14mp not 20mp

[Bakersfield Quad]

This is the problem, the Imaging Sensor is 20mp, right? Now, like some DSLR cameras, DJI has decided to do some internal processing.
I think it would be nice if they said that the chip provides 20mp and that the effective MP is more like 15mp+, as I have seen done before.
So, OK, maybe they should reveal all of this, but for me, if the video or snapshots are nice, I really don't think it is a deal breaker.
If I were as upset as you, I would either return it to the seller or tell DJI that you don't want it, simple as that.
BQ

 

[Meta4]

That's fine. So advertise it as a 15MP camera.

It has a 20MP sensor, it delivers 20MP images.
No company is going to advertise that as a 15MP camera.

Aerial photography is all about compromises but cost and weight are the big factors.
If you want a better camera, than the P4pro, you have options ... but they will cost $$
Your next stop is flying an X5 on an Inspire at more than double the cost.
A Sony RX100 would be a great camera to fly but it weighs 240g and would require a heavier gimbal and a bigger drone to lift it.
Currently no manufacturer is making a drone that can fly a fully integrated RX100 anyway.

What DJI have done is to make a lightweight aerial camera without the heavy weight that comes with a terrestrial camera.
They've kept the 1 inch sensor, the aperture and mechanical shutter but stripped the size and weight right down to make something that a Phantom can carry.
This is a phenomenal achievement and it's miles ahead of what came before and what all their competitors are offering.
To achieve it required compromises.
I think the compromises are acceptable given the quality it delivers, what it costs and what it would cost to get something better.
You might not - that's your choice.
But until a better solution is available for a reasonable price, there's not much to argue about.

 

[RustyCardores]

Hi guys, just joined, The quote Ryan posted in the original thread was me.

To state my position as succinctly as I can..... I feel DJI has promoted their product in a deceitful manner, as the camera is advertised as having an "effective resolution" of 20mp. This means that 20mp of sensor data is used "within" the creation of the image. This simply does not happen and there can be no argument about this. The image evidence is undeniable.

So with that in mind, a more accurate portrayal of the camera specification would have been "20mp Imaging Sensor with an effective 15mp image resolution" or "20mp/15mp Effective"....this is how all other camera manufacturers specify their products when the total sensor resolution differs from the final image resolution.

Similarly, when stating the pixel dimensions of the image, they should stipulate that the final size has been interpolated. i.e. "****x**** Interpolated", again as other camera manufacturers do.

Is it OK for some users feel ripped off? Absolutely! An image interpolated to 20mp is NOT the same as a native 20mp image and many users purchased in good faith expecting the later.
Will this interpolation not bother some people? Sure.
Does that fact that some users aren't bothered, make it OK that DJI mislead in this case? No.
Does that fact that some users aren't bothered, diminish the legitimate concerns of others? No.

The point is that DJI has promoted and continues to promote their product in a manner that misleads the consumer.... and that breaches consumer law. Again, for this there can be no argument.

Now as to the image quality itself.... there are certainly gains to be made from using a RAW converter that allows you to bypass the embedded DJI lens correction profile. My personal preference for this is Capture One, as it is a professional RAW conversion application that leaves Lightroom in the shade. (but it doesn't come cheap sadly)

Is bypassing the embedded profile an effective resolution to the problem? No. It may improve results somewhat (even to a point that is acceptable to some), but it will never be as good as having a lens that would allow the camera to utilise its full resolution from the outset. Something, that thanks to DJI's advertised specifications, I expected to be able to do.

Rusty

 

[desert phantom]

This is old news: P4P image not true 20MP

 

[KevMo Photog]

Hi guys, just joined, The quote Ryan posted in the original thread was me.

To state my position as succinctly as I can..... I feel DJI has promoted their product in a deceitful manner, as the camera is advertised as having an "effective resolution" of 20mp. This means that 20mp of sensor data is used "within" the creation of the image. This simply does not happen and there can be no argument about this. The image evidence is undeniable.

So with that in mind, a more accurate portrayal of the camera specification would have been "20mp Imaging Sensor with an effective 15mp image resolution" or "20mp/15mp Effective"....this is how all other camera manufacturers specify their products when the total sensor resolution differs from the final image resolution.

