Photo quality X3 cam vs X5?

[Kirk Voclain]

For Television viewing, it will make no difference. Even a 2 mp image will look great on TV. If you want to print it, that's a different story.
Same for video on TV with the inspire. The X5R series will look EXACTLY the same as the X3. Same for the X5. Don't get caught up with all the marketing hype from manufacturers enticing you to by RAW etc. The only advantage with the X5 would be low light capabilities. However, we are not supposed to fly at night or when it gets dark anyway.

I would have to agree....I did a class a while back teaching BUCK AMATEURS how to use their cell phones....the class included me making an 11x14 print from their phone images.

Almost 100% of those who attended the class wanted to know WHY the "PRINTED" image did not look as good as it did on their phone.



Ahhhhhhh.....the world of Digital......I remember the good old days of FILM! Remember FILM??? 4 letter word that started with F!!! FILM...now those were the days!!!

 

[Ezookiel]

I remember a film 'tog telling me "I'll never go digital till they're at least 12mp, because that's what the most basic film is". LOL
Think even the Inspire now exceeds 12mp, but 12 was very low quality film.
Put a 48mp camera up there and it might not be too bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quadpilot]

For Television viewing, it will make no difference. Even a 2 mp image will look great on TV. If you want to print it, that's a different story.
Same for video on TV with the inspire. The X5R series will look EXACTLY the same as the X3. Same for the X5. Don't get caught up with all the marketing hype from manufacturers enticing you to by RAW etc. The only advantage with the X5 would be low light capabilities. However, we are not supposed to fly at night or when it gets dark anyway.

So I have to assume that you're still watching TV on this:



and editing your photos on Instagram.

 

[x5yo]

For Television viewing, it will make no difference. Even a 2 mp image will look great on TV. If you want to print it, that's a different story.
Same for video on TV with the inspire. The X5R series will look EXACTLY the same as the X3. Same for the X5. Don't get caught up with all the marketing hype from manufacturers enticing you to by RAW etc. The only advantage with the X5 would be low light capabilities. However, we are not supposed to fly at night or when it gets dark anyway.

I disagree somewhat, in photography once you get past a certain level of quality the advantages get harder to tell, but they are still there if you have the eye for it.
Put an X5 and X3 side by side, take a photo, 100% of the time you'll get a better image out of the X5.

On top of which you can change lenses too, so if you do survey stuff, or are limited to how close you can get to a subject as you are by law, then again, it has more scope.

Extra megapixels can help too, going from 12-16mp is more useful than 16-20mp. Its just nice to have that extra crop factor + in conjunction with 45mm lens, you could attain level of detail the X3 can only dream of unless you fly right up, risk breaking the law, losing license, or just having an accident.

Lastly, if you do this for money, it can give you an edge over the competition, in terms of marketing.
The X5 looks like a serious bit of kit, the X3 looks like a webcam.

Also for photogrammetry (an emerging thing), the extra megapixels are worth it as they will translate to more detailed 3D models.

Don't get me wrong, DJI are taking the piss with the cost of this thing and its not good value based on cost, but it doesn't change the fact there is nothing this practical out there and in the right hands its more powerful than the X3.

I bought the X5, but I am selling it before I got to use it, simply because I have seen enough to know that while its better, I would be better off saving my pennies, this time next year, I think there will be something truly special for decent money. if not I will re-buy it.

DJI NEED THE FOLLOWING for their next inspire..

1) Redundancy.
2) Auto parachute.
3) Auto avoidance.
4) Built in micro lipo which kicks in if main power source is lost.
5) Camera which does PRO-RES @ least 100MBPS 10-12bit.

So I do share your general consensus about this craft, but it still has its advantages.

I still think the best bang for buck is a phantom 2, h3-3d, hero 4 BE with 5.4mm lens.
That things can be bought for less than £1000. When the go pro 5 comes out, you might well find many people will go back to it if it works on the existing gimbals.

8k video, at 100 MBPS/ISH, for less than £1200 + 1300g all in. Sounds tempting.

 

[B-Scene Films]

5) Camera which does PRO-RES @ least 100MBPS 10-12bit.

Prores only supports 10 bit (4:2:2), not 12. I have yet to meet a man that can see the difference between 10 and 12 bit depth video. Women, yes, men - not so much... Not to dismiss 12 bit, it's absolutely fabulous in post. The amount you can push it is shocking. But 10 bit would nice. For 4K you are now talking about 220MBPS though. The X5R is 12 bit btw.

 

[B-Scene Films]

I have to say that every jpg I see off of the X5 looks like compressed garbage. Filled with mushy compression artifacts and complete lack of detail.

Maybe the DNGs look good?

 

[Rainbowers]

I disagree somewhat, in photography once you get past a certain level of quality the advantages get harder to tell, but they are still there if you have the eye for it.
Put an X5 and X3 side by side, take a photo, 100% of the time you'll get a better image out of the X5.

On top of which you can change lenses too, so if you do survey stuff, or are limited to how close you can get to a subject as you are by law, then again, it has more scope.

Extra megapixels can help too, going from 12-16mp is more useful than 16-20mp. Its just nice to have that extra crop factor + in conjunction with 45mm lens, you could attain level of detail the X3 can only dream of unless you fly right up, risk breaking the law, losing license, or just having an accident.

Lastly, if you do this for money, it can give you an edge over the competition, in terms of marketing.
The X5 looks like a serious bit of kit, the X3 looks like a webcam.

Also for photogrammetry (an emerging thing), the extra megapixels are worth it as they will translate to more detailed 3D models.

Don't get me wrong, DJI are taking the piss with the cost of this thing and its not good value based on cost, but it doesn't change the fact there is nothing this practical out there and in the right hands its more powerful than the X3.

