DJI Mavic Pro II

[androidlad]

How do you monitor in 2.39:1 or other aspect ratios? There's no framing guidelines in DJI Go app.

[Snowbro]

I noticed that the live time lut isn't available for the log on android, but ios? 

[Kisaha]

I watched a lot of videos online and it seems like the 2 pro isn't as great as we all wished it to be.

It seems like for a portion of the money, the Air is the most portable solution, and the cheaper 1" Phantom has much better IQ.

I am not so excited anymore. It is a better Mavic, but not that great in general, and Mavic's IQ was terrible, to start with. 

[Emanuel]

3 hours ago, Kisaha said:

I watched a lot of videos online and it seems like the 2 pro isn't as great as we all wished it to be.

It seems like for a portion of the money, the Air is the most portable solution, and the cheaper 1" Phantom has much better IQ.

I am not so excited anymore. It is a better Mavic, but not that great in general, and Mavic's IQ was terrible, to start with. 

AFAIK it will also depend on the shooter and settings, obviously : -) 

Not a bible but:

 

[Kisaha]

23 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

AFAIK it will also depend on the shooter and settings, obviously : -)

The Mavic series is advertised as a very convenient way to get great images SOC. The first 1 is just terrible, almost non usable in my opinion, the problem is that 2 doesn't seem that much better, and it is a lot more expensive.

If the image is not there, then it isn't. 

Is it better than the Mavic 1? Certainly.

Is the Phantom 4 Pro better in IQ? Definitely, and it shows a lot while 4K/60f is becoming the standard.

The Mavic Pro 2 with the fly more bundle is as expensive is the Phantom 4 Pro V2.0 that includes the 5.5" 1000nits monitor/remote control!

[Emanuel]

14 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

The Mavic series is advertised as a very convenient way to get great images SOC. The first 1 is just terrible, almost non usable in my opinion, the problem is that 2 doesn't seem that much better, and it is a lot more expensive.

If the image is not there, then it isn't. 

Is it better than the Mavic 1? Certainly.

Is the Phantom 4 Pro better in IQ? Definitely, and it shows a lot while 4K/60f is becoming the standard.

The Mavic Pro 2 with the fly more bundle is as expensive is the Phantom 4 Pro V2.0 that includes the 5.5" 1000nits monitor/remote control!

I will tell you quite frankly my humble two cents on it:

...the best device is the one you take with you as we both know ; )

Does that fulfills the cup?

Take a look on that 1st clip I've just introduced with my editing, as for instance.

So, fits my bed ; )) No extra size needed ; -)

[Emanuel]

My only beef if I can tell it like that (nothing your settings or a committed work @ post may not be able to solve, after all) is actually that oversharpened look those customary settings bring by default. Other than that, here's another example from that cup standard already above-mentioned:

 

As everything in filmmaking, the proof is in the pudding ; ) Here's another example of more a tool for all that theory to put in practice:

 

[Kisaha]

These videos are drone footage - only. My issue with Mavic is when cutting with other cameras. Usually I use just a few drone shots per project, something like 5-10%. I was expecting more from a 1" sensor and 10bit H265 files, I may have to re-arrange my plans accordingly and that obviously is a personal choice. I love the form factor, but I am really seen small differences between 1 and 2.

 

[Emanuel]

2 hours ago, Kisaha said:

These videos are drone footage - only. My issue with Mavic is when cutting with other cameras. Usually I use just a few drone shots per project, something like 5-10%. I was expecting more from a 1" sensor and 10bit H265 files, I may have to re-arrange my plans accordingly and that obviously is a personal choice. I love the form factor, but I am really seen small differences between 1 and 2.

 

They are mixed up, with GH5 footage too! Actually, the point to have posted them... : ) You see? You didn't even notice it ; ) Check it there again, especially regarding the 1st one but the 2nd is an interesting sample for the subject matter as well ; -)

Really, with care it is possible to match them! Here's the proof of it at its best : -D

[Kisaha]

28 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

They are mixed up, with GH5 footage too! Actually, the point to have posted them... : ) You see? You didn't even notice it ; ) Check it there again, especially regarding the 1st one but the 2nd is an interesting sample for the subject matter as well ; -)

Really, with care it is possible to match them! Here's the proof of it at its best : -D

I watched a little bit of that Pascal guy and all I saw were drone clips. I did my research online for some time now and I was expecting more from an 1" sensor with 10 bit capabilities.

