Welcome Matrice Pilots!
Join our free DJI Matrice community today!
Sign up

X5 difference, is it worth it?????

Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,288
Reaction score
598
So, I guess those that have lived with technology for a number of years are used to the concept of diminishing returns.
For those that are not familiar it is basically where you take increasing models/types of equipment and as the price increases you are given an almost exponential curve of discernable differences.
Example: take a HiFi system of $1,000, $2,000 and $4,000.
Does the $2k system sound twice as good as the $1k system? Possibly but probably not (quite). Now take the $4k system...... Does that sound twice as good as the $2k? Almost definitely not (but its still better). Now take an $8k system and you are into doubling the cost but only getting a small increase in discernable difference and you are definitely not doubling the quality each time.
Now, apply the same to cameras, the question must be asked.....

Is the difference in image quality between the X3 and the X5 WORTH $675 v $2,775 or does the X5 give anything near over four times the bump in quality?
Does it give you even three times or even double the quality of the X5?

Answers on a postcard.......

I think it will have to be the X5R to get that all important bump in quality that everybody is salivating for!
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
314
Reaction score
147
We don't know yet, because we don't have our X5s yet.

Based on my knowledge of cameras, sensors, and lenses, I think the answer will be a resounding "yes".

But I don't know for sure yet, because my X5 hasn't even shipped yet.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,288
Reaction score
598
We don't know yet, because we don't have our X5s yet.

Based on my knowledge of cameras, sensors, and lenses, I think the answer will be a resounding "yes".

But I don't know for sure yet, because my X5 hasn't even shipped yet.
But we HAVE seen some raw untouched footage from the X5 and the results seem very underwhelming.
Plus the back end appears to be hindered by the same processing engine and pegged bitrate at 60mbps so is there really justification for a fourfold price tag?

I have now cancelled my X5 pre-order and am awaiting the X5R.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
19
Reaction score
9
Location
Qingdao, China
Website
www.aileen-studio.com
But we HAVE seen some raw untouched footage from the X5 and the results seem very underwhelming.
Plus the back end appears to be hindered by the same processing engine and pegged bitrate at 60mbps so is there really justification for a fourfold price tag?

I have now cancelled my X5 pre-order and am awaiting the X5R.
I agree, the right decision !! Or looking for other brands meanwhile !
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
314
Reaction score
147
We have seen some underwhelming sample footage that somebody else shot. My reaction: hell, I can do better than that. I think most people here would react in the same way.

So until I get my X5 and do some tests, I won't know for sure.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,288
Reaction score
598
We have seen some underwhelming sample footage that somebody else shot. My reaction: hell, I can do better than that. I think most people here would react in the same way.

So until I get my X5 and do some tests, I won't know for sure.
I guess people are going to be very wary after being bitten by the poor quality of the X3.
The question still to be proven though is will the jump in quality really justify a $2,800 price over the X3.
I would love to be wrong on this but I just can't see it ( no pun intended)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rainbowers
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
19
Reaction score
9
Location
Qingdao, China
Website
www.aileen-studio.com
I guess people are going to be very wary after being bitten by the poor quality of the X3.
The question still to be proven though is will the jump in quality really justify a $2,800 price over the X3.
I would love to be wrong on this but I just can't see it ( no pun intended)
Not a really good marketing intended video (as DJI does), but this starts to take my attention:

this article can be interesting too: DJI looked by its competitor
Yuneec Launches First Professional Quality sUAS - UAS VISION
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 17, 2015
Messages
44
Reaction score
19
Age
34
Location
Seattle, Washington
Website
www.skylab-imaging.com
I never even bothered pre-ordering...The surf image on DJI's page spoke volumes of what to expect.

As the x5r, that's a bust too, it's too pricey (not technically but for the gbps compared to other cameras on the market, it still lacks) possibly too much for most hobbyists to care to navigate. At the price point of nearly 10k, your multicopter should offer various solutions, (I can carry bmd, panasonic, sony, arri, red, etc) Not just a proprietary camera system.