I bought the X5, but I am selling it before I got to use it, simply because I have seen enough to know that while its better, I would be better off saving my pennies, this time next year, I think there will be something truly special for decent money. if not I will re-buy it.

DJI NEED THE FOLLOWING for their next inspire..

1) Redundancy.
2) Auto parachute.
3) Auto avoidance.
4) Built in micro lipo which kicks in if main power source is lost.
5) Camera which does PRO-RES @ least 100MBPS 10-12bit.

So I do share your general consensus about this craft, but it still has its advantages.

I still think the best bang for buck is a phantom 2, h3-3d, hero 4 BE with 5.4mm lens.
That things can be bought for less than £1000. When the go pro 5 comes out, you might well find many people will go back to it if it works on the existing gimbals.

8k video, at 100 MBPS/ISH, for less than £1200 + 1300g all in. Sounds tempting.

Happy, I did not buy and warned for all that. Looking to put a real A7S or a GH4 on the right bird. At least there will be no discussion about image quality, no raw-video but a prores HQ compression would be the top in 10 bit.
Speed or distance competition is not my stuff, but a good trusty drone with enough flying time not to be stressed would be my favorite. I think to start having some ideas.

 

[x5yo]

Nice video.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[DennisR]

So do all HD cameras look the same to you?

I produce tv commercials and online video for a living and make about 4 commercials a week. I am moving to a BM Ursa soon as I love the 4k video. The X5 is far better than my Mark 3 Canon for video after conversion to 1080p.

 

[AMGPilot]

I'd say your groups aren't at all accurate (and heavily slanted toward the low-end). Video cameras break down much more like this:

1. The big boys that shoot RAW and cost a bundle: RED Epic/Weapon and even Scarlet, Arri Alexa, etc. It could be argued the URSA belongs here.
2. Dedicated large-sensor video cameras like the Canon C line, Sony FS line, Blackmagic URSA/Mini, etc.
3. Video-slanted DSLRs like the GH4 and A7s/A7sII
4. Hybrid mirrorless stuff that's more balanced photo/video like the Sony A7RII
5. DSLRs with video modes

Sorry but the URSA belongs at 3 no higher

 

[White Airwolf]

The BM Ursa is a piece of garbage! Doesn't belong anywhere!
BTW, Pro Res is being outplayed now by the XAVC codec. They both can record great images, except the XAVC file will be about a third the size for exactly the same quality.
Sony has adopted this now in all their broadcast cameras and other makes are following suit.

 

[AMGPilot]

The BM Ursa is a piece of garbage! Doesn't belong anywhere!
BTW, Pro Res is being outplayed now by the XAVC codec. They both can record great images, except the XAVC file will be about a third the size for exactly the same quality.
Sony has adopted this now in all their broadcast cameras and other makes are following suit.

Don't go betting the farm that other Manufacturers are going to adopt a Sony standard.

And yeah the Ursa is a really crappy excuse for a camera

 

[jb.]

Sorry but the URSA belongs at 3 no higher

That's simply not true. The list makes no judgements about the quality of the cameras, just the "class" they're positioned in. That said, the URSA (and Mini) fill a niche and make some wonderful images in the right hands. They're definitely not "run and gun" cameras though and are more at home on a film set than doing a documentary in the field.

The URSA definitely isn't a video slanted DSLR or hybrid mirrorless. It's a large-sensor dedicated video camera.

 

[AMGPilot]

That's simply not true. The list makes no judgements about the quality of the cameras, just the "class" they're positioned in. That said, the URSA (and Mini) fill a niche and make some wonderful images in the right hands. They're definitely not "run and gun" cameras though and are more at home on a film set than doing a documentary in the field.

The URSA definitely isn't a video slanted DSLR or hybrid mirrorless. It's a large-sensor dedicated video camera.

It's something that should never have been made. It's a godawful bad "camera"

 

[jb.]

It's something that should never have been made. It's a godawful bad "camera"

Melodramatic much?

 

[AMGPilot]

Melodramatic much?

Nope just an honest informed answer

 

[jb.]

Nope just an honest informed answer

An answer to what? I don't think anyone asked "hey, what's your opinion on the Blackmagic Ursa?" This is a thread about the X5's quality and my post you replied to was intended to show there are a few layers of camera above what the poster it was responding to seemed to think was "high end." The Ursa (no matter what you think of it) is positioned in the same class as the Canon C line, Sony FS line and the other "large sensor video cameras." Which is exactly what I said. Then you went off on some melodramatic rant about how crappy the Ursa is.

While the Blackmagic cams are odd ducks, have some quality control issues occasionally and are somewhat clumsy to work with, they produce amazing images when they're used within their limitations. The Ursa (and Ursa Mini) are no different than any of the other BM cameras in that respect.

I don't personally own a Blackmagic Ursa, but I've used them on shoots (rentals) and they're fine once you get over their quirks (which can be said for almost any camera, certainly any Blackmagic camera).

 

[B-Scene Films]

My wife started working with Garret Brown around 1990 doing Steadicam and just retired last year. She will be happy to tell you about the number of commercials and music videos she she shot using an URSA.

I asked her about it and she said "it's a tool. Use it for what it's intended for. Don't like it? Plenty of other tools around.". She also does not own any cameras. They are always provided by the camera dpt on a show. She never chooses the tool. She just operates what she is given.

I am guessing that AMGPilot has extensive experience with the camera based on the opinion.

So what, specifically, do you not like about the Ursa? Just saying that you do not like it is insufficient data to understand your position.

 

[jb.]

I'm impressed they put an URSA on a Steadicam. That thing's a HOSS.

 

[jb.]

Also, ProRes has a 12-bit version... ProRes 4444.