Unofficial Inspire X5 compatible lens list

[damoncooper]

Unofficial Inspire X5 compatible lens list. Compiled by a friend of mine and reposted with his permission. Thx Chnjab!

Dropbox - X5lenstesting.pdf

 

[SanCap]

Nice! Thanks

 

[Chnjab]

Your very welcome Damon you're the model of sharing hard gained knowledge for the good of the community with everything you continue to do with your battery mod thread. In that spirit I also re-posted this on the original X5 lens thread last week for everyone's use. I have recently been testing nonnative lenses, both film and sensor, that may be useful due to the telephoto effects only experienced through adapting. Definitely seems their are some significant gains that may be experienced though the unforgiving weight limitations force very careful application and use. I'm very encouraged by the results from a few set-ups so far but in no way through testing.

Damon, As i haven't yet pulled the trigger on an X5R can you tell me if the "R" requires anything different weight wise with the lenses or is the extra camera and SSD weight limited to the portion attached to the vibration plate thereby negating it's effect on lens balance?

 

[damoncooper]

Your very welcome Damon you're the model of sharing hard gained knowledge for the good of the community with everything you continue to do with your battery mod thread. In that spirit I also re-posted this on the original X5 lens thread last week for everyone's use. I have recently been testing nonnative lenses, both film and sensor, that may be useful due to the telephoto effects only experienced through adapting. Definitely seems their are some significant gains that may be experienced though the unforgiving weight limitations force very careful application and use. I'm very encouraged by the results from a few set-ups so far but in no way through testing.

Damon, As i haven't yet pulled the trigger on an X5R can you tell me if the "R" requires anything different weight wise with the lenses or is the extra camera and SSD weight limited to the portion attached to the vibration plate thereby negating it's effect on lens balance?

Thanks Chnjab for the kind words. You also have made major contributions to the community here and it's much appreciated.

Great question on balancing with the R. Since I don't have the exact components you used nor an X5 to directly compare, I can't be 100% sure.

But...as a data point, the shipped DJI 15mm with hood + included BR-046-10 (10g) balance ring is perfectly balanced on the tilt axis (up and down) but leans pretty hard on the left side (left = left side of the aircraft as it's facing away from you) and requires a weight to balance it on that pan axis:

Balanced with US Quarter and some electrical tape on the tilt motor:

 

[Chnjab]

Your experiences with the 15mm are exactly as my first X5 in November. I've had three and although there were absolutely minor differences in how they reacted to the lenses they were all primarily the same in what they wanted so to speak. I feel the differences seen are as a result of manufacturing differences in the zero cog brush less motors which act as both the sensor of movement and the means to correct said motion.

 

[damoncooper]

Your experiences with the 15mm are exactly as my first X5 in November. I've had three and although there were absolutely minor differences in how they reacted to the lenses they were all primarily the same in what they wanted so to speak. I feel the differences seen are as a result of manufacturing differences in the zero cog brush less motors which act as both the sensor of movement and the means to correct said motion.

So pretty much the same as the X5 then?

 

[Chnjab]

Yes it would definitely seem so. Given what I could see in the photos of it they designed it so that the additional mass was prior to the gimble.

 

[damoncooper]

Yes it would definitely seem so. Given what I could see in the photos of it they designed it so that the additional mass was prior to the gimble.

Perfect. I was a little worried there.

 

[damoncooper]

Yes it would definitely seem so. Given what I could see in the photos of it they designed it so that the additional mass was prior to the gimble.

Chatted with someone today who had the X5 and went to X5R and we were comparing notes on balancing the 12mm. He noted a significant difference between the two:

"[The X5R has a] much shorter camera body and with the 12mm on, my old X5 balanced perfectly with the balancing ring on and a UV filter ring with the glass taken out. The X5R with that combo tips upwards so still too back heavy."

 

[Richard Hurst]

Yes that was me, here are a couple of images off google that show the shorter body length of the X5R but it is heavier


X5 - 120mm (W) x 135mm (H) x 140mm (D) 136mm X5R - (W) x 125mm (H) x 131mm (D)

Weight including standard lens, balancing ring, Lens Hood X5 - 526 g X5R - 583 g so a 57g heavier

 

[Chnjab]

I honestly don't see what they reported to you from a physical standpoint but totally understand what they have experienced. The largest difference in the gimble assembly and what is responsible for the increase in mass is the SSD drive which through its placement has no affect on lens balance. it has been added prior to the first motor and movable part so although it must be supported by the gimble plate it does not require stabilization by the gimble motors. 57g is a very small increase considering what was added so I would be surprised if the camera was heavier. if it has changed in weight it may well be lighter due to the following attributes. I see two differences at the camera. A shorter rear body which has been offset to the rear and a larger tilt motor to handle vertical pan. By these photos I believe the lens attachment face of the camera has been moved rearward about 10mm, the rear camera housing is about 5mm closer to the horizontal stabilization motor, and the body itself is about 5mm shorter. All of this moves weight rearward in relation to the point of rotation on the tilt motor including all lens weights. Although there is no guarantee but with the shift in weight and the increase in tilt motor size it may be able to handle stabilizing heavier lenses. Now as easily as that could be true it could also be that the increased tilt motor size doesn't carry an increase in performance and the changes to the camera body may include a lightening of the lower body which would then result in a net gain of no change in balanced weight even with a different tilt pivot point. However if they have had to add additional weight to the lens then the body has retained a similar weight while the pivot point has obviously changed making the camera more rear heavy which should enable heavier lenses. By how many grams is unknown but even if its a change of 30g it would add a few more lenses. A change in lens balance is surprising considering DJI hasn't provided different balance rings for the few lenses they endorse. Given the extended gestation of the X5R one would expect it to be fully vetted.

