Is a Phantom 4 Pro Professional Enough?

[UAVDroner]

In terms of image quality It's a matter of expectations. I terms of flexibility, Phantom Pro class flying camera is not professional at all. It's simply an universal pocket camera on extended tripod. Most modern smartphones can deliver similar quality image, yet one will hardly call them professional. High picture resolution doesn't automatically classify an camera in pro category, specifics of lens do. No, I'll hesitate to offer professional service with only P4P in my toolbox ...

Actually, many smart phones are beginning to have incredible camera capabilities.. I have the Samsung S8 and it does amazing things.

 

[aerialimagery]

Does anyone know where I could see full resolution sample still images taken with an Inspire? (With the best camera. I'm not up on all the systems available for the Inspire series). Even better would be a comparison between a P4P image and one from the Inspire with a lens with a similar field of view.

For those who have run into customers or prospects who say they have a drone or if seeing you fly a P4P say that they have one like it, etc., do any of them really have a P4P? I posted the original question because I wanted to differentiate what I have vs what I think they have. I want to say "I have a professional drone" vs the hobbyist drone they have that delivers inferior imagery (not to mention photography skills that they also likely don't have).

 

[skyeboysteve]

I started off with a P3P, and now use a P4P. Some of viewers of my promotional videos have noticed the improvement in quality since switching. In any case; like others have said, if you're getting paid for whatever you produce with a given camera or drone--then it's "professional enough". If I'm worried that people might not take me seriously with my P4P while on site, I just pull out my cardboard cutout of bikini model holding an Ispire 2; and leave it on display.

 

[aerialimagery]

I started off with a P3P, and now use a P4P. Some of viewers of my promotional videos have noticed the improvement in quality since switching. In any case; like others have said, if you're getting paid for whatever you produce with a given camera or drone--then it's "professional enough". If I'm worried that people might not take me seriously with my P4P while on site, I just pull out my cardboard cutout of bikini model holding an Ispire 2; and leave it on display.

I've never had an audience. I just ask them to recommend a place where I can set up, or do so off the location, since I don't want to be in the picture, and they leave me alone.

The main question for me is whether it is fair to presume that my P4P is more professional than the drone their employee or nephew has. Hence, can I confidently state that I use a "professional drone," because what they have is probably a toy? (Of course even if they do have a P4P or better, if they are not experienced photographers, they're work is still going to be inferior to that of a pro).

 

[skyeboysteve]

I've never had an audience. I just ask them to recommend a place where I can set up, or do so off the location, since I don't want to be in the picture, and they leave me alone.

The main question for me is whether it is fair to presume that my P4P is more professional than the drone their employee or nephew has. Hence, can I confidently state that I use a "professional drone," because what they have is probably a toy? (Of course even if they do have a P4P or better, if they are not experienced photographers, they're work is still going to be inferior to that of a pro).

Yep, in this business, or any where technology is obviously accelerating, making it easier for the masses to do work that only a few years ago required the skills and dedication from a select talented few. One reason why you sometimes see full-scale helicopter pilots annoyed with drone pilots; as now you can shoot video in ways that are far superior, yet require virtually no operating or startup cost, much less the thousands of hours and thousands of dollars spent training for their profession. The same goes with video editing. As software gets more advanced and less expensive more people are able to join the fray, saturating the market even more. More than likely you'll encounter customers that have the same drone you do; but like you said, if you can use it better, edit better and produce a superior product efficiently; then you can still have a job.

I hate to say this, but in the near future, I think our industry as drone pilots will be looked back upon as a bit of a fad. As technology improves and regulations finally catch up; drones will be mostly self flying robots, controlled by operators in an office building somewhere, acting more like film directors than drone pilots.

 

[Matthew Dobrski]

Yep, in this business, or any where technology is obviously accelerating, making it easier for the masses to do work that only a few years ago required the skills and dedication from a select talented few. One reason why you sometimes see full-scale helicopter pilots annoyed with drone pilots; as now you can shoot video in ways that are far superior, yet require virtually no operating or startup cost, much less the thousands of hours and thousands of dollars spent training for their profession. The same goes with video editing. As software gets more advanced and less expensive more people are able to join the fray, saturating the market even more. More than likely you'll encounter customers that have the same drone you do; but like you said, if you can use it better, edit better and produce a superior product efficiently; then you can still have a job.

I hate to say this, but in the near future, I think our industry as drone pilots will be looked back upon as a bit of a fad. As technology improves and regulations finally catch up; drones will be mostly self flying robots, controlled by operators in an office building somewhere, acting more like film directors than drone pilots.

Although a bit off topic, I'll reply to above as follow: When a seasoned professional photographer is expanding his toolbox content by a drone, than this is the way to go. One will be left behind competition if not. However, If you're an enthusiast who's dreaming about making money with under a X-mas tree discovered P4P, stop dreaming, please. This was a fad before transformation into a trend ...

