Upgrading the Vision 2 camera?
- Thread starter texami
- Start date
Disclaimer - I haven't tried their lens. My opinion - it's simply a medium lens vs. a wide-angle lens. It *might* be slightly better-quality than the default lens, and they *might* do a more careful job of focus & alignment than the assembly line in China does. But a miracle cure? Sorry, no.nhoover said:
The main advantage to this lens is if you find yourself constantly wanting to zoom in or crop your P2V images. It's "pre-zoomed" for you. Think of it like "optical zoom" on other cameras, vs relying on "digital zoom". The zoomed-in image will be higher-quality with optical since you're using all of the sensors' pixels, rather than cropping a bunch of them away. Obviously you'll no longer be able to "zoom out" and take wide-angle pictures with this lens - but if you still wanted that, you could take multiple shots and stitch them into a panorama.
This sample video clip has audio - so it would seem obvious that it was shot with a GoPro, not the Phantom Vision camera.nhoover said:
And it was shot at 1080p60! And 32 Mbit/sec bitrate! Definitely not taken with our camera...jimre said:
I don't think they're being intentionally deceitful. Looks like they sell this same lens for both the GoPro and the P2V camera. Their one sample video for this lens happens to be from a GoPro. Should just be more clearly labeled IMO.Shrimpfarmer said:
texami said:
I have sent several emails to DJI and I have always received timely responses. The English isn't exactly Oxford, but it's readable.
[email protected] and [email protected]
How does the image from the 1/2.3 sensor in the P2V camera compare with other point-and-shoot cameras having a 1/2.3 sensor?
I did a search on B&H photo video wed-sight for 1/2.3 sensor cameras with video capture of 1080p. 75%+ of the point-and-shoot cameras offered by B&H have a 1/2.3 sensor so it is a very popular size(129 cameras met this criteria). They range in price from $80-$500(one exception is the Leica which is 900). The average price was around $250.
Has anyone done a side by side image comparison of the vision vs one these $250 cameras? We might be surprised
What I am trying to say is I could take above average photos with a $250 camera, but I can't with the $1200 phantom 2.
And this also answers why I wouldn't pay RageCams $500 to upgrade the lens. Their lens adjustment just puts blinders on the cameras(narrows the vision of the sensor) so less information is absorbed(good idea by the way). Perhaps the sensor/processor in the vision can't absorb enough information to make clear images while moving quickly across tree tops or along a coast line vs a dedicated cameras($250-500) performing the same task.
I did a search on B&H photo video wed-sight for 1/2.3 sensor cameras with video capture of 1080p. 75%+ of the point-and-shoot cameras offered by B&H have a 1/2.3 sensor so it is a very popular size(129 cameras met this criteria). They range in price from $80-$500(one exception is the Leica which is 900). The average price was around $250.
Has anyone done a side by side image comparison of the vision vs one these $250 cameras? We might be surprised
What I am trying to say is I could take above average photos with a $250 camera, but I can't with the $1200 phantom 2.
And this also answers why I wouldn't pay RageCams $500 to upgrade the lens. Their lens adjustment just puts blinders on the cameras(narrows the vision of the sensor) so less information is absorbed(good idea by the way). Perhaps the sensor/processor in the vision can't absorb enough information to make clear images while moving quickly across tree tops or along a coast line vs a dedicated cameras($250-500) performing the same task.
jimre said:
Of course all extreme wide-angle lenses distort the way the Vision 2 does. I own a Nikon f2.8 fish-eye which is as sharp as a tack and which, when new, cost around 750 euros. In Nikon's own Capture NX2 software there's a 'De-fish' button that does exactly what it says on the button and still leaves the image sharp as a tack. So, as jmre says, fish-eye distortion has nothing whatsoever to do with image quality.
BUT what is relevant to image quality is the quality of the lens's optics, regardless of its angle of view. And this is where I would disagree with jmre because it seems pretty dumb to me that anyone would try to get Phantom users to substitute one crap lens for another simply to alter the angle of view. Once the first few got out to the users, they wouldn't sell many more.
I don't know, but I would hope, that the lens being sold by Ragecams is of a much higher quality optically than the lens in the Vision. And that would make a hell of a difference. Giving it an 80 degree angle of view would support that theory because the wider the angle of view and the wider the aperture, the softer the image is around the edges so, by keeping the angle of view to 80 degrees, Ragecams would be able to make the lens perform better at lower cost.
texami said:
The camera part of the outfit retails at $499 for a replacement unit - but that also includes the wifi equipment and gimbal hardware, so is not a direct comparison.
It's a $1200 package, not a $1200 camera - don't forget there's quite a sophisticated quad bolted to it which is taking the camera (whatever camera) up in the air and holding it there while you take the photos...
Anyone who knows me will know that i'm a sucker for a gadget / gizmo / upgrade etc but i've resigned myself to the fact that even with a decent bit of glass, the sensor is never going to give the type of quality i'd hoped for. Misguided hope? Well yes but we can all get carried away with the hype and pictures of people bouncing on a beach.
My hope is that DJI already have Vision Cam II in the pipeline and it will just be a straight swop, plug and play upgrade for around $500. Thats me sorted then (as long as it can easily be retro-fitted into the Dronexpert gimbal).
My hope is that DJI already have Vision Cam II in the pipeline and it will just be a straight swop, plug and play upgrade for around $500. Thats me sorted then (as long as it can easily be retro-fitted into the Dronexpert gimbal).
texami said:
It compares very, very badly. here's an image from my wife's Canon Ixus 95 from 2009 (cost about 200 euros). It has a great zoom lens, LCD screen, image stabilisation, all the 'modes' you can think of, video... the whole nine yards AND a sensor the same size as the Vision!
This is the original photo
and this is a 100% crop taken from the left hand side - not RAW, not processed; this is straight out of the camera
Perhaps because those other cameras are not attached to a moving, vibrating, unstable platform hundreds of feet in the air - where you can't easily aim, zoom, and compose for the best image?texami said:
I think if we're going to compare cameras, then we should compare images taken from fixed, stable platforms. Rule out motion blur as a primary problem.
Now take the same picture with the P2V stable on the ground, on the same bright, sunny day - and then we can compare!Peter Evans said:
jimre said:
The photos I've just posted were taken by my wife. She's no tripod.
The crap Vision photo I posted yesterday was shot at almost 1/1000th of a second so, not much chance for motion blur there.
Plus it's very easy to tell the difference between unsharpness caused by camera shake, unsharpness caused by poor focus and unsharpness caused by a crap lens
oh, i thought your wife was the one sat on the bench ignoring you while you "take another 100 pictures we'll never print"Peter Evans said:
I was starting to question the composition as well! :lol:
Studiowise said:
No. I'm always getting a bollocking because I rarely take photos if it's not for a specific purpose. Bit like the cobbler's children, always running round in worn out shoes.
