With the release of the Mini 3 close after the Mavic 3 for me there is a considerable amount of frustration as I'm in the market to upgrade.

The Mini 3 brings the major benefit of being able to do 360x180 Panoramas (I think this back to the future a little as couldn't the Mavic Pro 1 do that?) This feature is one of the things I do a lot with the Mini 1 and it works really well but you just can't make 360x180 panos in areas where the landscape is higher than the highest frame as you are left with a hole as the Mini 1 only extends up 20 degrees. So while it's reasonbly easy to fill in clouds and blue sky, if you were down in a canyon or gorge it would be virtually impossible with the Mini 1 but very doable with the Mini 3 as there would be no hole in your image the 360x180 ability would just get it done.

BUT when it comes to single shot images the Mini 3 won't compete with the Mavic 3 and you'll never get the ability to use the 7x tele and for me that means awesome high resolution grid stitched stills.

BUT you do get a reasonably affordable controller with screen with the Mini 3 something like you would have expected with the Mavic 3


On the Mavic 3 side of course you can't do 360x180 panos, it's still got issues with GPS and the 7x Tele could be better with better implementation of firmware (may still come)

It just feels to me with the evolutionary change of the Mini 3 and it's 180 vertical gimbal this should be a signal of design change for the Mavic series with the 4 having...

• 360x180 Pano ability
• Better Tele lens (1inch) with grid stitch software and RAW - Providing this on a 180 degree gimbal could be a big ask
• Fast GPS
• 4/3 Sensor
  

For a stills photographer that would be the perfect drone. Right now neither drone provides that...

My honest opinion mate is to just wait it out and not rush into the mini 3. Wait a few months and watch the reviews but not of those that got the drone from Dji to test but reviews of people that bought their drones as they will provide an honest review.

Ditto what Suren said, plus let others be beta testers and have the stress of a possibly "awaiting up dates to be fully functional" drone. A quick skim of a resent video suggests there are inactive features in the app.

At least the mini3 has got fast gps based on the first flight video that’s out.  

Suren Posted at 5-6 20:46
My honest opinion mate is to just wait it out and not rush into the mini 3. Wait a few months and watch the reviews but not of those that got the drone from Dji to test but reviews of people that bought their drones as they will provide an honest review.

Hey Suren

Yes I agree in fact may have to be more than a few months may even be a Mavic 4

I guess depending on the how the Mini 3 design performs DJI will be guided as to future design. It just shows it's not always the top of line filtering down to the lower levels but potentially it could be the reverse?

Surely there are a lot of potential buyers looking to sit on their hands until the Mini 3 is proven following the M3 launch and issues?

Have we got a list of non influenced drone reviewers?  Would be handy :-)

Cheers

Bussty

  

DAFlys Posted at 5-6 22:12
At least the mini3 has got fast gps based on the first flight video that’s out.

I'll have to check that out...

Sean-bumble-bee Posted at 5-6 22:07
Ditto what Suren said, plus let others be beta testers and have the stress of a possibly "awaiting up dates to be fully functional" drone. A quick skim of a resent video suggests there are inactive features in the app.

Yes... much sense here. Is a real shame this can't be done properly by DJI (or any drone manufacturer) before they launch.

DAFlys Posted at 5-6 22:12
At least the mini3 has got fast gps based on the first flight video that’s out.

So did the Mavic 3 .. but it's beyond belief that DJI would make the same blunder this time.

Labroides Posted at 5-6 23:47
So did the Mavic 3 .. but it's beyond belief that DJI would make the same blunder this time.

I dont think I ever saw Mavic 3 video do it in 20 seconds.   But I might have missed it.  

Bussty Posted at 5-6 22:22
I'll have to check that out...

Its been posted in the products section.   

There will always be the next best thing coming no matter what or when. Sometimes you just have to make the jump and forget about what someone else has or is going to get. Once you purchase its up to you to make the best of what you got. Right now you don’t have either drone but my guess is which ever one you get you will get the most from it. So my advice is make your mind up and just go for it and begin to enjoy it. Both these drones are the best out there.

True but I will still wait, we might find gimbals falling off Mini 3's in two months time using the M3 launch as my guide here

At least the mini 3, according to all the leaks, will come with a NON generic controller.  Sure would have been nice to have the two wheels for the Mavic 3.

DAFlys Posted at 5-6 22:12
At least the mini3 has got fast gps based on the first flight video that’s out.