 

[VisualApproachPhoto]

Does anyone know where I could see full resolution sample still images taken with an Inspire? (With the best camera. I'm not up on all the systems available for the Inspire series). Even better would be a comparison between a P4P image and one from the Inspire with a lens with a similar field of view.

For those who have run into customers or prospects who say they have a drone or if seeing you fly a P4P say that they have one like it, etc., do any of them really have a P4P? I posted the original question because I wanted to differentiate what I have vs what I think they have. I want to say "I have a professional drone" vs the hobbyist drone they have that delivers inferior imagery (not to mention photography skills that they also likely don't have).

When I get back stateside in the next day or so, I will try to take the same image from my Phantom 4 Pro and my Inspire 2 X5S (X7 is newest and best). I will upload the results as soon as I can, so maybe Wednesday if I can fly tomorrow afternoon.

 

[aerialimagery]

When I get back stateside in the next day or so, I will try to take the same image from my Phantom 4 Pro and my Inspire 2 X5S (X7 is newest and best). I will upload the results as soon as I can, so maybe Wednesday if I can fly tomorrow afternoon.

Thanks. I'm looking forward to seeing the photos.

 

[Tennessee Drone Services]

I think a large part that plays into the professional bit is knowing the limitations and benefits that each tool offers and working within those parameters. Like Florida Drone Supply said, a photographer utilizes different lenses for different purposes. I wouldn't use my 70-300mm if I was trying to do an architecture shoot to showcase the grandeur and presence of a building. Likewise, I wouldn't use a P4P for closeup shots of 3/4" bolts underneath a water tower. I'd want to use something that kept me out of danger that utilized a zoom.

Having said that however, I use P4P's in "cinematic" shoots- especially when size, weight, and speed of setup matter. Here's one I filmed back in early December for State Parks: CCW .

Additionally, when I was first learning with drones, I filmed this with a P3S just to see if I could: MC

Again, it all comes down to knowing your tools and what they can and can't do. The professional part is largely dictated by how well you can use them, and present yourself and your company.

 

[Valentiaman]

View attachment 109
Absolutely

Love it!

 

[VisualApproachPhoto]

OK. Didn't get a chance to fly until yesterday, and only around my house, so the photos are not the best . I just did them quick, auto focus, auto exposure (which I normally don't do) and they are not processed other than sizing down to 1600px long side each jpgs.

Let's start off with the Phantom 4 Pro + setup...

And then the Inspire 2 X5S setup...

Switching to JPG and resizing them takes away some of their image qualities, but these would be similar size images that would ultimately be used, so I figure it is a decent enough comparison. As you can see, both images are just fine for final aerial real estate photos. Both will help sell the house and show what is nearby, etc, so you can say the P4P is adequate in this regard.

Diving into the specifics of the images, let's look at stats...

P4P: ISO100, 8.8mm, 1/80 at f4.0 for image size of 5472x3078 original size. 1" CMOS sensor.
X5S: ISO100, 15mm, 1/120 at f3.2 for image size of 5280x2970 original size. Micro 4/3 sensor.

While both images are 20mp, the P4P seems to have a slight edge in resolution, but the sensors are quite different and thus final image quality is quite different. The RAW images, and even the JPGs shot from each camera reveal these differences, but these images are less "demonstrative" of the differences. I shot these as JPGs straight from the camera, so no RAW images to work with. I did this just for this comparison, though I almost always shoot RAW. One of the biggest benefits of the X5S sensor is its dynamic range over the P4P. One other huge benefit of the X5S is the ability to change lenses, allowing for more flexibility in imagery. Another benefit of the Inspire 2 is you can change cameras even, such as upgrading to the X7 without buying a new drone.

I just did a comparison of photos and not video, and even then only JPGs. Video excels on the X5S, even without factoring in you can go to 5.2K versus 4K.

Bottom line is that the P4P is capable of most real estate photography, and even videography, so if that is your main focus for work, switching to an I2 with X5S or X7 is not required. However, if you are finicky about the highest quality and greater flexibility, especially if you are venturing beyond real estate imagery, switching to an I2 and appropriate cameras may be a wise decision.

I will leave you with this final I2/X5S image, a slightly edited image, converted to JPG, for web posting...

I hope this info helps.

 

[Rodger]

Depends on what you want to accomplish. I have a P4P Obsidian that I use for most of my flying. I have an Inspire 2 that I use for specific jobs. I can look up with the X5s camera and I can use different focal length lenses. And above all, it is a real blast to fly.

 

[Rodger]

OK. Didn't get a chance to fly until yesterday, and only around my house, so the photos are not the best . I just did them quick, auto focus, auto exposure (which I normally don't do) and they are not processed other than sizing down to 1600px long side each jpgs.

Let's start off with the Phantom 4 Pro + setup...

And then the Inspire 2 X5S setup...

