Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

FatShark - DJI 5.8

Discussion in 'FPV (First Person View)' started by 360icon, Jan 24, 2014.

  1. 360icon

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Missouri
    Hello

    The more I watch YouTube I would like to get a pair of FatSharks for my Hobby.

    I have a new DJI 5.8 TX on my phantom but not to crazy about having to swap that out for the Fatshark Tx so...

    Which Fatshark models will work with the DJI 5.8 TX i have installed?? Hoping there is one

    I could get a pair that plugs in to the line out of the DJI TX video, but i would like to be mobile without the ground station.


    If you own a pair of fatShark googles - let me know how you like them - I know its a way different experience as line of sight - but I'm drawn in to the experience that it offers!

    Thanks!!

    A Newbie from Missouri
     
  2. 360icon

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Missouri
    Re: FatShark Dominator & DJI 5.8 TX

    Does the freq of the channels have to match exactly for them to be compatible?


    Dominator -

    CH1: 5740 MHz CH2: 5760 MHz
    CH3: 5780 MHz CH4: 5800 Mhz
    CH5: 5820 MHz CH6: 5840 Mhz CH7: 5860 MHz

    DJI 5.8 TX -

    CH1:5705MHZ
     CH2:5685MHZ
     CH3:5665MHZ
     CH4:5645MHZ
     CH5:5885MHZ
     CH6:5905MHZ
     CH7:5925MHZ
     CH8:5945MHZ
     
  3. OI Photography

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    5,542
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    Re: FatShark Dominator & DJI 5.8 TX

    Yeah the channels have to match...I don't know of any fatsharks that will work with the DJI transmitter. Usually you'll have to use a fatshark or immersion transmitter to work with fatshark receivers/goggles. I'm not sure if the DJI transmitter will work with any non-DJI brand receivers.
     
  4. FlyingFanta

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    0
    I bought the cheapest FatShark kit (predator v2) and love them. The FOV however isn't immersive at all. It's effective however. You feel like you're in movie theater watching a big screen of what your quad sees. I understand the more expensive models have a larger FOV.

    But there's a steep climb in price in the FatShark family. The Predator V2 comes with everything you need for $280. Though add $45 or so for some IBCrazy or other well built clover leaf antennas. The kit only comes with a 250mW transmitter so you'd want every bit of that to count.

    As soon as you you step out, you'll have to remember to buy a lipo for your goggles, make sure your kit comes with a power filter to go between the transmitter and phantom battery, etc. ...then a descent CMOS or CCD camera. I tried using the GoPro out but the video didn't look as good.
     
  5. 360icon

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Missouri
    ****! Thats to bad its not compatible

    I have a ground station LCD now and it worlds great with the DJI RX

    Wonder if theres a video line in on a model of the FS goggles that i could split the video line out of the DJI Rx to feed video to the googles?

    It would be connected and i would lose mobility, hmm
     
  6. OI Photography

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    5,542
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    32-channel monitors like the one you have are usually compatible with all brands of 5.8GHz transmitters, regardless of which 8-channel-set the transmitter uses.

    If you're going to go the route of hooking goggles up to the video output of the DJI receiver (which can be done), you don't have to use fatshark goggles (and I don't know if any of them are capable anyway)...any of the many brands of regular video goggles will work as long as they have regular RCA video inputs.
     
  7. 360icon

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Missouri
    Hello

    I looked at the specs on the BASE and the Teleporter 3

    the tele porter is 50 bucks cheaper with some extras but 25 degree FOV

    both have a AV input

    The "Base" has better specs it seems - 35 degree FOV - 250.00 @ RMRC

    http://www.fatshark.com/uploads/pdf/1723-2.pdf

    Wonder how the iOSD mini data will look on them??

    Know of some other goggle manufacturers I can check our before I add these to the cart...

    Thanks!!
     
  8. rilot

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2013
    Messages:
    842
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Twyford, UK
  9. OI Photography

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    5,542
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    Not off the top of my head, but there's literally dozens of companies manufacturing these things now for general entertainment use (not specific to RC or FPV use)
     
  10. havasuphoto

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Lake Havasu, AZ
    I have the Base goggles and the iOSD Mini, and it looks fine. I would say I look at the iOSD data in the goggles more than I look at what the camera is seeing.
    There's a catch though-I've discovered that because of the shape of my upper nose, the Base goggles become uncomfortable after more than a few minutes of wearing the. They fit very snuggly-no matter how loose the head strap is-it's just the way they are. And, with no cushion for the bridge of your nose-depending on the shape of your face, you might not like wearing them.
    I still need to use mine on occasion-so I'm keeping them for now. The FOV is OK. And, I like the simplicity of being able to use my FPV monitor/RX at the same time as the Goggles. Simple yellow video in, and you're done.
    Also-I had an XT60 power cable attached to my power cord for the goggles, and am using a Phantom battery to power them. They barely use any power at all-so I could probably get many hours of use out of one 2200mah battery.

    As for the quality of the video-it sucks. It looks the same as it does through my 7" FPV monitor. Rolling lines, and occasionally some snow-depending on the distance. Remember-you're only getting a standard definition feed from the Go Pro. So, if the video feed on your monitor isn't good...having it 2 inches in front of your eyes isn't going to look any better. And, even if you got the HD version-it would still look the same.

    Goggles are good for some things....but, they take a little practice to use. Be careful, and have a spotter with you the first few times ;)
     
  11. 360icon

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Missouri
    I went back to radio shack and for 12 bucks forked out the video line out of the TX and test it with a second LCD - works! i also forked out the lipo so i can use it to power the base set also on same battery

    I have a second camera on the battery door its a small sony CCD thats fixed i plan on using for the FPV, and the go pro for the hirez images but if i need the framing of the photo to be more precise i would toggle the video source to be from the gopro

    http://www.readymaderc.com/store/index. ... ucts_id=20

    i could send the second video feed to a fatshark tx on the ground station but that seems a bit much and maybe would degrade the video quality a bit, no big deal its only for framing anyways, and you would be mobile with the head set

    BUT ----- so the base goggles has a 35 degree FOV and the sony cam camera has a 2.1mm Lens has a approximately 90 degree field of view then --- What Happens??

    thinking about routing a small fiber light optic cable from led on phantom back thru the inside and them come out to a area in front of sony cam lens so the led color is visible on the video feed - did a test handled and it works -might add that also??

    so far everythings working grreat as planned-- but have not flown yet - a bit more reading before I'm there.... easy does it.

    Thanks!!
     
  12. havasuphoto

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Lake Havasu, AZ
    No matter what the FOV of the camera-you only see 25% of it. That being said-your 90% field of view contains more information, than say a 70% FOV....so, it will "seem" wider. But, what really happens is things just look smaller.
    I hope that helps.
     
  13. 360icon

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Missouri
    Watch the review of the SkyZones on youTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZj-eNqvCDg

    theres a few design flaws with the buttons and channel switch-

    the FatSharks seems to be the mainstream leader of the video I've been watching lately
     
  14. FlyingFanta

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm still learning myself. Good to start with something mainstream just so you know what to expect and then learn more from there so you at least have some context with what people write online.