There is no need to go further with it. If I am spending 2000euros on a drone, I want it to please me and match my workflow. Old Mavic was a disaster in IQ, this one isn't that much better, a little bit sharper, less artifacts, a bit better color science, but it crops in some modes, no 4K/60frames, I saw some log files with no straight horizons e.t.c and I repeat, it reaches 2000€ with the fly more pack.

This is not a bargain when I can get a much better image with the Pro v2.0, and the remote/monitor for the same money, better stabilization on air, more flying time e.t.c From things I saw even the Air was competitive in IQ (a lot better than Mavic 1 certainly).

I wanted a Mavic with Phantom IQ, and I realized that it is not that.

[Dimitris Stasinos]

It is almost sure that there will be a Platinum version with more efficient sensor scanning after next Phantom's release. But then with that in mind we are again stuck in the waiting game which is not so efficient...

I will also let this pass. The expected IQ is clearly not there. The old mavic's picture was a total mess, worse than any phantom. This has apparently better low light sensitivity but then again it's not enough. What's the point of being slightly better from something really bad...

I don't say that everything shot with the old mavic is crap, a nice shot is always a night shot. I saw some nice shots ruined by it's crapy codec for sure so this is not a valid argument. As for the new mavic, we have seen wonders from 1 inch sensors so we all know it could have been better than this.

[Emanuel]

I see you two are as hard as the most tough Greek philosophy school... LOL : ) Embrace the excuse you want for that waiting game but... IQ??! The same you find along any 10-bit capture tool (applies for 8-bit or 12-bit devices anyway) if you don't care for your acquisition ballpark. There are no miracles outside the realm of the Lord : )) That's it (E : -)

[Dimitris Stasinos]

58 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

I see you two are as hard as the most tough Greek philosophy school... LOL : ) 

Lol that was funny  I am always enjoying your choice of words.

They (and by "they" i mean all those giant companies) are always funding and embracing that waiting game. Actually we are all waiting for the next one (whatever this is). The only difference is that some of us can afford every single step while waiting for the next one while others will wait till the end of humanity for a product that will never exist. I am somewhere in the middle with a moderate GAS syndrome.

The whole "mavic" concept was genius and innovative. If we set the Sony RX100's output as a golden standard for 1 inch sensor cameras at this specific time, then Phantom 4 is pretty close and that could be the case with Mavic 2 Pro. But apparently it's not. I bet this has to do with marketing decisions and not overheating problems or the lack of processing power. Sadly, this is the result of modern marketing in the camera manufacturing world: "great sensors being wasted due to marketing decisions for sustainable profit". We finally get this.

Don't get me wrong. It's a great drone. It's very convenient and probably the right tool for many jobs. But it's not what most professional content creators expected. Of course we can't blame DJI for delivering a product that can't satisfy professional content creators in this price range. But it would definitely not be a "miracle" if they decided to do this. The "Lord" has it all: great sensors, blazing fast tiny processors, great developers and a massive audience.

[Andrew Reid]

On 10/28/2018 at 11:45 AM, Kisaha said:

The Mavic series is advertised as a very convenient way to get great images SOC. The first 1 is just terrible, almost non usable in my opinion, the problem is that 2 doesn't seem that much better, and it is a lot more expensive.

It's lot better than the Mavic 1. Maybe not perfect, maybe not RX100 VI quality, but they had to make the whole thing power-economical to stop flight battery going sub 15 mins. I'd rather have 30 mins of shooting, than a slight bit more detail for pixel peeping.

So I am finding the Zoom is a bit more detailed, even maybe close on dynamic range with CineLikeD. No 10bit or anything fancy but the zoom lens makes all sorts of shots possible that aren't on the Pro 2. The Zoom remains a good alternative option if you aren't impressed by Mavic 2 Pro 1" image quality (which is kinda whole reason why you buy it over the Zoom!)

It is a real dilemma which one to shoot with, if you can only buy one.

For me the form factor of the Phantom is dated and way less fun than the Mavic. So that sealed the deal there. May as well get a used Inspire 1 with X5 if you are ok going bigger, and skip the unwieldily Phantoms

[Robert Collins]

I think a lot of this comes down to whether you see the glass half full or half empty on this issue. I am definitely towards the fan boy end.

