Robert Collins

Funnily enough, I have been reading things a little differently. Here is a comparison of the Mavic 2 Pro to the Phantom 4 Pro.... Lets leave aside the different white balance. Now I do agree that the Phantom 4 Pro footage is definitely 'sharper' than the Mavic 2 Pro. But I have to say I like the Mavic 2 Pro image better. I want to bring out the old cliche that the Mavic 2 Pro image looks more cinematic but actually to me the Phantom 4 Pro image just looks 'oversharpened'. However, these things are pretty subjective. And while I say it is 'subjective' look at the sharpening artifacts on the train at around 1:48 of the Phantom 4 Pro video - it is a sure sign of 'oversharpening' (a constant problem with the Mavic Pro 1 because the other choice was blotchy noise reduction.) All I can say is that if you look at @Cliff Totten Mavic 2 Pro footage which you can download here.... https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1c-k4pnmzrEwuwfnumzATMr4W4o__iI7l?usp=sharing ...they appear much sharper than Billy's with a sharpening setting of +1. Again I think they are a little too sharp but that is personal taste....

In a theoretical sense yes. Imagine that the correct exposure was: 1/200 f2.8 @ 25fps @ base iso You could put on a 2 stop exposure ND and have... 1/50 f2.8 @ 25fps @ base iso = 180 degree Alternatively (assuming (big assumptions) 0 delay between each exposure and buckets of image processing power) you could take 4 x 1/200 f2.8 @ 100fps @ base iso and 'mean average' (take each pixel value and divide by 4) and end up with an identical result (same motion) but less noise But we havent yet seen this sort of computational photography 'much' in larger sensors with probably the Red Helium being an exception... https://www.dxomark.com/red-helium-8k-dxomark-sensor-score-108-a-new-all-time-high-score2/

Personally I dont think Panasonic needs a 'bigger' sensor. And while a bigger sensor in the current mount may be possible, it will probably be of little use in most cases because of the image circle form their existing lenses. My feeling is that sensor 'size' should in theory become 'less' important over the next 10 years rather than 'more' important due to computational photography that we are already seeing in say smartphones (most notably the Pixel 2.) Theoretically at least we should be able to see... 1) Better DR through 'HDR' 2) Better low light performance 'by median averaging' 3) A built in variable ND 'by mean averaging' 4) Higher resolution through 'pixel shifting' ...all achieved by combining multiple exposures into each shot... And smaller sensors have an advantage here because they can typically get more 'exposures' faster off a sensor and blend them with less image processing power and less heat. So for instance we see 1080 240 off the GH5 that we dont see in FF. I dont see Panasonic achieving anything by moving away from its strengths (especially at the US$2k level) - namely ibis. And most importantly I dont think they will go anywhere but backward unless they sort out their weaknesses - such as c-af.

I dont disagree with the notion that the 'big margins' are in the 'high end' products. I just fundamentally disagree with you about how the camera market actually works. You see you (and another poster) have expressed a view that people are inherently drawn to buy into a brand by their 'halo' products. I just dont think that is the case. I think the camera market a bif like 'drugs'. They buy into the the market through 'gateway drugs' - drugs that are sold at little or no profit but get you 'addicted' to the drug dealer/brand. So most people buy into cameras at the lower end/ lower margin point - say a Nikon D3500, a couple of zooms and a 50 1.8 prime (the D3000 series accounts for 50% of Nikon's sales.) The reason they buy in at the lower end is that they dont really know how seriously they are going to take it - indeed many/most buyers dont take it much further. But a proportion through a combination of encouragement and enthusiasm gradually move up the company's value chain. The 50 1.4 replaces the 50 1.8, the D7500 replaces the D3500 etc.. So the point of the gateway drug approach is that it gets you addicted to the brand and the brand can then take you up the value chain. So you need to capture the bottom end of the market in order to sell at the high end (unless you are Leica). Olympus is proof of this. They have moved relentlessly upmarket and all they have achieved is less and less ILC sales and mounting losses with a US$58m loss forecast this year. Canon on the other hand with its gateway drug approach makes more money than everyone else put together. They may not make much money out of their entrance products but it is those purchases that get in the customers to sell them the high end/high margin products.

