GoPro 4 Hero blac vs Phantom 3 camera
- Thread starter Taptalk2015
- Start date
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,241
- Reaction score
- 9,175
Gopro people will tell you their camera is the best thing out there.
Others will tell you that the P3 is the future of drone photography.
They're both good at what they do.
If you want a camera designed for aerial photography, P3 all the way.
It's way ahead of anything else in the air and the features of the P3 (and the price) put it in a class of its own ahead of any competition.
If you want to be stuck with fisheye on an action camera you can't control in the air (except on the new 3DR Solo) and the limitations of the drones able to carry one, go for the Gopro.
Others will tell you that the P3 is the future of drone photography.
They're both good at what they do.
If you want a camera designed for aerial photography, P3 all the way.
It's way ahead of anything else in the air and the features of the P3 (and the price) put it in a class of its own ahead of any competition.
If you want to be stuck with fisheye on an action camera you can't control in the air (except on the new 3DR Solo) and the limitations of the drones able to carry one, go for the Gopro.
Last edited:
I have both cameras. I like both. However for what I am trying to achieve the Phantom 3 makes more sense. If I was going to strap the camera to my bike then the P3 would be a bit impractical...
Most people are happy with fisheye. I don't mind it either on the video footage as long as the camera is pointing at the distance / horizon. If you angle the camera down then the fisheye becomes more obvious against the backdrop. I like to take still photos as well as videos and the fisheye is annoying on the photos. I have therefore gone to the additional expense of changing the lens on the Go Pro. These lenses are not cheap and not easy to change either.
On the P3 the camera is purpose built for a UAV. You can take snapshots after composing your shot instead of having the Go Pro take 2500 pictures that you hope would have covered what you want to photograph. All this functionality from the Pilot end. Having the ability to compose a shot, change camera variables is useful and should not be ignored. In real life you wouldn't just snap randomly 2500 photos without composing and checking exposure would you? I would rather be able to turn video on and off especially when 4K footage is so hungry on the media. Not sure if the Go Pro can take 128GB cards either?? The Inspire does so I am assuming the P3 may do (not tested)
Finally people say that the P3 gimble is fragile. The Gimbal is lightweight and made to be agile. Make it too heavy and you will have to trade of weight and speed of reaction. I would rather have a lightweight and lean machine that will fly longer than a tank that will stay up for 5 minutes before it needs to land.
Most people are happy with fisheye. I don't mind it either on the video footage as long as the camera is pointing at the distance / horizon. If you angle the camera down then the fisheye becomes more obvious against the backdrop. I like to take still photos as well as videos and the fisheye is annoying on the photos. I have therefore gone to the additional expense of changing the lens on the Go Pro. These lenses are not cheap and not easy to change either.
On the P3 the camera is purpose built for a UAV. You can take snapshots after composing your shot instead of having the Go Pro take 2500 pictures that you hope would have covered what you want to photograph. All this functionality from the Pilot end. Having the ability to compose a shot, change camera variables is useful and should not be ignored. In real life you wouldn't just snap randomly 2500 photos without composing and checking exposure would you? I would rather be able to turn video on and off especially when 4K footage is so hungry on the media. Not sure if the Go Pro can take 128GB cards either?? The Inspire does so I am assuming the P3 may do (not tested)
Finally people say that the P3 gimble is fragile. The Gimbal is lightweight and made to be agile. Make it too heavy and you will have to trade of weight and speed of reaction. I would rather have a lightweight and lean machine that will fly longer than a tank that will stay up for 5 minutes before it needs to land.
Time will tell, but for toy town cameras the gopro does have many more options. check out the sony a7s to see what proper 4k loos like..
Last edited:
Hi Mohan, can you tell me how long does it take the camera to take a dng raw pic? Does the screen go blank for a few seconds just like it does on the p2v+ and if so how long does the screen go blank for?I have both cameras. I like both. However for what I am trying to achieve the Phantom 3 makes more sense. If I was going to strap the camera to my bike then the P3 would be a bit impractical...