Wait till the first update add missing features to come, then we can talk

DAFlys Posted at 5-6 22:12
At least the mini3 has got fast gps based on the first flight video that’s out.

"At least the mini3 has got fast gps based on the first flight video that’s out."


One  would expect GPS part of two drone's firmware to be identical.  Which  would point to GPS part of hardware of two drones (Mm3 vs. M3) being  different.
Still it is only "first flight".  Before plopping  down a bunch of money, I would wait till there are more affirmative  (fast GPS) reports for Mm3.

Labroides Posted at 5-6 23:47
So did the Mavic 3 .. but it's beyond belief that DJI would make the same blunder this time.

From various complaints by M3 owners, and DJI having yet to resolve M3 slow GPS problem for everyone, and my own past experience with DJI hardware sensitive to firmware revision being run; I believe there was bad batch of GPS modules made, which got installed in M3.   

Thus most people have zero problems, whilst others seemed to have some reprieve from slow GPS after firmware fixes, and others are still suffering slow GPS.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 5-7 13:39
From various complaints by M3 owners, and DJI having yet to resolve M3 slow GPS problem for everyone, and my own past experience with DJI hardware sensitive to firmware revision being run; I believe there was bad batch of GPS modules made, which got installed in M3.   

Thus most people have zero problems, whilst others seemed to have some reprieve from slow GPS after firmware fixes, and others are still suffering slow GPS.

lol wut?  the m3 has a gps hardware problem?  dude, you must have a short memory since we've had that discussion already...ad nauseam.  

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 5-7 13:39
From various complaints by M3 owners, and DJI having yet to resolve M3 slow GPS problem for everyone, and my own past experience with DJI hardware sensitive to firmware revision being run; I believe there was bad batch of GPS modules made, which got installed in M3.   

Thus most people have zero problems, whilst others seemed to have some reprieve from slow GPS after firmware fixes, and others are still suffering slow GPS.

If only it was that simple, it would have been solved months ago instead of still being an issue nearly 6 months after the M3 launched.

Suren Posted at 5-7 11:26
Wait till the first update add missing features to come, then we can talk

OK,   I think that is fair.   

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 5-7 13:29
"At least the mini3 has got fast gps based on the first flight video that’s out."

Could easily be a different chip that say supports less GPS systems, which they use to save weight.

DAFlys Posted at 5-6 22:12
At least the mini3 has got fast gps based on the first flight video that’s out.

I expect that the Mini 3 will have faster acquisition than the Mavic 3 but there is a good chance that the 10 second time to home point was based on a warm boot and not a cold boot.

Bussty Posted at 5-7 04:12
True but I will still wait, we might find gimbals falling off Mini 3's in two months time using the M3 launch as my guide here

Not to sure that gimbals are falling off. What you have to date with M3 is for some a first flight acquisition that takes a long time, there after its as quick as any other drone. So that’s an issue with some drones. There are a huge amount of good things about the M3 but if you need to take off in 60 seconds for your first flight , then you might have a problem. I think considering no problems before 12,12 22 then its highly unlikely its a hardware problem so we should see it fixed and hopefully soon. If its problems you’re looking for then there are clearly as many if not more with other recent released drones.

hallmark007 Posted at 5-8 14:26
Not to sure that gimbals are falling off. What you have to date with M3 is for some a first flight acquisition that takes a long time, there after its as quick as any other drone. So that’s an issue with some drones. There are a huge amount of good things about the M3 but if you need to take off in 60 seconds for your first flight , then you might have a problem. I think considering no problems before 12,12 22 then its highly unlikely its a hardware problem so we should see it fixed and hopefully soon. If its problems you’re looking for then there are clearly as many if not more with other recent released drones.

Given my household financial controller would never sign off a double M3 and M3s or M4 purchase in two years I'm going to hold. I would kick myself if I purchased now and next year they tweaked the M3.

I'm looking at it as a last year of squeezing as much as I can out of the Mini which is still no slug but I will be very much looking forward to a bigger sensor when the time comes. Attached taken a couple of weeks back with the mini...

Mini Shot - Mt Buster

Cheers

Bussty

DAFlys Posted at 5-8 00:17
Could easily be a different chip that say supports less GPS systems, which they use to save weight.

I was reading a drone article (elsewhere) which presented what was claimed to be problem and a counter argument.  The counter argument was GPS module used was same as previous modules used with one exception, they were supposedly spec'd for use in automotive industry.