Switching to JPG and resizing them takes away some of their image qualities, but these would be similar size images that would ultimately be used, so I figure it is a decent enough comparison. As you can see, both images are just fine for final aerial real estate photos. Both will help sell the house and show what is nearby, etc, so you can say the P4P is adequate in this regard.

Diving into the specifics of the images, let's look at stats...

P4P: ISO100, 8.8mm, 1/80 at f4.0 for image size of 5472x3078 original size. 1" CMOS sensor.
X5S: ISO100, 15mm, 1/120 at f3.2 for image size of 5280x2970 original size. Micro 4/3 sensor.

While both images are 20mp, the P4P seems to have a slight edge in resolution, but the sensors are quite different and thus final image quality is quite different. The RAW images, and even the JPGs shot from each camera reveal these differences, but these images are less "demonstrative" of the differences. I shot these as JPGs straight from the camera, so no RAW images to work with. I did this just for this comparison, though I almost always shoot RAW. One of the biggest benefits of the X5S sensor is its dynamic range over the P4P. One other huge benefit of the X5S is the ability to change lenses, allowing for more flexibility in imagery. Another benefit of the Inspire 2 is you can change cameras even, such as upgrading to the X7 without buying a new drone.

I just did a comparison of photos and not video, and even then only JPGs. Video excels on the X5S, even without factoring in you can go to 5.2K versus 4K.

Bottom line is that the P4P is capable of most real estate photography, and even videography, so if that is your main focus for work, switching to an I2 with X5S or X7 is not required. However, if you are finicky about the highest quality and greater flexibility, especially if you are venturing beyond real estate imagery, switching to an I2 and appropriate cameras may be a wise decision.

I will leave you with this final I2/X5S image, a slightly edited image, converted to JPG, for web posting...

I hope this info helps.

Great Post

 

[aerialimagery]

Thanks for posting those, Visual Approach. Regarding the first two images--I wish I could see them in full resolution, but when you view the full size images, do you notice much difference in detail? In other words for a still image with that field of view, do you see any significant improvement in image quality using the x5s?

 

[VisualApproachPhoto]

@aerialimagery...I uploaded the full files and linked them below. I do not know how well you will be able to see the detail when viewing here, or possibly even clicking through (though I think clicking through will allow zoom in). Again, these were JPG captures as I wasn't processing them at all, so let their onboard computers do that .

Phantom 4 Pro...

Inspire 2/X5S...

When you look at them closely, even as JPGs, you can see a difference in clarity and quality. I hope that helps.

PS - I should point out that with the P4P shooting at 8.8mm, you have to get lower and closer for roughly the same shot, getting quite close to the power lines you see crossing the cup-de-sac in the bottom of the images. I2/X5S was further away, higher, etc, so power lines were not very close at all.

 

[AerialZ]

At any rate, at least as far as still photography goes, are you comfortable calling a Phantom 4 Pro a "professional" drone? If you're using an Inspire with their best camera system, do you make that a selling point, and do you feel that images obtained by the P4P are not in your league?

Simple answer - YES. I'm chiming-in a little late to this particular discussion, but I want to mention one very significant issue that is often overlooked in the whole argument of 'is it enough?' I fly 52 weeks a year for varying projects from real estate work to television commercial production and news reporting.

Let's talk about risk management and business sense for a moment.

Is it truly wise to put a $8-$10K+ airframe and camera system in the air when you can get the job done with a sub-$2K system? Of course, it depends on the job requirements, but there are far too many out there that believe they must have what the industry considers 'the best' to achieve professional results. The ability to change glass on the Inspire series is phenomenal and will absolutely provide 'better' imagery - that is not the argument here. The question is, do YOU really need that huge investment to complete your work? More often than not, that answer is no. To those working in the professional film or cinematography industries, we're not referring to you at the moment. That would start a whole new argument about the Inspire 2 X7 capbilities versus a heavy-lifter with a cinema cam. How much money do you really want to fly at any given moment? But it truly makes one ask themselves, "what do I need to get the job done?" In rare instances, the best answer would be the investment of a heavy lifter, gimbal, and flight system carrying the full frame camera and glass that match all of the shots in the codecs necessary. Get your checkbook ready. To the guy I crossed paths with in 2017 that was flying an M600Pro for what I would consider low to middle-end real estate, I salute you (and wonder WTF is wrong with you.)

For me, the P4P has been an amazing tool in the kit. It has shelved my Inspire 1 and other airframes that used to be the best tools for the job. The risk/reward ratio is so significantly less flying the least expensive tool for the job, which is why many shooters have continued to fly their Mavics. No changeable glass here, but the sensor, video bitrate, and flight times are what continues to make this the best buy on the market, no questions asked. In the aerial still photography world, the P4P handles providing RAW images perfectly suitable for 90% of my work. Are there instances where I wish I had that higher-end camera and glass in the air? Absolutely, but I have been able to get my work done without issue. So much so that the P4P media performance has delayed me investing in an Inspire 2 which I planned to purchase last year.

Just some food for thought.