http://www.akphotograph.com/drone-footage/dji_letter/

i agree with this for the most part.  but i believe they can improve upon existing without increasing the price.. just reuse existing  molds, and manufacturing and toss in the latest Sony IMX RS sensor that iPhone 8 and gopro hero 6 and pixel 2 have, a new image processing pipeline and new SoC to make it little quicker on the fly with calculations..  and rest can remain.  reducing other costs even if new camera/soc and pipeline design increases costs, should balance out.. and less man hours spent testing since existing design platform..
only thng i can suggest is getting your hands on PolorPro vivid series filters .. they make full range ND4PL up to ND64PL, and i found ND filters with polorization helps massively with harsh lighting and i know ND + CPL filters on my camera make a world of differance with bright snow.  i know few gradient filters as well for the mavic however because no filters that stack, bit pointless..    however in low light, ya mavic pro and even P4P need new cameras, badly.. both suffer horribly compareed to modern small sensor cameras..

As a "non-pro" pilot, I'm very satisfied with the photos and videos my current quad gives.  But I can see where a real pro like you would be keenly aware of the subtle differences that I miss.  So, I support your idea for a "Pros" camera - just would also like to see them keep the version I have as well.  Good luck there.

He's right although its not Alaska specific.  The mavic is an excellent aerial platform but is let down by an extremely basic camera.  As the article states, dynamic range and noise are terrible on it.  Its the camera where compromises were made in the mavic design.

I can't see them improving it though until they've done a phantom series update.  A mavic with a half decent camera would massively hurt sales of the Phantom range otherwise.  I'd love a mavic with a decent camera but just cant see it happening for business reasons.

Also, ND filters have absolutely no effect on dynamic range, contrast or noise so wont have any effect at all on the issues brought up in the article.

gnirtS Posted at 2017-10-16 17:00
He's right although its not Alaska specific.  The mavic is an excellent aerial platform but is let down by an extremely basic camera.  As the article states, dynamic range and noise are terrible on it.  Its the camera where compromises were made in the mavic design.

I can't see them improving it though until they've done a phantom series update.  A mavic with a half decent camera would massively hurt sales of the Phantom range otherwise.  I'd love a mavic with a decent camera but just cant see it happening for business reasons.

that sort of makes me mad.   like why cant they just make each platform as good as ti can be and as unique as it is.   

im a mavic lover, i wouldn't buy a phantom if it has a 16K helium red camera sensor on it...i will buy a mavic.. probably alot the same for phantom lovers.. even if mavic got 16K helium red sensor, phantom lovers wont suddenly be like, k peace dudes, joining the mavics.. no..

there more to it.. phantoms have own market mavic's have their own market, inspires have their own, and sparks are just well hard to honestly tell, because they fly away..

Right now the ONLY thing the phantom range (P4P onwards) has that makes it a far better option than the mavic is its camera.  It also costs more money and id guess has a higher profit margin.

For anyone interested in using the drone as a photo/video platform if you could get anything like the quality the p4p provides with its camera in a small, portable mavic format there'd be no reason at all to own a phantom as nothing at all on it is better than the cheaper mavic.  I know quite a few phantom users that are only using it because the mavics camera is fairly awful and would switch instantly if that changed.

Thanks for bringing us the attention, for now, I believe the Mavic's design including its camera is the most optimized version at the present, but it is never the end of the road, our engineers and R&D department will keep moving and create more products with great design and good quality and functions. Appreciate the feedback.

gnirtS Posted at 2017-10-16 18:18
Right now the ONLY thing the phantom range (P4P onwards) has that makes it a far better option than the mavic is its camera.  It also costs more money and id guess has a higher profit margin.

For anyone interested in using the drone as a photo/video platform if you could get anything like the quality the p4p provides with its camera in a small, portable mavic format there'd be no reason at all to own a phantom as nothing at all on it is better than the cheaper mavic.  I know quite a few phantom users that are only using it because the mavics camera is fairly awful and would switch instantly if that changed.

I agree, DJI would probably shoot itself in the foot if the Mavic had a camera just as good as the P4P. Why not make the Mavic with a great camera and charge a lot of money for it? Maybe more expensive than than the Phantom? I would buy it.
For me, I have to have the portability. I will deal with the limitations of the camera, the Mavic is a great product.

DJI Thor Posted at 2017-10-16 18:26
Thanks for bringing us the attention, for now, I believe the Mavic's design including its camera is the most optimized version at the present, but it is never the end of the road, our engineers and R&D department will keep moving and create more products with great design and good quality and functions. Appreciate the feedback.

Just dreaming Thor. I love my Mavic, it is an engineering marvel. Mine spent a month in a tree and flew 2 days after I let it dry....amazing.

alaska42 Posted at 2017-10-17 04:45
I agree, DJI would probably shoot itself in the foot if the Mavic had a camera just as good as the P4P. Why not make the Mavic with a great camera and charge a lot of money for it? Maybe more expensive than than the Phantom? I would buy it.
For me, I have to have the portability. I will deal with the limitations of the camera, the Mavic is a great product.

" Mavic had a camera just as good as the P4P."

Good point; this is one of the reasons why I'm considering a different copter/drone alongside the MP instead of the MPP.

Congratulations on showing, professionaly, your point of view.

Keep in mind that the current Mavic design (other than Platinum) is probably at least 2 years old.  How good is your 2 year old cell camera?  I'm sure the next Mavic will have improvements.  I'm sure they're working on the new design as we speak.

A Phantom 4 Pro with Occusync.... I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

Griffith Posted at 2017-10-17 06:50
Keep in mind that the current Mavic design (other than Platinum) is probably at least 2 years old.  How good is your 2 year old cell camera?  I'm sure the next Mavic will have improvements.  I'm sure they're working on the new design as we speak.

I am with you, I am sure they will improve the camera in the future. Even a small improvement will have me buying another one.

DocAraxá Posted at 2017-10-17 04:58
Congratulations on showing, professionaly, your point of view.

Thank you, don't want to do any DJI bashing. The Mavic is a great product.