I just think you are being picky. I just have no idea what you expect from a camera like the X5. It takes great stills. My Mark 3 takes great stills. What do you need better for?
x5 as a camera
- Thread starter Michael91
- Start date
You reckon the x5 takes stills as good as the mark 3?
Maybe it does, I've never had hands on with the x5. I reckon it takes nice photos for sure, like I was saying in the first post and most since.
The problem is cost vs performance. The still performance is good, the video I'm not sure about is all! I'd be doing mostly landscape type stuff. Is it up to it, I guess people have different opinions!
Maybe it does, I've never had hands on with the x5. I reckon it takes nice photos for sure, like I was saying in the first post and most since.
The problem is cost vs performance. The still performance is good, the video I'm not sure about is all! I'd be doing mostly landscape type stuff. Is it up to it, I guess people have different opinions!
to me, I think the x5 does take as good a still as the Mark 3. Its not so good in shadows but I dont get your complaint. I think you are really picky and you talk about cost, but what do you think? I work professionally and nothing wrong with my stills. The X5 is only 4k!!! What stills do you expect it to take? Like a Lieca S? What are you afraid of? I doubt any camera will satisfy you. Its just a still. What do you need to do?
Attachments
You'll have to try it yourself to make up your mind, won't you? No one here is going to have the same opinion as you about it's value to you. Order from B&H and you'll have 30 days to return it if it isn't what you hoped for.
@DennisR I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm genuinely interested. Reviews from reputable sources are hard to come by, I don't think f-stoppers have touched it as a camera, tho they have done a video noise comparison.
As for what I expect it to do, if it can match a 2k euro camera then I'd be very happy. I realise your paying for the ability to fly. The real question in the first post is if it would be worth it in terms of video. I don't know if you've used it for that or not.
@Quadpilot it's as much an information gathering exercise as anything else. It probably makes me look stupid to be asking is it worth skipping straight to the x5r simply because I'm careful with spending - ill try and get it right the first time.
I think I'm going to go for it now seeing as so many people seem so happy with it.
As for what I expect it to do, if it can match a 2k euro camera then I'd be very happy. I realise your paying for the ability to fly. The real question in the first post is if it would be worth it in terms of video. I don't know if you've used it for that or not.
@Quadpilot it's as much an information gathering exercise as anything else. It probably makes me look stupid to be asking is it worth skipping straight to the x5r simply because I'm careful with spending - ill try and get it right the first time.
I think I'm going to go for it now seeing as so many people seem so happy with it.
Ha, I guess in that case what I'm saying sounds fairly stupid! Thanks for replying tho. It's helpful to get the input.
I'm going to go ahead and try it out, I'll let you know how I get on!
I'm going to go ahead and try it out, I'll let you know how I get on!
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2013
- Messages
- 840
- Reaction score
- 368
It does not take the same quality image as a 5D, that's a fact.
It is comparable to a GH4, and I'm not just saying that because the specs are similar, it actually produces a pretty close image.
If you're a photographer with a discerning eye which it sounds like you are, just get the X5. When you get the Phantom you'll take some great shots but once you get into Lightroom you'll be cursing yourself for not spending the extra $$$
I agree with that but I just wonder what sort of image he expects for a $2000 camera. The Mark 3 costs 5 times more with a decent lens and doesn't fly too well on an Inspire.
The honest answer? considering your paying extra to put it on a drone, I would be hoping it would match the 7d mii
Or something not a million miles away. I know a cropped sensor is 1/3 as big again nearly as a 4/3's, but with the way
theyre trying to sell it id be expecting a dynamic range thats better than the 11.5 or so of the canon.
all indications are that its up to scratch. again, my main concern was the video.
Or something not a million miles away. I know a cropped sensor is 1/3 as big again nearly as a 4/3's, but with the way
theyre trying to sell it id be expecting a dynamic range thats better than the 11.5 or so of the canon.
all indications are that its up to scratch. again, my main concern was the video.
You shouldn't be using the price tags of other cameras as a benchmark. The 7DM2 costs a couple hundred bucks less than an X5, so it should be about the same, right? No. When everyone likes to ***** about the price of an X5, they are forgetting that a gimbal is included. Price out a GH4 and its gimbal and its well above the price of an X5.
So what are you going to be shooting that requires better than the X5? I use mine to shoot tv commercials and its better than enough for that type of work. I really don't know why you expect so much.
If you are wanting to shoot in side without using lighting then i guess it will disappoint you but there's nothing wrong with the x5.
I shot footage today that will me on metro tv next week. On tv, it will certainly look as good as what the mark 3 produces.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 10,851
- Reaction score
- 5,717
Dennis - I'm curious, which is it? Here today in two posts you say you smashed your X5 and it is in a sorry state but you used it today in this thread to shoot great footage?! I'm confused.....
Are you not CASA certified? - I can't seem to find any mention of it on your site or any reference to the company or yourself on the CASA website for certified pilots/companies? Would this not be something you would be proud to advertise on your webpage with a CASA number?
The reason I ask is if your were you would HAVE to carry compulsory insurance by law and that would have paid for a replacement UAV/camera after your mishap a few weeks ago?
Edit: Apologies, I think I asked you this previously and you said your cover didn't give you hull liability so your Insurers would not pay out for another Inspire.
Didn't you buy a P4 though instead I seem to remember?