Now, I don't put any weight in claimed problem being DJI was using some of GPS's module's memory for storing firmware (program instructions) for new featured maneuvers.  But I could envision some of GPS's module's memory being used to store data needed by GPS module during the execution of a new featured maneuver; to aid in keeping satellite lock.

If it is memory - more likely is batch of GPS's modules with flaky memory area.  Memory which could have issues with voltage fluctuations, clock timing, refresh, toggling of nearby memory cell (sympath bit), etc.  Forcing DJI to write firmware code to detecct problem and avoid using flaky memory area.

What would help is if DJI issued a statement (and occassional updates) saying what they did know about the problem.  Leaving their customers in dark, leads to speculation and/or distrust.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 5-8 16:07
I was reading a drone article (elsewhere) which presented what was claimed to be problem and a counter argument.  The counter argument was GPS module used was same as previous modules used with one exception, they were supposedly spec'd for use in automotive industry.

Now, I don't put any weight in claimed problem being DJI was using some of GPS's module's memory for storing firmware (program instructions) for new featured maneuvers.  But I could envision some of GPS's module's memory being used to store data needed by GPS module during the execution of a new featured maneuver; to aid in keeping satellite lock.

i get it you probably missed the whole conversation about this topic weeks ago due to all the bickering and fighting and arguing and the answers were lost in the mix.  in short, dji has already said enough or as much as they could given that manufacturers generally don't publish statements to the public about their woes or problems unless it comes along with a fix.  that being said, i think we covered most of the topics you bring up and ultimately i think collectively we have decided to give dji one more good faith opportunity to fix this.

LoftyAmbitions Posted at 5-8 03:39
I expect that the Mini 3 will have faster acquisition than the Mavic 3 but there is a good chance that the 10 second time to home point was based on a warm boot and not a cold boot.

My Mini 2 is often under 30 seconds on a cold boot so I could see they made some improvement.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 5-8 16:07
I was reading a drone article (elsewhere) which presented what was claimed to be problem and a counter argument.  The counter argument was GPS module used was same as previous modules used with one exception, they were supposedly spec'd for use in automotive industry.

Now, I don't put any weight in claimed problem being DJI was using some of GPS's module's memory for storing firmware (program instructions) for new featured maneuvers.  But I could envision some of GPS's module's memory being used to store data needed by GPS module during the execution of a new featured maneuver; to aid in keeping satellite lock.

I thought the that theory had been disproved by the tear down.

https://mavicpilots.com/threads/ ... -identified.122624/

DAFlys Posted at 5-8 23:05
I thought the that theory had been disproved by the tear down.

https://mavicpilots.com/threads/mavic-3-gnss-chip-identified.122624/

Different theory.  That theory was chips were different in design by intent.   What I am theorizing is batch(s) of chips or module(s) have a very subtle manufacturing problem.  

For example:  

A chip manufacture makes a run of a particular type of ICs, which has 100 batches of 1,000 ICs or total 100,000 ICs.  Two or three of 100 batches has ICs with the problem.  


Problem is not detected during normal factory Q.A.  Resulting in 2,000 to 3,000 out of 100,000 ICs making it to end products.   The very subtle problem does not even show up for all end users of chips, because problem depends upon specific occurences.


Over two decades ago, I saw such a very subtle problem.  Memory chips which started failing when run near (not exceeding) their engineered minimum low voltage and fast clock speds as part of weekly final product testing.  Because there were different batches of memory chips used, not all chips in a batch had problem, and chips didn't fail right away, it took months to figure out what was causing problem.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 5-8 16:07
I was reading a drone article (elsewhere) which presented what was claimed to be problem and a counter argument.  The counter argument was GPS module used was same as previous modules used with one exception, they were supposedly spec'd for use in automotive industry.

Now, I don't put any weight in claimed problem being DJI was using some of GPS's module's memory for storing firmware (program instructions) for new featured maneuvers.  But I could envision some of GPS's module's memory being used to store data needed by GPS module during the execution of a new featured maneuver; to aid in keeping satellite lock.

The problem with your theory as presented here is that if hardware was failing in this way, it would most certainly present with much more severe side effects. The biggest problem with all of the GPS issue discussions is that they have largely been driven by ignorant voices. People who know little or nothing about electronics and micro solder IC's and the like.