What made the x3 setup so great is it allows you to take jobs for much cheaper rates yet still produce a relatively quality image.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slim.slamma
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
4
Reaction score
2
Location
Pacifica, Ca.
I do not have the skills or knowledge to fully access the capabilities of the X5r but I do have a friend that does, However I DO have the resources to purchase one while my friend does not, so A good team we can be by combining our collective talents/resources/abilities/skills.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bryan Conover

SRH

Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Messages
8
Reaction score
3
Age
51
Location
Montana
Website
www.seanrheavey.com
For video work it might not be worth it... Though the x5r even with a lower bit rate still gives a fairly affordable package where one operator can get footage which can be corrected and included with other footage. I would not be surprised if one starts to see multiple aircraft included on commercials and movies sets because of the low cost and ease of flight. Most people won't notice the difference... After all if the shot is compelling they will be suck in...

From a still perspective, however, the x5 is a game changer... I say this because the cost of the inspire pro is affordable and I believe the image sensor size and dynamic range is going to give you professional results. The x3 is good enough and can pass for acceptable. To get higher quality one must fly a "real" camera which requires a much large more expensive flight platform and still does not give you the ground control the x3 gives. The x5 is going to bring the micro thirds lens and sensor quality to an easy to fly platform.
 
Joined
Sep 8, 2015
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Age
55
We received our x5 Thursday. Not sure video is 2x as good as x3, however it's easy to see that stills are far better on x5.

This may be my new NDVI cam.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
62
Reaction score
4
Wow!
I see from this board that there is a sucker born every minute. People just HAVE to have the latest any "greatest" products.
Don't waste your time with an X5 or X5R!
Just marketing hype. You don't need RAW for straight Television, only if you are shooting a Spielberg film and the footage is used in the film to be seen at a movie theatre screen and only a movie theatre screen where it is setup to look the way THEY want you to see it.
By the time video for TV gets crunched in editing, cable or satellite distribution and then aired on a consumer TV where 99 percent of people leave it at Factory presets, the RAW footage from the X5R will look EXACTLY like the X3 footage.
Don't waste your time and money on that marketing hype!
The grading done in post is all wiped out by the auto features in home TV's and cable and satellite systems. The highlights you worked so diligently to fix in Da Vinci Resolve for instance, will all be brought back especially on highly compressed venues such as YouTube and Vimeo let alone ordinary Television.
Please, do NOT waste your money. the X3 camera with the Inspire is all you need to make great video. If you expose and light it properly, it will look perfect on a home TV or YT, which is where most videos are watched anyway.

The only advantage would be more sensitivity, and FAA rules in the States, as well as other countries, do not even allow for night or dusk flying anyway.
Even UK DOP Philip Bloom says the same thing. Check it out!
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
251
Reaction score
87
Wow!
I see from this board that there is a sucker born every minute. People just HAVE to have the latest any "greatest" products.
Don't waste your time with an X5 or X5R!
Just marketing hype. You don't need RAW for straight Television, only if you are shooting a Spielberg film and the footage is used in the film to be seen at a movie theatre screen and only a movie theatre screen where it is setup to look the way THEY want you to see it.
By the time video for TV gets crunched in editing, cable or satellite distribution and then aired on a consumer TV where 99 percent of people leave it at Factory presets, the RAW footage from the X5R will look EXACTLY like the X3 footage.
Don't waste your time and money on that marketing hype!
The grading done in post is all wiped out by the auto features in home TV's and cable and satellite systems. The highlights you worked so diligently to fix in Da Vinci Resolve for instance, will all be brought back especially on highly compressed venues such as YouTube and Vimeo let alone ordinary Television.
Please, do NOT waste your money. the X3 camera with the Inspire is all you need to make great video. If you expose and light it properly, it will look perfect on a home TV or YT, which is where most videos are watched anyway.

The only advantage would be more sensitivity, and FAA rules in the States, as well as other countries, do not even allow for night or dusk flying anyway.
Even UK DOP Philip Bloom says the same thing. Check it out!