 

[Richard Hurst]

I honestly don't see what they reported to you from a physical standpoint but totally understand what they have experienced. The largest difference in the gimble assembly and what is responsible for the increase in mass is the SSD drive which through its placement has no affect on lens balance. it has been added prior to the first motor and movable part so although it must be supported by the gimble plate it does not require stabilization by the gimble motors. 57g is a very small increase considering what was added so I would be surprised if the camera was heavier. if it has changed in weight it is lighter due to the following attributes. I see two differences at the camera. A shorter rear body which has been offset to the rear and a larger motor to handle vertical pan. By these photos I believe the lens attachment face of the camera has been moved rearward about 10mm, the rear camera housing is about 5mm closer to the horizontal stabilization motor, and the body itself is about 5mm shorter. All of this moves weight rearward in relation to the point of rotation on the pan motor including all lens weights. Although there is no guarantee but with the shift in weight and the increase in motor size it may be able to handle stabilizing heavier lenses. Now as easily as that could be true it could also be that the increased motor size doesn't carry an increase in performance and the changes to the camera body may include a lightening of the lower body which would then result in a net gain of no change in balanced weight even with a different pivot point. However if they have had to add additional weight to the lens then the body has retained a similar weight while the pivot point has obviously changed making the camera more rear heavy which should enable heavier lenses. By how many grams is unknown but even if its a change of 30g it would add a few more lenses. A change in lens balance is surprising considering DJI hasn't provided different balance rings for the few lenses they endorse. Given the extended gestation of the X5R one would expect it to be fully vetted.

I can only report it as i see it and as I have one in hand the 12mm Olympus lens does not balance the same as it did on the X5, in fact on the X5 I had a 5g tyre weight on the rear of the camera and then the balancing ring plus a UV filter ring with the glass removed on the front and this gave me a level balance in whatever position I moved it around in. Also taking those two rings off and putting on the B+W ND0.8 it was also balanced nicely due to the heavier weight of the filter. Now with the X5R and the two rings on the front with no tyre weight on the rear of the camera it tips backwards like a brick. As you stated maybe it has better motors to stabilise the lens, that I don't know but in a switched off position it does not balance the same as the X5 using the same lens and balance rings.

 

[Chnjab]

I can only report it as i see it and as I have one in hand the 12mm Olympus lens does not balance the same as it did on the X5, in fact on the X5 I had a 5g tyre weight on the rear of the camera and then the balancing ring plus a UV filter ring with the glass removed on the front and this gave me a level balance in whatever position I moved it around in. Also taking those two rings off and putting on the B+W ND0.8 it was also balanced nicely due to the heavier weight of the filter. Now with the X5R and the two rings on the front with no tyre weight on the rear of the camera it tips backwards like a brick. As you stated maybe it has better motors to stabilise the lens, that I don't know but in a switched off position it does not balance the same as the X5 using the same lens and balance rings.

All of this would be due to the difference in pivot point for sure bigger motor or not. That said DJI may have installed a motor which would tolerate more lens imbalance due to the aforementioned changes.

 

[Richard Hurst]

All of this would be due to the difference in pivot point for sure bigger motor or not. That said DJI may have installed a motor which would tolerate more lens imbalance due to the aforementioned changes.

Yes I agree it has to be down to the pivot point. Lets hope the motor has been improved on to tolerate the imbalance

 

[Chnjab]

Actually all I need is to know how much it takes to create a state of balance with the 12mm and I can create the necessary correction factor for an X5R. That said I caution others that is not the goal only a reference. My endless testing, careful reverse engineering, and experience has highlighted that DJI designed the gimble to require a certain amount of imbalance. Absolute balance will cause jello in most cases.

 

[Richard Hurst]

Okay well I have just ordered 2 more rings from DJI so when they arrive I might be able to give you an idea of the weight required

 

[Chnjab]

Great! If you can get it at an absolute balanced state I'll plug your findings in and make a new list for the X5R. Although my original testing worked from the 15mm I had gone from scratch on the 12 and the 45 in order to back up my original findings on the 15 so working from the 12 is no problem. If your willing to be guinee pig I'll shoot you the added weight range created by the correction you send me to see if the R is amiable.

 

[Richard Hurst]

Great! If you can get it at an absolute balanced state I'll plug your findings in and make a new list for the X5R. Although my original testing worked from the 15mm I had gone from scratch on the 12 and the 45 in order to back up my original findings on the 15 so working from the 12 is no problem. If your willing to be guinee pig I'll shoot you the added weight range created by the correction you send me to see if the R is amiable.

Yes no problem. I also have the 25mm and the 45mm so can test those as well

 

[Chnjab]

I should add you dont have to wait for the rings anything 46mm you can spin on is fine as all is needed is the weight in grams. The only situation to be carefull of is the increased effect created the further from the pivot one gets. You'll see this with adding a hood to a long lens or when adding a mulitude of rings on a pancake lens. It has a tendency to begin to bob as the weight is much more effective the further it gets from the motor. Easiest way to picture this is with a small weight and a string. The longer the string the more effort it requires to control the weight.

 

[damoncooper]

Team work! Good stuff. Count me in. I have a 12 and 15 and a 45 on the way. I'm happy to verify or test as well.