DJI Mavic Pro - from a camera perspective

[MFloyd]

Flying drones has been a leisure activity for a number of years now.  Until recently, the main purpose has been flying these, more than using it as a camera; mainly because the lower end cameras had poor image quality; the higher end cameras being unaffordable for non professional use. 

The first time that image quality, comfort to fly, and price came into conjunction were with the DJI Mavic Pro, a very compact drone, weighting less than 800 grams, 27' of flight autonomy, dual GPS, remote control with a 5 miles reach, very advanced flight security features, and what is more of interest to this thread, is a camera with a gimbal stabilised camera (mechanical stabilisation rather than electronic one) of 12 Mpx, shooting 4000x3000 px JPEGs and Adobe DNGs.

I propose to discuss camera aspects and pictures only.  In the next post, I will show some pictures of our very first trials. 

Internet is full of documentation, which I recommend to the interested:

https://www.dji.com/mavic
https://youtu.be/p1d_ptE6yrc

Attachments:
(1) control module with smartphone attached (*)
(2) size, folded (*)
(3) in flight
(4) detail of camera with gimbal and removable protection
(5) camera technical characteristics (*)

(*) from the net

And before I forget: the price: around €1'200 ready to fly

[simato73]

Thank you MFloyd, I look forward to reading about your user experience and opinion on image quality.
While I agree image quality should be the main focus, also some occasional comment on the ease of use might be useful.

I'll start with a first question: is the camera fixed focus or does it focus? In the latter case, what about aperture control?

[MFloyd]

Simone, already a first answer: it's a fixed focal length but with auto-focus - not automatic / continuous tough - you have to tap on the screen to define where to focus.  The equivalent focus is about 28mm and focuses from 0.5m on.  With regard to aperture, I have to look into, but I don't have the drone here.

[Peter Forsell]

From the specs it seems that the real focal length (not FF equiv.) is 5 mm and the maximum aperture is f/2.2. I put these numbers in DOFmaster and the depth of field is immense. The lens does not require much focusing.

[Bjørn J]

I haven't tried the Mavic Pro myself, but as far as I know the aperture is fixed wide open. That's why an ND filter might be necessary for video in bright light, to avoid too short shutter speed (video looks best and smoothest with ss around twice the frame rate). I believe the Mavic camera is primarly designed for video - which is what most drone flyers wants anyway. For those of us who wants to take aerial still photographs the options have been few and expensive. My solution was a Sony RX100 mounted on a Phantom 2, and the image quality is superior to what you get from a GoPro for example.
I do not know the stills quality from the Mavic, but DJI has recently released the Phantom 4 Pro, it comes with a new camera with a 1" inch Sony sensor and a specially designed (for aerial photos) lens. It seems that DJI have thought of stills photography with the P4Pro, with adjustable aperture and full manual control. I have some RAW-files, and they seem to have at least the same quality as what I get from my RX100 on the P2.
The P4Pro is a bit more expensive than the Mavic Pro, and far less portable (not collapsible).

I very much look forward to see photos taken with your Mavic, and I would be interested in some raw-files as well.

[MFloyd]

Herewith two pictures:

(1) view around Brussels (JPEG)
(2) view around Charleroi, sloping lock of Ronquières (DNG)

Both have been post-processed. I will post an original DNG image upon my return (I'm traveling)

[Bjørn J]

That's not bad at all. Especially the second one. The first one seems a bit oversharpened, maybe the in-camera jpg-prosessing is a bit rough.  The camera sensor in the Mavic is 1/2.3" the same size as in most inexpensive compact cameras, and the image quality is what one could expect. It seems the gimbal stabilisation works fine, no blur from the vibrations.

[MFloyd]

The one was processed a bit extremely, but on purpose. The gimbal seems to work fine as for the last one there was of lot of wind. I rank the quality at the level of a the better high-end smartphones e.g. iPhone 6s and the like.

Below, same picture, out of the box, without post processing (at least, the one decided by the author, and not Lr)

[simato73]

I haven't tried the Mavic Pro myself, but as far as I know the aperture is fixed wide open. That's why an ND filter might be necessary for video in bright light, to avoid too short shutter speed (video looks best and smoothest with ss around twice the frame rate). I believe the Mavic camera is primarly designed for video - which is what most drone flyers wants anyway. For those of us who wants to take aerial still photographs the options have been few and expensive. My solution was a Sony RX100 mounted on a Phantom 2, and the image quality is superior to what you get from a GoPro for example.
I do not know the stills quality from the Mavic, but DJI has recently released the Phantom 4 Pro, it comes with a new camera with a 1" inch Sony sensor and a specially designed (for aerial photos) lens. It seems that DJI have thought of stills photography with the P4Pro, with adjustable aperture and full manual control. I have some RAW-files, and they seem to have at least the same quality as what I get from my RX100 on the P2.
The P4Pro is a bit more expensive than the Mavic Pro, and far less portable (not collapsible).

I very much look forward to see photos taken with your Mavic, and I would be interested in some raw-files as well.

Hi Bjørn, good to hear from you, I haven't seen you around for a while.
Your thoughts sum up nicely what I also think.
I really like the idea if the Mavic Pro, its portability and ease of use, but as a stills photographer I am wondering - and somewhat doubting - whether the camera meets my image quality requirements. I have seen a review (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ayC-VIqwho) and in terms of stills quality the Phantom 4 Pro was leaps and bounds ahead, as one can imagine.
I would not be too bothered by the cost of the Phantom 4 Pro if it weren't for the much lower portability.
I would not think twice taking the Mavic pro on a long hike on the mountains, not so the Phantom 4 Pro.

Now, if they could only fit that 1' sensor and lens on the Mavic Pro...

[simato73]

Perhaps the question on the image quality could be re-framed as follows: how well and how big would files from the Mavic Pro print?

[Jan Anne]

DJI really got a lot of design features right with the Mavic Pro, and half of them aren't even advertised 

Drone Valley discovered a while back that that the controller can hold a Mini iPad which should be more useful than a phone:


This channel is btw much more informative than most tech "reviewer" sites.

[Jakov Minić]

MFloyd, the first one is great. It must very exiting to do drone photography!

[MFloyd]

Thank you Jakov, thank you everybody for having marked your interest and contribution to this thread. I hope that I will (continue to) resist for not buying a higher end drone, such as the Inspire 1 or 2.  The equation, as already said, lies also with portability and cost; but offset by lesser quality. 

I will continue to feed this thread with other images, just hoping for better weather.

DJI Mavic Pro: https://youtu.be/GySRiqECY7M

Inspire 2:
https://www.dji.com/inspire-2
https://youtu.be/m5WvcXp2dqU?list=PLEFZat6QdOIEIo4fRRgG4svNvHSx4Wagp

[Jan Anne]

Its with drones as it is with cameras, the best one is the one you have with you.

The Mavic Pro is so small it fits easily in any camera bag, it simply replaces one lens room wise. No other serious drone can do that and I'll prefer probability of use over ultimate IQ any day for registering my travel impressions.

And yes I'll buy one as well somewhere in the coming months

[Erik Lund]

Amazingly compact! Very cleaver design! Also the resoults are very good indeed!

Now here they say don't fly your drone next to populated area roads or buildings,,,