Ok that's ridiculous. By that logic why shoot any broadcast content on Red, Arri, F55 etc etc. when the networks and consumer TVs are just going to destroy the graded footage anyways? This makes absolutely no sense. On TV it is easy to see the difference between stuff that is shot with high end cameras and with shitty cameras, this is no different.
The X3 is a shitty camera. Sorry, but it is. Drone shots are cool yes and it is for sure better than a gopro, but when it comes down to it the sensor size on the X3 is painfully obvious to any discerning eye, and I know because all I see on TV now are Inspire and Phantom 3 shots, easy to point out.
The X5 and X5R footage does look better than the X3 if the settings are optimized, that is a fact. $2,000 better for the X5 or $5,000 better for the X5R? That remains up for debate.
I personally am looking forward to getting in our X5 as many of the early footage tests have shown a great improvement over the X3, if in the hands of someone who knows how to set aperture for optimum sharpness and how to grade basic footage.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
62
Reaction score
4
Ok that's ridiculous. By that logic why shoot any broadcast content on Red, Arri, F55 etc etc. when the networks and consumer TVs are just going to destroy the graded footage anyways? This makes absolutely no sense. On TV it is easy to see the difference between stuff that is shot with high end cameras and with shitty cameras, this is no different.
The X3 is a shitty camera. Sorry, but it is. Drone shots are cool yes and it is for sure better than a gopro, but when it comes down to it the sensor size on the X3 is painfully obvious to any discerning eye, and I know because all I see on TV now are Inspire and Phantom 3 shots, easy to point out.
The X5 and X5R footage does look better than the X3 if the settings are optimized, that is a fact. $2,000 better for the X5 or $5,000 better for the X5R? That remains up for debate.
I personally am looking forward to getting in our X5 as many of the early footage tests have shown a great improvement over the X3, if in the hands of someone who knows how to set aperture for optimum sharpness and how to grade basic footage.

Go ahead then. What you see on an expensive monitor in the edit studio will NOT be what you see at home.
Waste your money. Doesn't bother me. DJI made the X5 and X5R for suckers and you fell right into their nefarious plan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rainbowers
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
62
Reaction score
4
Even high end cameras such as the Alexxa that shoot RAW are designed for motion picture release only.
They are not designed for television as, my previous post stated, all post work will be negated through transmission through cable and satellite and viewing on consumer TV's. The high lights you meticulously worked on while grading will be all for nothing. Consumer TV's and web viewers cannot handle to resulted graded work. It will look the same as if it wasn't graded.

Go ahead, waste your money!
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
251
Reaction score
87
Even high end cameras such as the Alexxa that shoot RAW are designed for motion picture release only.
They are not designed for television as, my previous post stated, all post work will be negated through transmission through cable and satellite and viewing on consumer TV's. The high lights you meticulously worked on while grading will be all for nothing. Consumer TV's and web viewers cannot handle to resulted graded work. It will look the same as if it wasn't graded.

Go ahead, waste your money!
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Do you work in broadcast? May as well shoot Game of Thrones season 8 on the iPhone 6S. It has 4K and slow-motion right? Doesn't matter it's just a silly TV show right
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
62
Reaction score
4
Half of high-end cinematic TV is shot on the Alexa. Clearly they're doing it wrong! :rolleyes:

Indeed. It'a all about marketing. Producers and directors get caught up in the hype. As I said, for a theatrical release, yes, RAW would work. The movie is designed to show on their screen the way they want you to see it.

At home or the web, they have no control.
And Yes, I work in the industry and have so for 25 years and this whole RAW thing is a big scam, for TV.
Enough said.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
251
Reaction score
87
Even high end cameras such as the Alexxa that shoot RAW are designed for motion picture release only.
They are not designed for television as, my previous post stated, all post work will be negated through transmission through cable and satellite and viewing on consumer TV's. The high lights you meticulously worked on while grading will be all for nothing. Consumer TV's and web viewers cannot handle to resulted graded work. It will look the same as if it wasn't graded.

Go ahead, waste your money!

We just delivered a 6-part doc series to a national network this month, so yea I know the difference between looking at calibrated monitors vs. a TV broadcast. Unfortunately you are absolutely wrong about the state of 'consumer TVs'. People can tell what looks good and what looks like ****, even if they don't realize it, and yea, can tell the difference between graded and ungraded footage even though according to your logic if it's going to TV broadcast why even grade it all at right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnmont250

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
2,333
Messages
24,198
Members
4,413
Latest member
Tom C