Similarly, when stating the pixel dimensions of the image, they should stipulate that the final size has been interpolated. i.e. "****x**** Interpolated", again as other camera manufacturers do.

Is it OK for some users feel ripped off? Absolutely! An image interpolated to 20mp is NOT the same as a native 20mp image and many users purchased in good faith expecting the later.
Will this interpolation not bother some people? Sure.
Does that fact that some users aren't bothered, make it OK that DJI mislead in this case? No.
Does that fact that some users aren't bothered, diminish the legitimate concerns of others? No.

The point is that DJI has promoted and continues to promote their product in a manner that misleads the consumer.... and that breaches consumer law. Again, for this there can be no argument.

Now as to the image quality itself.... there are certainly gains to be made from using a RAW converter that allows you to bypass the embedded DJI lens correction profile. My personal preference for this is Capture One, as it is a professional RAW conversion application that leaves Lightroom in the shade. (but it doesn't come cheap sadly)

Is bypassing the embedded profile an effective resolution to the problem? No. It may improve results somewhat (even to a point that is acceptable to some), but it will never be as good as having a lens that would allow the camera to utilise its full resolution from the outset. Something, that thanks to DJI's advertised specifications, I expected to be able to do.

Rusty

Agree Capture One is a lot better converter than Adobe Raw. I have not used it for years actually. It was flaky software 8-10 years ago! But now it is good Im sure. Just don't want to change my whole workflow to go back to it. Portrait guy here.

 

[Geoff G]

DJI very carefully say "sensor", which is accurate but devious. As it's a fixed lens then they should, perhaps add - with a specially designed lens covering about 15MP without vignetting!!

I suppose the problem is that the closer you get to 1:1 image ratio the more difficult it is to get good (lens) performance at the extreme corners. Probably more important to serious stills photographers are its mtf performance over the working area (contrast), and distortion characterstics. If they specified those, it would keep this forum busy ad infinitum!!

 

[Claudiob]

Meta4 how did you take the yacht shots? From land or landed back on to the boat? Like to know what's the best way to do so?

 

[RustyCardores]

DJI very carefully say "sensor", which is accurate but devious.

No, they say "Sensor: 20mp Effective" ...which is inaccurate and totally devious.

Once the word "effective" is added, the specification describes two things. The size of the overall sensor and the area of the sensor used to create the image.

 

[RustyCardores]

This is old news: P4P image not true 20MP

Which makes it all the worse as they continue to conduct themselves in a manner that misleads the consumer.

 

[Meta4]

Meta4 how did you take the yacht shots? From land or landed back on to the boat? Like to know what's the best way to do so?

Mostly from land but from a boat too sometimes.
But it's easier on land - much less to worry about.

 

[Dronefriend]

I definitely think this should fall under false advertising. They proudly state that this is a 1inch sensor, four times bigger than a 1/2,3 inch one. Yielding more DR. But, if the lens is so small light only hits 2/3 of this sensor, they are on the verge to lying. Imagine you purchasing a 5D and the lens only covers 1 inch for the full frame sensor.. they wouldn't sell 1 copy.

It's not about sensor size, if the whole sensor is not being used.

You are asking where this is noticeable. It is noticeable as soon as is begins to dark outside. It is probably equivalent to 1 stop. That's a lot more noise.

Is it the same in the X4S camera on Inspire 2?

 

[Meta4]

I definitely think this should fall under false advertising. They proudly state that this is a 1inch sensor, four times bigger than a 1/2,3 inch one. Yielding more DR. But, if the lens is so small light only hits 2/3 of this sensor, they are on the verge to lying. Imagine you purchasing a 5D and the lens only covers 1 inch for the full frame sensor.. they wouldn't sell 1 copy.

Is it the same in the X4S camera on Inspire 2?

Since the X4S camera is almost identical, it's probably the same.

Now that we know how terrible our P4 pro cameras really are, what do you suggest we do?
Should we go back to the low-performance P3 camera or spend 5 times as much to get something that's less deceptive in its marketing?

 

[RustyCardores]

Now that we know how terrible our P4 pro cameras really are, what do you suggest we do?
Should we go back to the low-performance P3 camera or spend 5 times as much to get something that's less deceptive in its marketing?

