, the pro does not have the selection and its camera gimbal is almost overloaded as it is, without adding more weight. Tends to bobble if you slow down quickly. Last thing is; you really must carry a landing pad of some kind with the Pro, it will drag its camera in grass or dirt, since it is larger.

I would fly before you buy and see if the images you get are what you are looking for. Like I said, I'm selling my pro off.

Dogpilot Posted at 1-21 09:55
Honestly, much of the difference in the cameras are small. I have a Pro, but am now trying to sell it. I, me personally , do not like the images. I found I liked the M3 images better. I found both the tele lenses to be rather soft, softer than I care for. I also found the Pro's wide Hasselblad images to be a bit color shifted, which can be fixed. I just like the image as shot to be as close as possible to what I want in the end result. Again, much of this is personal preference. I also like the fact the M3 is much lighter than the M3Pro, so it is faster into the wind and the battery lasts longer. I rather settled on a M3 Cine, since their price came down a lot on the release of the M3Pro Cine. I have also become rather fond of the Anamorphic lenses available for the M3, the pro does not have the selection and its camera gimbal is almost overloaded as it is, without adding more weight. Tends to bobble if you slow down quickly. Last thing is; you really must carry a landing pad of some kind with the Pro, it will drag its camera in grass or dirt, since it is larger.

I would fly before you buy and see if the images you get are what you are looking for. Like I said, I'm selling my pro off.

The OP has probably made his decision and moved on by now.
But some of your comments are curious.

I found I liked the M3 images better. I also found the Pro's wide Hasselblad images to be a bit color shifted, which can be fixed.
The wide cameras are identical.

I found both the tele lenses to be rather soft, softer than I care for.
I'm surprised at how good the images from the tele cameras are ... softness isn't an issue.

I also like the fact the M3 is much lighter than the M3Pro, so it is faster into the wind and the battery lasts longer.
Much lighter?   It's 6.5% lighter.
Wind or not, the speed is identical, Max Flight Time is 43 vs 46 minutes.

the pro ... its camera gimbal is almost overloaded as it is, without adding more weight.
Almost overloaded?
It seems to work perfectly, so what makes you say that?

Hi all, Thanks for the responses. I have since bought the Mavic 3 Pro and it is perfect for my needs. I am really impressed with the low light performance of the cameras and I am getting a lot of use  out of the telephoto lenses already. Thanks for the input!

I am glad the origional poster has found what he wants, but to Clarify:
The camera is not identical, they are constructed differently and it shows in images. I have found, for my uses, the tele lens to be way too soft. Perhaps since I also shoot from aircraft with DSLR D850, I am sensitive to the difference. I find that often, I cannot use them.
6.5% difference in weight, which equates to aircraft performance, will cause airlines to pass on an aircraft. It was 3% difference between the DC8 and 707, Douglas sold a lot of aircraft on that 3%. It comes down to efficiency. The pro burns through batteries quicker and is much slower into the wind, due to the added bulk. The drones do not have that much performance margin to begin with, add more weight and they get less efficient.
Put a supplemental lens on the camera, it bobbles, other posters have seen the same issue.
Camera Difference, not identical:

Dogpilot Posted at 1-21 17:01
I am glad the origional poster has found what he wants, but to Clarify:
The camera is not identical, they are constructed differently and it shows in images. I have found, for my uses, the tele lens to be way too soft. Perhaps since I also shoot from aircraft with DSLR D850, I am sensitive to the difference. I find that often, I cannot use them.
6.5% difference in weight, which equates to aircraft performance, will cause airlines to pass on an aircraft. It was 3% difference between the DC8 and 707, Douglas sold a lot of aircraft on that 3%. It comes down to efficiency. The pro burns through batteries quicker and is much slower into the wind, due to the added bulk. The drones do not have that much performance margin to begin with, add more weight and they get less efficient.

The pro burns through batteries quicker and is much slower into the wind, due to the added bulk. The drones do not have that much performance margin to begin with, add more weight and they get less efficient.
I've owned both and they perform exactly the same.
They achieve the same speed in the same conditions.
The only noticeable effect of the additional weight is a slight decrease in flight time, which is more than made up for by the additional focal lengths available.

Your pictures only show the external differences in the cameras, but external differences don't necessarily mean there's anything different about the internals.
Both cameras are identified in image metadata as Hasselblad L2D-20c and there's no difference in the images I get.

Again, I get color shifted images and soft tele images. I have 2 enterprise 3's, 1 M3 Cine and a Mavic 3 I use as an equipment mule. The pro is the odd one out, I find it far slower burns through batteries. I have plenty of others to compare it to. 17 batteries to test with. The cameras are not the same, they are physically different, which impacts the image, regardless of metadata, which means nothing. The tele lenses are physically smaller. Physics does come into play when you change the actual box you put the lens and sensor into. The physical lens size on the tele makes a difference as well. The Pro has big issues with supplementals, like polarizers get all kinds of internal reflection issues, depending on manufacturer. There are no decent anamorphic lenses from any notable suppliers. It is just not the big improvement it was heralded as. If it works for you then it is an excellent drone. I will not use it in my professional work. too many issues. Why I am selling it.

Dogpilot Posted at 1-21 17:01
I am glad the origional poster has found what he wants, but to Clarify:
The camera is not identical, they are constructed differently and it shows in images. I have found, for my uses, the tele lens to be way too soft. Perhaps since I also shoot from aircraft with DSLR D850, I am sensitive to the difference. I find that often, I cannot use them.
6.5% difference in weight, which equates to aircraft performance, will cause airlines to pass on an aircraft. It was 3% difference between the DC8 and 707, Douglas sold a lot of aircraft on that 3%. It comes down to efficiency. The pro burns through batteries quicker and is much slower into the wind, due to the added bulk. The drones do not have that much performance margin to begin with, add more weight and they get less efficient.

I had the M3 and now have the M3Pro. In my opinion, the M3Pro delivers better images, although the image modules should be the same. What you're not considering here is the typical series variation.

3% less weight on an airplane is relevant, but not on a drone. 3% less weight on an airplane may already be several 100 kg, which means more fuel, less profit, etc. With a drone, this can be neglected.

PS: You're a pro because you shot with an outdated D850? Tell us better which lenses you have on it. The body is known to be less relevant.

I owned two M3s and went through 7 MP3's due to blurry patches issue.
Main camera was more uniform in terms of sharpness in both M3's I've got.
Knowing that I still preffer MP3 due to 3x and 7x which are my favorite focal lengths and I love them more with every flight
Sharpness in these is not an issue.


Im shooting aerial images from 2009, started from planes, throughgliders and motor gliders. Of course I preffer quality from DSLR/Mirrorless and variety of lenses you can use, but come one...
Prep, cost, time and human resources involved back then was disproportionate. Now I can do the same job faster, cheaper and more efficient.
Not to mention places where I wouldn't be able to physically fly, the drone works great.
Of course, its my personal opinion, but I can accept the shortcomings of these small cameras considering the freedom offered by an unmanned aerial platform like M3P.
I hope whatever you have will work for you as well.

Back in a day


Safe flights !