The most likely culprit of the GPS slow acquisition is still, based on all evidence that has come to light, software / configuration. While it is possible for IC's to come out of manufacturing and be bad, it is extremely rare. The type of GPS modules used in the Mavic 3 are incredibly abundant in the market. They are in everything from handheld devices, to drones, to vehicles and marine devices. This isn't like a brand new Intel CPU that is fresh out of engineering or something. These IC's are also not all that complex. So this is a known, long standing design, its a very simple design, and it has large market saturation. All that said, it doesn't rule out hardware malfunction, as I've always said, but it certainly makes it much much less likely, and the fact that we still have no evidence of hardware issues that has come to light.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 5-9 05:43
Different theory.  That theory was chips were different in design by intent.   What I am theorizing is batch(s) of chips or module(s) have a very subtle manufacturing problem.  

For example:  

Surely if here was a bad batch of IC's then they would be replacing drones under warrenty and stinging their supplier for the cost.

DAFlys Posted at 5-9 08:56
Surely if here was a bad batch of IC's then they would be replacing drones under warrenty and stinging their supplier for the cost.

that isn't easy to prove.  suppliers are tenacious.  unless you are an apple supplier, even dji cannot be finding it easy to deal with them.  because in the end, the supplier who cause this is going to have to pay one way or another once dji figures out how to "prove" it.  pretty sure dji is replacing this under warranty as they get them, hoping the problem goes away with a different drone.  but we don't know for sure because we don't know what dji knows.

The Saint Posted at 5-9 09:03
that isn't easy to prove.  suppliers are tenacious.  unless you are an apple supplier, even dji cannot be finding it easy to deal with them.  because in the end, the supplier who cause this is going to have to pay one way or another once dji figures out how to "prove" it.  pretty sure dji is replacing this under warranty as they get them, hoping the problem goes away with a different drone.  but we don't know for sure because we don't know what dji knows.

It is easy to prove,   you have a whole bunch of chips that do not meet the specification when tested,  return said chips and the manufacturer can do their own tests.    The sue if you dont get anywhere.   

What Ive noticed though is that no time cut off has become apparent. For example,   drones  bought after April work flawlessly which indicates that its not the chip at fault as by now DJI could have something about that.    Unless they choose poorly which one to use then they would be re-engineering the product,    and thats where the Mavic 3S rumours kick in.

DAFlys Posted at 5-9 09:10
It is easy to prove,   you have a whole bunch of chips that do not meet the specification when tested,  return said chips and the manufacturer can do their own tests.    The sue if you dont get anywhere.   

What Ive noticed though is that no time cut off has become apparent. For example,   drones  bought after April work flawlessly which indicates that its not the chip at fault as by now DJI could have something about that.    Unless they choose poorly which one to use then they would be re-engineering the product,    and thats where the Mavic 3S rumours kick in.

im sure they are back and forth pointing fingers at each other.  suppliers don't roll over that easily and it's not matter of suing.  in fact, it's not that easy to prove since it appears to be very difficult to fix the issue which likely means it is difficult to pinpoint the problem.  no supplier is going to say it but "yeah we changed over our quality crew over the weekend because of covid and a couple thousands chips went thru without 2nd level close examination (only 1st level).  normally we pull 2% to be safe but for some reason we noticed only 1% had to be pulled.  it's probably because instead of 4 seasoned quality engineers working that weekend, we only had 3 rookies.  normal folks back on the job on monday.  oh, and by the way that happened twice. once in january and another time in march so those chips are probably spread out across the world by now but our reporting indicates the variability will only affect the logging times by 5% max.  i know you say you're getting up to 40% increased times but hey, that's not us.  must be something to do with your software.  just read the forums, hundreds of people are out there commenting that it's software, not hardware.  we only take responsibility for adding 5 seconds to the time; the rest is on you.  we can revisit this next month during our monthly supplier call.  good luck!"  of course, that was tongue-in-cheek.

DAFlys Posted at 5-9 09:10
It is easy to prove,   you have a whole bunch of chips that do not meet the specification when tested,  return said chips and the manufacturer can do their own tests.    The sue if you dont get anywhere.   

What Ive noticed though is that no time cut off has become apparent. For example,   drones  bought after April work flawlessly which indicates that its not the chip at fault as by now DJI could have something about that.    Unless they choose poorly which one to use then they would be re-engineering the product,    and thats where the Mavic 3S rumours kick in.