For those who require something better than what the Phantom 4 Pro offers "in reality", YES a change of drone is most certainly a consideration.... a consideration that they should have been afforded when making their initial purchase. Rather than being mislead by the false specifications that DJI continues to provide.

 

[Dronefriend]

Since the X4S camera is almost identical, it's probably the same.

Now that we know how terrible our P4 pro cameras really are, what do you suggest we do?
Should we go back to the low-performance P3 camera or spend 5 times as much to get something that's less deceptive in its marketing?

Since the X4S camera is almost identical, it's probably the same.

Now that we know how terrible our P4 pro cameras really are, what do you suggest we do?
Should we go back to the low-performance P3 camera or spend 5 times as much to get something that's less deceptive in its marketing?

I have never said the camera is terrible. I do not think it is terrible at all. I do not think there are better options for the same amount of money. Right now, there are no options that are better even close to the price range.

I am not trying to make the product look bad. I do not believe anyone else in the thread is either. Hear me now. This is my concern. If DJI were to release a Phantom 5 in a couple of months, with a larger lens that yields a true 20mp image, without the need for upscaling, and that results in higher dynamic range with around 1 stop, would you not feel lied to? Mislead? You had been sold a camera with a lens that is not 100% fit for its purpose, for one reason, to yield more profits to DJI.

Does it make the P4P bad? No! But is it misleading, and very irritating? Yes! I would gladly have paid $60 more, maybe even $100, for a lens that utilises 98%+ of the sensor, like in every other professional camera. Instead they gave me a good-enough one, and no choice or info about it!

 

[Meta4]

If DJI were to release a Phantom 5 in a couple of months, with a larger lens that yields a true 20mp image, without the need for upscaling, and that results in higher dynamic range with around 1 stop, would you not feel lied to? Mislead? You had been sold a camera with a lens that is not 100% fit for its purpose, for one reason, to yield more profits to DJI.

It's a glass half full situation.
Some users are happy that DJI have made a camera that gives them photographic abilities far beyond what was possible and packages it together with a very capable drone for a very reasonable price.
To do this some compromises had to be made.
Some users can't get over the fine points of how DJI managed to fit so much camera into such a small package.
If it's really important enough to someone they have options - it's just that you'll need to spend about 5x more to get something you'll think is "better".

The lens is not fit for purpose? !!
The lens is very good and with the camera, it delivers very good images.
Every week, I'm knocked out with the quality it produces and so are my clients.

Does it make the P4P bad? No! But is it misleading, and very irritating? Yes! I would gladly have paid $60 more, maybe even $100, for a lens that utilises 98%+ of the sensor, like in every other professional camera. Instead they gave me a good-enough one, and no choice or info about it!

Did you ever think that there might be perfectly good reasons why DJI made the camera and lens the way they did?
Do you have any idea what technical problems they had to deal with to get the camera small enough to fly with a Phantom?
Do you really think it's just a matter of $100 more to produce what you are wanting?

No other manufacturer has managed to produce anything in the same league at the P4 pro.
Outside it, your choices are crummy 12MP cameras with tiny sensors and no aperture or spend 5x as much (or a lot more) to fly a better camera.
Anyone buying a US$1500 drone for photography which is many times better than what was previously available and costs a fraction of what the next best thing does, is pretty cheeky to complain that it's not good enough.
Particularly when it is very good anyway.

I'd suggest putting a little more effort into your photography rather than finding trivial things to complain about.
Or if you really can't get what you need out of a $1500 flying camera, drop some serious cash on an M200 and hang an SLR underneath that.

 

[Dronefriend]

It's a glass half full situation.
Some users are happy that DJI have made a camera that gives them photographic abilities far beyond what was possible and packages it together with a very capable drone for a very reasonable price.
To do this some compromises had to be made.
Some users can't get over the fine points of how DJI managed to fit so much camera into such a small package.
If it's really important enough to someone they have options - it's just that you'll need to spend about 5x more to get something you'll think is "better".

The lens is not fit for purpose? !!
The lens is very good and with the camera, it delivers very good images.
Every week, I'm knocked out with the quality it produces and so are my clients.