I saw this at B&Hphoto today and it pretty much sums up why Canon will dominate in mirrorless.... You see it lists the top 3 'best sellers' in FE lenses. Never mind that the 28-75 2.8 is supposed to be plasticky, the 50 1.8 is supposed to be horrible and the 85 1.8 isnt supposed to have great bokeh. At the end of the day consumers 'buy value/cheap'. The same applies to APSC where Fuji offers the 'quality/expensive product' but where its market share is so low nobody actually knows what it is. While Canon with minimal efforts is making great inroads. Fuji is releasing an 'amazing' US$6,000 200mm F2' while Canon doesnt sell an EOS-M lens over US$500. Look there is always a market for high end, ground breaking, mtf chart lenses which are inevitably very expensive - but it just isnt a very big one. All the mirrorless manufacturers are going relentlessly upmarket leaving a large gaping hole for Canon to walk through. You see the great achievement of Nikon and Sony in FF mirrorless is to create fabulous high tech FF mirrorless at 'relatively affordable' price of under US$2,000. But it is a complete waste of time if even the most basic of your lenses are over US$500 a pop. Sure Sony has now 'eventually' got a few affordable lenses but there simply arent many (especially compared to Canon and Nikon DSLRs.) Both Sony and Nikon are absorbed with huge amounts of hubris - Nikon bringing out a US$6,000 58 0.95 with manual focus (before a basic long zoom) and Sony is promoting its lightweight, 3kg, US$12,000 400 2.8..... So in all likelihood Canon will enter the FF mirrorless market with a totally underwhelming camera, with lenses that are uninspiring (but you wont have to have to make the excuse they look good value against Leica.) And much to everyone's irritation but no surprise they will walk away with the market

Would love to see 10bit v 8bit Would also be interested in +1 sharpness v 0 sharpness Oh and whether you can fly in auto exposure without exposure flicker due to the variable aperture.

I assume both these files are 8 bit?

I am slightly surprised at Nikon's approach to lens pricing. I do get the if Sony charges a premium for its mirrorless lenses why shouldnt Nikon? But the price of lenses for the FE mount is the achilles heal of the system and why it isnt all that popular even with all the stellar reviews. (and why I rarely ever recommend it even though I use it.) I just think Nikon will find it difficult to get much traction amongst photographers. The budget conscious consumer is unlikely to spend US$4000 for a Z6, a zoom and a couple of primes when he can buy a D750 and similar lenses for US$2500. And are the pros going to really trade in a couple of G primes for US$200 each in order to buy two 1.8 primes for US$1400. The cost of witching to mirrorless looks very high. Of course for video guys the Z system makes a lot more sense because it adds a lot more value and also video guys are used to paying eyewatering prices for equipment. But I dont see Canon going down this route. The popularity of its mirrorless cameras is largely due to its pricing and particularly its pricing of lenses. You cant even buy an ef-m lens for over US$500.

An interesting take on Mavic 2 Pro v zoom...

Its an interesting video and the short he shot looks very good. His enthusiasm for the camera seems both genuine and infectious. But what really struck me through the video was how it seems like a DSLR shooter who has just had a mirrorless epiphany. Lightweight on a small gimbal, longer drone flights, ibis is like a gimbal built into the camera, accurate focusing. I particularly liked his comment at the 38th minute.... 'This was the big breakthrough for me..... all of a sudden the ability to shoot video while looking through the electronic viewfinder - game changing - completely game changing for a guy like me.,...'

The HDR capture mode available on the Mavic drones will capture multiple photos with different exposures, then automatically pull the “best” parts of each frame and merge them to produce the final high dynamic range image. This is done in-camera. Personally, I feel like the in-camera method produces a rather flat image. Most photographers agree and will use the alternative method, called AEB capture mode, for better results. The Phantom 4 Pro and the Mavic Pro/Platinum & Air all have AEB capture mode in the app settings. https://djiphotoacademy.com/hdr-photos-with-your-dji-drone/ And as an aside combining high and low gain in a single exposure will not achieve higher dynamic range as the highest dynamic range of a sensor is achieved at its lowest gain.

But 'dynamic range in HDR mode' just isnt a thing. And if it becomes a 'thing' you will soon have phones claiming 15 stops of DR. You are trying to measure the underlying DR of the sensor, not the DR you can 'create' through merging multiple exposure bracketed shots. If we go down this route we will also end up with incredible (as in unbelievable) iso performance due to median averaging and super high resolutions due to pixel shifting....