"drones  bought after April work flawlessly which indicates that its not  the chip at fault as by now DJI could have something about that. "

Not following your thinking.  Would it not be the reverse?   
Going with they are not likely to acknowledge a hardware flaw.   Similar argument already made for manufacture of GPS module.


M3 Dones bought after April working flawlessly vs. some of M3s bought before April having problems, would indicate there was a hardware problem (GPS module or chip); not firmware.
Firmware running on M3 drones should be same for drones built before and after April, once a firmware update was done.  And if it was a case of firmware difference; one would think DJI would be pushing the heck out of upgrading to firmware used succesfully in drones which were built after April.

The Saint Posted at 5-9 09:22
im sure they are back and forth pointing fingers at each other.  suppliers don't roll over that easily and it's not matter of suing.  in fact, it's not that easy to prove since it appears to be very difficult to fix the issue which likely means it is difficult to pinpoint the problem.  no supplier is going to say it but "yeah we changed over our quality crew over the weekend because of covid and a couple thousands chips went thru without 2nd level close examination (only 1st level).  normally we pull 2% to be safe but for some reason we noticed only 1% had to be pulled.  it's probably because instead of 4 seasoned quality engineers working that weekend, we only had 3 rookies.  normal folks back on the job on monday.  oh, and by the way that happened twice. once in january and another time in march so those chips are probably spread out across the world by now but our reporting indicates the variability will only affect the logging times by 5% max.  i know you say you're getting up to 40% increased times but hey, that's not us.  must be something to do with your software.  just read the forums, hundreds of people are out there commenting that it's software, not hardware.  we only take responsibility for adding 5 seconds to the time; the rest is on you.  we can revisit this next month during our monthly supplier call.  good luck!"  of course, that was tongue-in-cheek.

Your post may have been Tongue-n-cheek, but there is truth in it.  Lot of finger-pointing goes on between vendors and manufactures.  Want to see finger-pointing, wait till Legal enters the battlefield.

Tornado12 Posted at 5-9 08:19
The problem with your theory as presented here is that if hardware was failing in this way, it would most certainly present with much more severe side effects. The biggest problem with all of the GPS issue discussions is that they have largely been driven by ignorant voices. People who know little or nothing about electronics and micro solder IC's and the like.

The most likely culprit of the GPS slow acquisition is still, based on all evidence that has come to light, software / configuration. While it is possible for IC's to come out of manufacturing and be bad, it is extremely rare. The type of GPS modules used in the Mavic 3 are incredibly abundant in the market. They are in everything from handheld devices, to drones, to vehicles and marine devices. This isn't like a brand new Intel CPU that is fresh out of engineering or something. These IC's are also not all that complex. So this is a known, long standing design, its a very simple design, and it has large market saturation. All that said, it doesn't rule out hardware malfunction, as I've always said, but it certainly makes it much much less likely, and the fact that we still have no evidence of hardware issues that has come to light.

You are confusing bad batch or bad run of ICs or modules with an engineering design defect of ICs or modules.  A bad batch or bad run of ICs can (has, and does) happen with perfectly well engineered ICs or modules.  

To my thinking, a software problem or configuration problem is less likely.  For a few reasons you laid out against it being hardware.  


DJI has plenty of experience with GPS module (chip set) being used.  Even if problem was due to DJI introducing use of all of different GPS satellite systems, once DJI realized there was a software problem with introduction; DJI could have fallen back to known / proven GPS module code.  Possibly adding a user software switch: Old-n-Fast Lock code or New-n-Slow Lock code.

Hans Gruber Posted at 5-9 11:53
It’s not the GPS satellite constellations being used. That’s why on the Mini 3 it works just fine. It is likely how the hardware fits into the M3.

That’s why on the Mini 3 it works just fine. It is likely how the hardware fits into the M3.

I can think of three "fit" possibilities.  But none of three go with 1) most M3 owners not having a problem and 2) DJI previously attempting a firmware work-around.
Fit problems usually involve stress flexing of a board or module, poor electrical connections, heat transfer problems, or shielding issues from radio interference - things firmware patch won't get-around.

I purchased mine about  a week ago. It came with .300 firmware. I updated via assistant 2 direct to the latest. Flown 3 times each a few days apart. Once more than 30 miles from the other locations.All 3 times it established the home point in about or under a minute. Not sure if my Pro RC being connected via my phones hotspot made a difference or not. But so far, pretty pleased.