On the 'price' I think it is pretty amazing that you can get something close to a flying RX100 for under US$2k 

Quality wise there is no doubt it is a huge upgrade on the original Mavic Pro. Admittedly the original Mavic had a terrible codec with either too much default sharpening or noise reduction. 10 bit DLog-m is great to process on the Mavic 2 Pro. Of course, the FOV 4k is a little soft although I think some of the comparisons reflect excessive sharpening (rather more than detail) on other drones.

Considering that DJI has a virtual monopoly of consumer drones, it doesnt seem to be holding much back (they could have brought out the Mavic 2 zoom first and the Mavic 2 Pro 6 months later) nor are they price gouging consumers.

[webrunner5]

New goodies to add to your drone.

 

https://www.newsshooter.com/2018/10/29/dji-mavic-2-enterprise/

https://nofilmschool.com/DJI-Mavic-2-Enterprise

[Kisaha]

I essentially agree with all of you. DJI has no competition, they should easily hold back on everything.

My hesitation is purely from a professional's purchasing approach.

My facts are:

1) the form factor is ideal for small teams 1-3 persons with multiple jobs to do on the field.

2) old Mavic was usable just as a necessity. Really unusable from a more realistic approach and I struggled to use it on some projects. For more serious budgeted corporate works we were hiring a pilot with their Phantom/Inspire. In todays market, most clients expect you to own a drone, they want to see something in the air, do not know anything about codecs and limitations in post processing and artifacts and high iso e.t.c

3) I am not, and won't be a pro drone pilot.

4) the low budget jobs that require a few shots are not going to budget a pilot with a drone, that is why I need something relatively "cheap" but usable.

As Andrew mentioned, maybe the Zoom is a more straightforward option than the 2. It is 250€ cheaper - better ROI - has the zoom lens, which honestly, is quite intriguing and the image is quite similar to the bigger one (I have to check more videos for that).

Another option would be to go ultra small and go with the Air, for those - plenty - lonely endeavors! Get my 3-4 shots I need, and have a better ReturnOfInvestment.

A 3rd option is to bite the bullet and go bigger, with the well priced right now Phantom with the remote controller/monitor 1000nits (that is something too), or even a used Inspire (can fit on a - not that bigger than the Phantom - case).

Those are some thoughts I am having. Mavic is the most interesting line of drones, with the wider appeal, I believe, just not 100% sure it is for me.

I will be starting my youtube research for the other drones to see if they are more appealing to me. I do not like (or it is not financially viable) to change equipment every year or two so I have to take a decision that can take me to 2022 at least.

 

[Trek of Joy]

Is there a consensus on sharpening with the Pro2? Paul Leemimg is recommending +2 which seems counterintuitive, but he looks to be getting great results  

I’m looking at one of the Mavic’s for a new gig  shooting beach beauty shots. I’m leaning toward the larger sensor, but the zoom looks really convenient and those dolly zooms are not over played in tourism promos. Yet.

cheers

chris

[Robert Collins]

21 minutes ago, Trek of Joy said:

Is there a consensus on sharpening with the Pro2? Paul Leemimg is recommending +2 which seems counterintuitive, but he looks to be getting great results  

I’m looking at one of the Mavic’s for a new gig  shooting beach beauty shots. I’m leaning toward the larger sensor, but the zoom looks really convenient and those dolly zooms are not over played in tourism promos. Yet.

cheers

chris

I think the consensus is at +1 for sharpening although some people recommend 0. I would have thought it is sensible to be fairly conservative with in camera sharpening as you can always add sharpening in post but it is more problematic to take away.

[Trek of Joy]

On 10/30/2018 at 9:42 PM, Robert Collins said:

I think the consensus is at +1 for sharpening although some people recommend 0. I would have thought it is sensible to be fairly conservative with in camera sharpening as you can always add sharpening in post but it is more problematic to take away.

After watching and downloading a lot of footage, I’ve decided to go Phantom 4 Pro instead. There’s just something missing from the Mavic 2, it’s not a P4P in a smaller package. Maybe DJI gimped it in some way, but I prefer Phantom footage. I will be using the P4P professionally to shoot tourism promo videos  and photos. IMO it’s worth the extra size and weight for the better IQ, especially since I’m in a pretty visible position that may lead to other work outside my main gig. Ironic since I’m shooting on the ground with the a73 and some small/light lenses like the 1635/4 instead of the GM’s. But I’m just not feeling the Mavic.

cheers

Chris