You can really get A LOT of info from the files.

Useful post hawk89
Please share with us your considerations your thoughts, your opinions. We'll appreciate.

The DNG files are good, but they are by no means GREAT.
Being a photographer by trade, I prefer precision sharp files shooting from anywhere between f11-f22. Unfortunately, the P3P has a fixed aperture of f2.8. Now although they are sharp per say...I believe the images could still be massively better in terms of sharpness. There is a reason why if you are flying in a helicopter shooting you use a higher ISO and  a gyrostabilizer....so you can have the higher aperture to get greater depth of field. Do I wish DJI would have taken into consideration that some of us prefer having control of the aperture? Yep, but  I will definitely take what I can get for now. I throw the files into Nik's filters to sharpen them up.

Betty, I hear ya, but this is a flying camera that costs $1K! I'm also a professional stills photographer, but I managed my expectations when I purchased my P3P.  
The entire P3P system, camera, copter, FPV system, remote controller, etc., cost less than half what my CHEAPEST lens alone set me back, not to mention and of my 7 DSLR's.

Blackbetty, you have to realize that for the price point the camera is pretty good. I am also a photographer and you have to be realistic. I usually shoot with a full frame camera, the sensor on the DJI is so small you will never get the same definition. Now for obvious reasons yes I would rather have an hex copter that could carry my canon but that would put the whole set up (including camera) beyond 8k probably. so for 1300$ for now I would have to say that it is a descent compromise.
You can control aperture with that kind of setup but until I get my 333 variance (if i get it) no point in investing that much in my eyes.

BlackBetty Posted at 2015-7-2 21:25
The DNG files are good, but they are by no means GREAT.
Being a photographer by trade, I prefer prec ...

BlackBetty, you're confusing depth of field with sharpness.  Not many lenses will deliver their best sharpness above f/11, and most will deliver their best around f/5.6 to f/8.  Going to f/11 or higher you're inviting loss of definition through diffraction, and you certainly won't achieve your "precision sharp files" - quite the opposite.  If you're really a photographer by trade you should know all this.

And I don't see any point in going to f/11 for greater depth of field, from a flying camera where you can safely assume that everything it sees is effectively at infinity.  In a helicopter, with stabilisation or not, you might go to a high ISO in order to get NOT so much a small aperture but more likely so you can get a super fast shutter speed at the lens' best aperture in sharpness terms.  Depth of field is not an issue from aloft.

alansworld@gmai Posted at 2015-7-2 22:11
BlackBetty, you're confusing depth of field with sharpness.  Not many lenses will deliver their be ...

I think we should agree to disagree on this one.
Because in all honesty we get the greatest focus when shooting at f13 on our Canon 24mm T/S II and also approx. f11.75 with our Rodenstock digital Apo-sinar 45mm lens.

Regardless (and I don't wish to get in an argument here and rehash focusing with the Rule of Thirds from Photo1),  my opinion on the DNG files is that I wish they had provided a camera with greater depth of field control that would surely improve sharpness within the files.

BlackBetty Posted at 2015-7-3 00:32
I think we should agree to disagree on this one.
Because in all honesty we get the greatest focus ...

Actually greater depth of field with this small a sensor would have more diffraction. With a small sensor like this it is already hitting diffraction and if you want to improve sharpness you will need to use some deconvolution. Increasing the depth of field with smaller apertures would make then even less sharp. The lens is also a compromise for size and I am sure that limits the number of elements.

Alan

BlackBetty Posted at 2015-7-3 00:32
I think we should agree to disagree on this one.
Because in all honesty we get the greatest focus ...

Good grief, you really don't seem to understand the difference between depth of field and sharpness.  What exactly do you mean by "the greatest focus"? It's meaningless.  By the time it reaches f/13 the 24 t/s is moving into the realms of sharpness-damaging diffraction.  Greater depth of field does NOT mean improved sharpness. Have you ever actually used a t/s?

Are you really "a photographer by trade"?  Doubtful, because you really don't seem to understand some basic concepts.  You ridiculously quote the rule of thirds, which is perfectly irrelevant with subjects which are essentially at infinity, and then go on to wish that DJI had provided "greater depth of field of control that would surely improve sharpness within the files."  What? What?? What???  Sorry my friend, you really don't know what you're talking about. DoF doesn't bring better sharpness. Good grief.