Here are a couple of screenshhots taken from Casey Neistats video First we have the Mavic 1 v Mavic 2 zoom. They might have the same sensor size but the image quality seems to have come a long way. Next we have the Mavic 2 pro v the Mavic pro zoom A clear win for the Mavic 2 Pro here. But I would add that the difference in quality is often less than I have shown here. One thing I like about the zoom is the way the 'zoom' is implemented. Zoom from 24mm to 48mm in the app and it it smoothly and slowly makes the zoom in camera.

There isnt a separate NR adjustment with the Mavic. It is lumped in with sharpening. Set sharpening to 0 or below and you get buckets of noise reduction and blotchy shadows. Setting sharpening to +1 gets rid of the noise reduction but does cause other problems. DJI resolved the problem with the Mavic Air.

I dont agree. We have been through all this with stills. JPEG is a universal open format that everyone uses - I doubt we would use it, if it was a format licensed from Canon. DNG is a 'raw format' that Adobe claims is 'open' but as it owns it, it hasnt received widespread adoption apart from in Adobe products in the last 10 years. Inherently a raw video format doesnt have any need of ownership/patents because it is simply a format for 'raw data' coming off the sensor. It is not trying to cure cancer. And conceptually making 'raw' proprietary is an 'oxymoron' rather like paying a clothes company for the privilege of walking around in the raw. If you think that paying a company for the privilege of taking 'raw' data off a sensor is a workable concept then I just think you are being heroically optimistic. Of course, Apple would presumably argue that 'prores raw' isnt actually 'raw' but is 'doctored raw' which is fine apart from the fact they are misrepresenting what they are selling in the first place. BTW can we have a source for the '80% of productions currently record in prores'?

You do know that Ming Thein is the Chief of Strategy at Hasselblad? Or not? https://www.hasselblad.com/press/press-releases/hasselblad-appoints-ming-thein-as-chief-of-strategy/

Well it sort of is. Because when you admit you are talking about 'color preferences' and that there is 'no objective measure' you are not dealing with 'science' at all! But I argued this once before and people simply declared they ]'preferred' their own definition of science over mine.

Yup I dont get either. As far as I can see, Panasonic keeps shooting themselves in the foot at the moment. Companies need to play to their strengths. You would think that Panasonic would have given a decent amount of care and attention to the LX100ii because of the amount of love and attention the LX100 received from customers (and even reviewers - has any other Panasonic compact received a gold award from DPR.) I will be buying the LX100ii (well the Leica skinned version) because my GF loves the LX100 so much and has used it pretty much on a daily basis for 4 years.... (Yeah dont ask!!) But Panasonic have really killed my enthusiasm for this line with their inherent laziness....

Cant really argue with those numbers. Thinking about it. My numbers were from BCN who measure sales at the retail level. My guess would be that if a camera ships with a kit lens (or even two kit lenses) they classify it as a 'camera sale' rather 'a camera and lens sale'. So they are only counting independent lens sales. Just a guess but those percentages from BCN make more sense in that context.

And DJI says they wont be effective in 'active track max'. Those side sensors are going to cause more problems than they solve.

Nope in terms of market share (2017, Japan only because that is all the data we have available (without paying) - BCN.) The top 3 manufacturers of ILC lenses are: Canon 22% Sigma 16% Tamron 14% Source:https://www.canonrumors.com/bcn-rankings-are-out-canon-continues-to-dominate-dslrs-further-growth-in-mirrorless/ So, to me, effectively excluding Tamron and Sigma from your lens mount may well prove a mistake for Nikon....

Very interesting (although knowledge well above my pay grade.) And I can certainly feel your pain with the Mavic Pro and its noise reduction circuit. (BTW I am not trying to rag on DJI here (I think I can be classed as a fanboy)). I have pre-ordered the Mavic Pro 2. I just want to know exactly what I have ordered and cut the through the spec sheet bullshit.

My thinking was that DJI was offering a choice between '4k supersampled 5.7k' 8 bit and cropped '4k 10 bit'. But you may well be right and that limited sensor options means that there isnt really a full read out of the sensor in the first place.

Well the maths sort of works like this. 1.5x crop = 1.5 x 1.5x = 2.25x 20mp / 2.25 = 8.9mp which about equals 4k (1:1) ...So 4x bigger sensor is nice but if you throw away half the sensor in video either through 'pixel binning' or 'cropping' it is an improvement but it aint great.....