Did you ever think that there might be perfectly good reasons why DJI made the camera and lens the way they did?
Do you have any idea what technical problems they had to deal with to get the camera small enough to fly with a Phantom?
Do you really think it's just a matter of $100 more to produce what you are wanting?

No other manufacturer has managed to produce anything in the same league at the P4 pro.
Outside it, your choices are crummy 12MP cameras with tiny sensors and no aperture or spend 5x as much (or a lot more) to fly a better camera.
Anyone buying a US$1500 drone for photography and it's many times better than what was previously available and costs a fraction of what the next best thing does, is pretty cheeky to complain that it's not good enough.
Particularly when it is very good anyway.

I'd suggest putting a little more effort into your photography rather than finding trivial things to complain about.
Or if you really can't get what you need out of a $1500 flying camera, drop some serious cash on an M200 and hang an SLR underneath that.

You are still implying I'm blaming this camera for bad results. I am not. I'm having great results for the cost.

This is not about value, it is principal. If you buy a house with five rooms, you want the fifth door to not be brick walled behind it. You want the room you paid for. Even if you are content with the other four rooms and everyone loves them.

And to continue to use the analogy, yes, if the other houses on the street all have a maximum of four rooms or less, I wouldn't rage about not having it either. And I am not raging about this camera. But when something is wrong, it is wrong. Regardless of cause or effect.
Did they have manufacturing challenges? I bet they did. Why not be honest about it and call it a 1 inch sensor with an 80% effective area? I would still have bought it. Little resentful that I couldn't get 100%, but at least knowing I got what I paid for.

 

[RustyCardores]

Meta4, Your continued defence based on your own willingness to accept the camera, ignores the clear breach of consumer protection laws that must be adhered to.

You love your Phantom... we get that. You are happy with the images you get... we get that.

Others are less than happy and the law is on their side. DJI mislead them (yes me included) with false claims. Purchases were made based on the DJI specifications as stated and the consumer has every right to expect that those specifications have been met.

The fact that some are willing to accept things as they currently stand is totally beside the point being raised here. If you like it, if you have no complaints, then more power to you. But you can't use that position to defend clear breaches in consumer law or to diminish the views of others who are not willing to accept that DJI is of no fault.

 

[RustyCardores]

Guy at pub: "A schooner thanks. Hey! This schooner is only half full"
Bartender: "The glass is a Schooner, yes?
Guy at pub: "Yes"
Bartender: "It tastes like beer doesn't it?"
Guy at pub: "Yes"
Bartender: "Then what are you complaining about?"

 

[Dronefriend]

Guy at pub: "A schooner thanks. Hey! This schooner is only half full"
Bartender: "The glass is a Schooner, yes?
Guy at pub: "Yes"
Bartender: "It tastes like beer doesn't it?"
Guy at pub: "Yes"
Bartender: "Then what are you complaining about?"

Meta4 might say that since the price you paid for that beer is so cheap, you should be satisfied anyway. And I see his point. But I am on your side here. It's not about value, it's about getting what was paid for.

If I have to spend $4000 more on a Inspire 2 w/ X5S to get even better results, you know, I might. If I had known.

I thought the Phantom 4 Pro was a fricking steal for that cost when I bought it. Turns out, it was only good tech for a good price. Becuse of misleading and incorrect specifications.

 

[RustyCardores]

Meta4 might say that since the price you paid for that beer is so cheap, you should be satisfied anyway. And I see his point. But I am on your side here. It's not about value, it's about getting what was paid for.

If I have to spend $4000 more on a Inspire 2 w/ X5S to get even better results, you know, I might. If I had known.

I thought the Phantom 4 Pro was a fricking steal for that cost when I bought it. Turns out, it was only good tech for a good price. Becuse of misleading and incorrect specifications.

Exactly right. The point that doesn't seem to hit home with some, is that consumers pay good money, in good faith and manufacturers must (under consumer law) be open and honest in the description of their goods, in order for the consumer to make an informed decision regarding their purchase. We were not afforded that basic right by DJI.

Would I have purchased this drone if DJI had made full and honest disclosure of their specifications? No. I would have either waited for a new product that honestly met my criteria for purchase, or I would have considered a second hand hex and qualifications to fly it.