I used my P3 today and the mark 3 to take great footage. I am CASA certified. Im have had a PPL for over 30 years and to be honest, you are right. i just have not had the time to put it on my web site. Yes, I have 20 million public liability but I didn't have hull insurance. I didn't know I could get it and I wasn't actually flying in a commercial operation at the time. I thought any insurance only covered a commercial operation? Do you think I can make a claim? Im really only covered for public liability at this time.
I have not bought a P4 yet but it could be on the cards while I wait to see what the new Inspire will have.
I was thinking of putting an X3 cam on my crashed inspire as a spare or use it for training.
Thats not a very nice thing to say. If someone wants to buy a X5R why not? Anyone can learn how to use one for "proper video work" I gotta laugh at all the drone video experts. When the fact of the matter is using a multicopter for shots for a real tv show or movie is such a small part you would really laugh. Using a Osmo for ground based shots will not make you a commercial superstar either. So I say buy what you can afford and learn how to use it. But if you are serious about this as a profession start looking at serious ground based camera's and outfitting yourself with that too because if you think a x5r is high end wait till you see the real deal in ground based cameras that are used for tv shows and such.
Michael91,
I have the I1 X3 and the Osmo ... will order the X5 now that DJI has announced the X5 adapter for the Osmo. My question: If you were selecting two lens for the X5 ... what would be you choice. Thanks, CCA
Hi, may I ask you for your experience with X5 while shooting in low light with ISO 800 and 1600 - do you get horizontal banding/horizonal noise pattern in shadows? I ran into such issue after several FW upgrades (or there is another reason, I don't know for sure) - next to the known problem of shadow flickering in video (which can get prety nasty) I am getting horizontal noise pattern even in photos!? It very obvious at ISO 6400, still present at ISO 1600, and even at ISO400 it can jump at you if you lift shadows... I know that you have tested several firmwares and roller back from the last one, so did you have similar exeriences with horizontal pattern noise?
You say that there is no advantage of the x5r over x5 for stills. However wouldn't the x5r shoot raw still photos almost continuously since it is writing to an SSD as opposed too a Micro SD.
People here are aggressive as hell...
Look, I wasn't going to argue proper with anyone, I know how cameras work as far as stills go I reckon I'd be able to tell you as good as the best in here. Because I know how they work doesn't mean I know how a camera with "X" specs will perform. Hence the question.
But the bigger question was do you feel the still image quality alone was enough to upgrade over the Phantom when video quality was much the same *excluding low light*. Or would it make more sense to go all the way to the x5r first time and be done with it.
Are we clear? I'm no longer questioning the image quality, I'm not going to quote myself because it's all there if you read back.
As for what I expect for the prosumer priced camera? A camera with prosumer performance. That's why I ask about the 7d mkii. It's in the very same space, without being a drone camera. The fact that the gimbal comes with it is built into the price yes, and not in the gh4. The difference is every x5 comes with a gimbal, every gh4 doesn't. That means that when your going to sell so many you produce them for a lot cheaper. Trying to say a gh4 gimbal is another 1000 quid on top of the camera is redundant to a point if your arguing about the camera price when the x5 gimbal is probably a fraction of that cost to dji (not that they'd be afraid to charge you for it).
When the company advertises the max flight time of drones as 18 mins when the test constituted of hovering above the floor where the atmosphere is thickest, you take their claims about everything else with a grain of salt.
That's why I'm being so cautious about it and looking for input.
Plus, to get a lens that's actually useful cost another 600 euro. I don't know many people who use 30mm on ff as their primary focal length.
/rantover
Thanks for all the replies, as much as we disagree here on things, every opinion is useful.
Look, I wasn't going to argue proper with anyone, I know how cameras work as far as stills go I reckon I'd be able to tell you as good as the best in here. Because I know how they work doesn't mean I know how a camera with "X" specs will perform. Hence the question.
But the bigger question was do you feel the still image quality alone was enough to upgrade over the Phantom when video quality was much the same *excluding low light*. Or would it make more sense to go all the way to the x5r first time and be done with it.
Are we clear? I'm no longer questioning the image quality, I'm not going to quote myself because it's all there if you read back.
As for what I expect for the prosumer priced camera? A camera with prosumer performance. That's why I ask about the 7d mkii. It's in the very same space, without being a drone camera. The fact that the gimbal comes with it is built into the price yes, and not in the gh4. The difference is every x5 comes with a gimbal, every gh4 doesn't. That means that when your going to sell so many you produce them for a lot cheaper. Trying to say a gh4 gimbal is another 1000 quid on top of the camera is redundant to a point if your arguing about the camera price when the x5 gimbal is probably a fraction of that cost to dji (not that they'd be afraid to charge you for it).
When the company advertises the max flight time of drones as 18 mins when the test constituted of hovering above the floor where the atmosphere is thickest, you take their claims about everything else with a grain of salt.
That's why I'm being so cautious about it and looking for input.
Plus, to get a lens that's actually useful cost another 600 euro. I don't know many people who use 30mm on ff as their primary focal length.
/rantover
Thanks for all the replies, as much as we disagree here on things, every opinion is useful.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2013
- Messages
- 840
- Reaction score
- 368
To be honest I rolled back FW purely because of the video quality. It's tough to quantify, I just preferred the image it produced and reliability from knowing the settings and what I would get. I shot some unreal night footage on 1.3 and took some photos as well (not above iso400) the other evening and after grading I was really impressed with it watching on my TV.
For photos I pretty much never go above iso400, simply rely on shutter speed to get proper exposure. The iso800 photos I do have however look pretty good to me (they are on original X5 firmware though)
Similar threads