Most people are happy with fisheye. I don't mind it either on the video footage as long as the camera is pointing at the distance / horizon. If you angle the camera down then the fisheye becomes more obvious against the backdrop. I like to take still photos as well as videos and the fisheye is annoying on the photos. I have therefore gone to the additional expense of changing the lens on the Go Pro. These lenses are not cheap and not easy to change either.
On the P3 the camera is purpose built for a UAV. You can take snapshots after composing your shot instead of having the Go Pro take 2500 pictures that you hope would have covered what you want to photograph. All this functionality from the Pilot end. Having the ability to compose a shot, change camera variables is useful and should not be ignored. In real life you wouldn't just snap randomly 2500 photos without composing and checking exposure would you? I would rather be able to turn video on and off especially when 4K footage is so hungry on the media. Not sure if the Go Pro can take 128GB cards either?? The Inspire does so I am assuming the P3 may do (not tested)
Finally people say that the P3 gimble is fragile. The Gimbal is lightweight and made to be agile. Make it too heavy and you will have to trade of weight and speed of reaction. I would rather have a lightweight and lean machine that will fly longer than a tank that will stay up for 5 minutes before it needs to land.
Thanks
msinger
Approved Vendor
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2014
- Messages
- 31,815
- Reaction score
- 10,720
- Location
- Harrisburg, PA (US)
- Website
- phantomhelp.com
but this is unfair man!... haha... you are comparing $1.7k camera + some lenses (one of them the 300mm 2.8 cost $7.5k)... to a GoPro Hero4 Black at $499!!
for the price.. I prefer the GoPro!
but this is unfair man!... haha... you are comparing $1.7k camera + some lenses (one of them the 300mm 2.8 cost $7.5k)... to a GoPro Hero4 Black at $499!!
for the price.. I prefer the GoPro!
Nice too show the difference and just to remind people what 4k really is.
You keep saying this in every thread, I ask you what is the best mode for a 4K display?
I say this because the bitrate for 4k it's the same as 2.7k that's why 2.7k show a better image although the resolution is lower.
Best mode? A 4k display will have no problem displaying a full HD movie or 1440p.
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
I'll say it again. You don't have to be stuck with the fisheye with the GoPro.
Really wish you'd stop misleading people who are looking for information. You're making it sound like there's no way to remove it. There is. It's dead simple. Resulting footage has no fisheye and is not degraded in any noticeable way. I think I've provided enough proof to debunk that myth.
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
All the professionals (DPs, etc.) agree that 2.7K is the ideal mode for the Ambarella A9 and Exmor-R (the imaging system in the Inspire, P3 and GoPro Hero 4).
The bitrate of the imaging system is really not enough for true 4K. It would need to be about 100mbps to get a true 4K video.
I think most people don't understand that... Try to say that to all this dji fans...
The best mode to film in the dji camera is 1080p 60fps that records about 40000kbps which is good for 1080p, the 4k will not look good is some situations because of the low bitrate.
Of course if you could get a drone to do a true panorama i.e. rotate around the hyper focal point of the camera and lens taking a series of pictures, you would want a fish-eye lens to make it easy to stitch the final pictures together. Personally, I find the quality of the 3+ black sensor and lens combination to be so good that I can remove fish-eye so easily that it isn't a problem at all.
While I agree that having 2.7k at 60fps would be nice, I think it's a bit too vague to say "4k will not look good in some situations" especially when we already have footage available to examine. Why talk generalities when there is evidence to pore over?
I'm curious about what would you say about these samples that have been put out already? While I agree these may not be as good as "true" 4k from a $2,500 DSLR mounted on a liquid panohead tripod, I'd say they're quite good for a $1,300 drone + camera combo. Thanks for the discussion, it's interesting to read
Last edited:
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
Bloom must have been in a rush to get that video out. Jello in almost every shot. Watching it in actual 4K is painful. Static shots are OK despite the lack of color depth but when ever the P3 moves, the compression noise is everywhere. And before anyone says "oh, that's just Youtube compression", watch this:
That's what 4K is supposed to look like. On an screen that can actually show 4K, it looks phenomenal!
That's what 4K is supposed to look like. On an screen that can actually show 4K, it looks phenomenal!
Similar threads
