About to defect from Vision to Phantom 2
- Thread starter Shrimpfarmer
- Start date
hotstink626 said:
No I still have it at the moment. Its never even tipped over let alone crash and it still has its original props in pristine condition. Its grounded now, no point risking any accidents.
I brought the phantom 2 today as I got go pro for xmas my vision is at the dealers as I bricked the camera on this weeks update
I was thinking of selling it but I think the vision has still its uses like the stills can be good for commercial work ( NOT for profit of course )
I was thinking of selling it but I think the vision has still its uses like the stills can be good for commercial work ( NOT for profit of course )
hotstink626 said:I was thinking of selling it but I think the vision has still its uses like the stills can be good for commercial work ( NOT for profit of course )
I agree with you (whilst my dear wife would want me to sell it) I am probably going to keep it, for now at least. It sounds like its a better platform for photographs (if you can accept the quality of the images). Last but not least I am intrigued to see what the ground station app will bring to the party ?
Well I'm about to become a defector too.
Having seen the surprisingly good jpeg images that my wife's five year old Canon Ixus 95 produces, I was seduced by DJI's claims of the P2V having a 'High End Camera' and the imminent release of a DNG firmware update (at the time of ordering, last week, that is). I thought, "Blimey, if a 1/2.3" sensor can produce jpegs like that, what sort of images would I get from a 'High End' 2013 camera with a similar size sensor but no zoom, no variable aperture, no LCD, no 'Modes', and no flash, but with RAW capabilities? Surely good enough for website use and prints up to A4, at least?" But as soon as the DNG firmware was released I found the answer to be a big fat "NO!"
Unfortunately, what I also discovered (from a comparison of numerous 100%, centre-crop, DNG images supplied by other P2V owners), was that the P2V's camera has serious quality control issues. Some images were what I would have expected (i.e. good), some were not so good, and some (like mine) were disappointingly bad.
So armed with this photographic proof, I was able to persuade my reluctant French supplier to take back the P2V (and I have just chased them for the returns form they promised to email me yesterday).
Because I’m not at all confident that a straightforward replacement will bring anything better, this time I’m going for a Phantom 2 (non-Vision) combined with a DronExpert Sony RX100 FPV platform and I’m now looking for the lowest priced Sony RX100 I can find. I KNOW I KNOW, the DronExpert thing is expensive, in fact in total, it’s going to cost me around twice as much as I first expected when I dipped my toes into aerial photography with the P2V just one week ago. However, this is not a hobby for me, it's my passion and livelihood, and if I’m going to introduce this new aspect into my photography, I have to do it in a way that enables me to produce saleable images. Going down the P2+RX100 road will most definitely give me that; it’ll just take me longer to get my money back, that’s all.
I know I will have to give up some cool features such as flight telemetry, low-battery warnings, and the ability to switch back and forth from stills to video after I've taken off - plus, of course, I will get shorter flight times than with the P2V. But, as I'm always telling our photography guests here at PPF, everything in photography is a compromise, and in return for giving up those things I will at least be 100% sure of getting superb quality still images shot at the classic FOV produced by a 28mm lens (in 35mm terms). Plus, from what I've seen on the web, with more practice in terms of my flying skills, together with the help of my Pinnacle Studio 17 software, I should be able to get some pretty good video too.
Having seen the surprisingly good jpeg images that my wife's five year old Canon Ixus 95 produces, I was seduced by DJI's claims of the P2V having a 'High End Camera' and the imminent release of a DNG firmware update (at the time of ordering, last week, that is). I thought, "Blimey, if a 1/2.3" sensor can produce jpegs like that, what sort of images would I get from a 'High End' 2013 camera with a similar size sensor but no zoom, no variable aperture, no LCD, no 'Modes', and no flash, but with RAW capabilities? Surely good enough for website use and prints up to A4, at least?" But as soon as the DNG firmware was released I found the answer to be a big fat "NO!"
Unfortunately, what I also discovered (from a comparison of numerous 100%, centre-crop, DNG images supplied by other P2V owners), was that the P2V's camera has serious quality control issues. Some images were what I would have expected (i.e. good), some were not so good, and some (like mine) were disappointingly bad.
So armed with this photographic proof, I was able to persuade my reluctant French supplier to take back the P2V (and I have just chased them for the returns form they promised to email me yesterday).
Because I’m not at all confident that a straightforward replacement will bring anything better, this time I’m going for a Phantom 2 (non-Vision) combined with a DronExpert Sony RX100 FPV platform and I’m now looking for the lowest priced Sony RX100 I can find. I KNOW I KNOW, the DronExpert thing is expensive, in fact in total, it’s going to cost me around twice as much as I first expected when I dipped my toes into aerial photography with the P2V just one week ago. However, this is not a hobby for me, it's my passion and livelihood, and if I’m going to introduce this new aspect into my photography, I have to do it in a way that enables me to produce saleable images. Going down the P2+RX100 road will most definitely give me that; it’ll just take me longer to get my money back, that’s all.
I know I will have to give up some cool features such as flight telemetry, low-battery warnings, and the ability to switch back and forth from stills to video after I've taken off - plus, of course, I will get shorter flight times than with the P2V. But, as I'm always telling our photography guests here at PPF, everything in photography is a compromise, and in return for giving up those things I will at least be 100% sure of getting superb quality still images shot at the classic FOV produced by a 28mm lens (in 35mm terms). Plus, from what I've seen on the web, with more practice in terms of my flying skills, together with the help of my Pinnacle Studio 17 software, I should be able to get some pretty good video too.
Peter Evans said:
I saw that rig on their site also. Very cool with that camera. Flight time will be reduced but lets face it your are the type of person who will plan their shoot in advance so you will grab your shots very quickly. Most people don't seem to plan and then the extended flight time of the Vision allows them to loiter and think whilst in the air.
I think that for your needs thats a wise choice of kit. Not sure your going to have to give up as much as you think though. Do have a look at the DJI mini iosd upgrade.
This video will show you what you can have instead - action starts about 5:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MztIht-yh1M
This is an interesting development, I was tempted to upgrade to a P2 (in either version) from the original P1 but decided to wait after getting burned with DJI's pricing/marketing tactics. IE: price dropped $200 - 2 weeks after I purchased mine.
I guess you could call this an inverted defection.I've decided on a different direction, I'm going towards the "Phantom 1.5". (I'll clarify that not to confuse new owners) I'm going to take the internals from my P1 and stuff them into a P2 shell. Using the original Xt60 connector for battery, I'm making an adapter to a P2 battery. Also by keeping the Xt60 connector I'll also have the option of using dual internal oe batteries (with "Y" cable of course)
Between ElGuanos' battery test info and this n elson youtube video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTlR1dUpT9c - I think I can make ground on the elusive more flight time saga. I'll start a new thread on the transition once all the parts arrive.
I guess you could call this an inverted defection.I've decided on a different direction, I'm going towards the "Phantom 1.5". (I'll clarify that not to confuse new owners) I'm going to take the internals from my P1 and stuff them into a P2 shell. Using the original Xt60 connector for battery, I'm making an adapter to a P2 battery. Also by keeping the Xt60 connector I'll also have the option of using dual internal oe batteries (with "Y" cable of course)
Between ElGuanos' battery test info and this n elson youtube video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTlR1dUpT9c - I think I can make ground on the elusive more flight time saga. I'll start a new thread on the transition once all the parts arrive.
Shrimpfarmer said:
I'm really confused :? How would this work with the rig I'm about to order?
http://dronexpert.nl/product/dji-phanto ... converter/
Shrimpfarmer said:
I'm really confused :? How would this work with the rig I'm about to order?
http://dronexpert.nl/product/dji-ph...e-shutter-integrated-hdmi-to-video-converter/
Sorry about the double post. Firefox crashed in the middle of editing and this was the result :twisted:
Peter Evans said:
Well I don't know if it will work with that camera but its worth asking them to see if there is a solution. On the Gopro its a cable that links to the Iosd which somehow combines the video feed from the camera with the data then its transmitted to your FPV receiver. The data is not present in any photos or videos.
I would hope that there is provision for that with the RX100. After all its an expensive bit of kit and FPV telemetry is important, particularly if your gimbal is tilted down at your subject.
Flew the heck out of my P2 H3-2D FPV This weekend. Here's a video I took from my back yard today. Covered a lot of territory. I love the cloud reflections in the lake http://youtu.be/UzUi5ZBvoYc. I could have never got a video like this with my Vision.
Your right, those reflections should feature in your best ever clips reel at the end of the year. What was on the tripod next to you ?
Just came back from a short trip to a local park. Used the P2 with gimbal (no osd or FPV - it will be here in two days). I've decided that the pictures from my current setup are great and I don't need the P2V. I posted a screen shot in another thread but will repost here. The GoPro needs a UV filter. It would make this shot better. I ordered an adapter and some filters from Amazon.
ladykate said:
UV filters were useful in certain circumstances in the days of film but they aren't needed for digital photography. Film is sensitive to ultra-violet light, digital sensors are not, so I'm afraid it wouldn't have made a scrap of difference to this shot. In fact using a UV filter can often make things worse because you risk introducing ghosting and flare into your image.
The only time a UV filter is useful is in circumstances where grit or water (especially salt water) can get onto the front element of the lens (e.g. shooting very close to breaking waves, waterfalls, blowing sand, flying mud, etc.) . The fact that it makes no difference to the image is actually useful in that case because it simply acts as a piece of clear glass which is protecting the front element of your lens - nothing to do with ultra-violet light.
Peter Evans said:
Actually, you are mostly right, but UV filters do make a positive difference sometimes, even with a GoPro sensor. Judging from your avatar pic, you look like a DSLR guy, so you most likely already know this.
As mentioned, UV light isn't as big of a deal with most digital sensors we use now, but it still makes a difference most of the time, even though it's subtle (especially on a GoPro). With a UV filter, that lake shot would have probably been a little more properly exposed (even if just from the extra 1/2 stop of light or so getting filtered) and the trees and sky wouldn't have been so blown out. In that particular shot, there is also a good chance you would have seen some more blue in the sky with a UV filter. A UV filter is really only any good if you know how/why it works and know what you're doing with it. It will knock out some of the intense UV light in your images, such as bright leaves in sunlight, or a pond surface, or haze from UV light bouncing off particles in the sky, giving you more vibrant colors instead of being washed out in UV light.
Ladykate, If you really want a filter to help get better shots, get a polarizing filter and learn up on how they work, especially if you are going to be shooting water. If you already knew all that, then woohoo!
