Welcome, Commercial Drone Pilots!
Join our growing community today!
Sign up

The Phantom 4 v2.0 is back!

For the alluring advertisement & spec page....
 
It's going for $1729, 1 battery, standard ocusync2 radio.
What did it used to go for? Is that much higher than previous list?
Is there still a strong demand for a Phantom4 with the 1" M2P.... or only for those wanting the mechanical shutter?

Oddly, never had a Phantom... never wanted one. They stop selling them and I pickup a nice P4Pv2 Kit a few months ago just to have. Still haven't flown it, just powered up & updated. Now it's being re-released... my collector's urge is now flopped... but with the new possible RemoteID... I'll probably have a lot of "collectors crafts".
 
Any price increase reflects tariffs imposed by the President (and could go away just as quickly once the "trade war" is resolved.)

If you don't need the features the P4Pv2.0 offers there's really no reason to buy it. (That's why DJI offers a full spectrum of models, from recreational class to enterprise, with features to match.)

As to the issue of "Remote ID", the PRM offers an implementation timeline of 3 years AFTER the rule goes into affect. And, given that DJI proactively (and unilaterally) decided to begin shipping all new drones over .55 lbs with ADS-B In traffic detection at no additional cost to customers, I wouldn't imagine that those of us who are still flying the same aircraft 3+ years from now need worry too much that they'll suddenly become Earth-bound paperweights - IF the rule is implemented as currently written (and that's a big "if" given the likely push-back from Part 107 operators and large, well organized recreational groups like the AMA.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meta4
I was attempting for a tone of humor, not subjective advice.

The ADS-B currently is not part of the NPRM, and at best would meet the limited 400’ sphere... aka Worthless! Regarding 3 yr +/- remains an element of concern to many including myself; an Inspire 1 is far greater than 3 and still utilized and preferred by many. I’d prefer to decide when my hardware should be cycled, not Govt working in favor of large corporations... And not at Zero salvage value which when there’s no fly value is Zero resale.

Per other threads & discussion; there isn’t any “unified voice” and the AMA isn’t representative even in the minor. I wasn’t asking justifiable reasons to buy, merely would it still be considered a sought after craft... since the X4S on Inspire 2 or M210 provides the exact same camera... the only current asset of the P4Pv2.
The tariffs for Chinese technology was minor in phase 1 and will be greater in phase 2... per the Administration Chief Economist. The price increase most likely involved more than off-setting a tariff tax since it was a dead horse long before that was even considered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adm_geomatics
While we have transitioned our mapping to the Yuneec platform I would at least buy one and throw it in a closet somewhere. They'll either go out of stock again in a month or become a classic. Either way double your money, lol. I feel sorry for all those people that just paid the premium of up to $3,000 before knowing of this release. Deplorable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dougcjohn
While we have transitioned our mapping to the Yuneec platform I would at least buy one and throw it in a closet somewhere. They'll either go out of stock again in a month or become a classic. Either way double your money, lol. I feel sorry for all those people that just paid the premium of up to $3,000 before knowing of this release. Deplorable.
Great example... curious, is the Yuneec camera mechanical too? I have a H520 but haven't used it much on Photogramatry yet.

On the resale of P4Pv2, ya that was up there for a while... way higher than my collector desire. I lucked out, watched ebay and got nice kit... 4 batteries, GPC case, mint looking P4Pv2 and minimal use for about $1400.
 
Great example... curious, is the Yuneec camera mechanical too? I have a H520 but haven't used it much on Photogramatry yet.

On the resale of P4Pv2, ya that was up there for a while... way higher than my collector desire. I lucked out, watched ebay and got nice kit... 4 batteries, GPC case, mint looking P4Pv2 and minimal use for about $1400.
No sir, the H520 E90 camera is rolling. While the issues with rolling shutter were a really big deal before, most of the professional processing softwares now have much better algorithms to account for it, but in my testing they are still not as absolutely accurate as a mechanical shutter. Just not as a big of a departure as before. I will say one thing that I really do like about the E90 and Yuneec jpeg profile, which may be off-putting at first, is that it is unsaturated and seemingly flat in comparison. While the P4P images look good off camera they are susceptable to oversaturation, blowout and deep shadows. I post process all of my imagery anyways so it is easy to add some saturation and definition. at the end of the day I think the color profile in the model is much more realistic to what you would actually see on the ground.

Great find, kudos!
 
  • Like
Reactions: dougcjohn
I was attempting for a tone of humor, not subjective advice.

The ADS-B currently is not part of the NPRM, and at best would meet the limited 400’ sphere... aka Worthless! Regarding 3 yr +/- remains an element of concern to many including myself; an Inspire 1 is far greater than 3 and still utilized and preferred by many. I’d prefer to decide when my hardware should be cycled, not Govt working in favor of large corporations... And not at Zero salvage value which when there’s no fly value is Zero resale.

...there isn’t any “unified voice” and the AMA isn’t representative even in the minor.

Sorry, any tone of humor in your original post went under the radar.

As to ADS-B; while it is correct that it doesn't play a role in the NPRM it is indicative of DJI' proactive stance. Additionally, the FAA's NPRM isn't the only (or even the first) game in town. DJI has been working with the Swiss and EU aviation authorities on the issue of remote ID for over a year and will certainly bring considerable expertise to the table as this rule-making goes forward.

Quite true, there is no "unified voice" for the entire unmanned flight community, and AMA may represent only a fraction of that entire community. But, the AMA community is far better organized than the Part 107 community in this respect; they have a sizable membership; they have decades of experience at the Washington lobbying "game"; and, if anything, their membership (many of whom currently fly without even the most basic GPS hardware installed) face an even higher cost per unit if additional hardware is mandated - not to mention those AMA pilots who currently fly aircraft weighing well over 55 lbs., participate in aerobatic competitions (which may take them above 400' AGL for safety reasons), and/or fly with turbine authorizations. And, as any politician knows, a highly vocal voting block with a unified focus can and will trump a larger, less organized, less committed segment of the population. So, as of now, they're probably in a far better position to make their voices heard on this issue than the 107 community - and have a longer track record of achieving results.
 
Sorry, any tone of humor in your original post went under the radar.

As to ADS-B; while it is correct that it doesn't play a role in the NPRM it is indicative of DJI' proactive stance. Additionally, the FAA's NPRM isn't the only (or even the first) game in town. DJI has been working with the Swiss and EU aviation authorities on the issue of remote ID for over a year and will certainly bring considerable expertise to the table as this rule-making goes forward.

Quite true, there is no "unified voice" for the entire unmanned flight community, and AMA may represent only a fraction of that entire community. But, the AMA community is far better organized than the Part 107 community in this respect; they have a sizable membership; they have decades of experience at the Washington lobbying "game"; and, if anything, their membership (many of whom currently fly without even the most basic GPS hardware installed) face an even higher cost per unit if additional hardware is mandated - not to mention those AMA pilots who currently fly aircraft weighing well over 55 lbs., participate in aerobatic competitions (which may take them above 400' AGL for safety reasons), and/or fly with turbine authorizations. And, as any politician knows, a highly vocal voting block with a unified focus can and will trump a larger, less organized, less committed segment of the population. So, as of now, they're probably in a far better position to make their voices heard on this issue than the 107 community - and have a longer track record of achieving results.
We're on the same common track... we all desire the same end-game, to enjoy our sUAV, business or hobby.

On DJI being proactive... I couldn't agree more. Other's may feel it was a control or self-serving of DJI, but I'd agree they've made several attempts to address the upcoming ID issues over the last few years. I can understand how the NPRM doesn't want the ADS-B due to the density of sUAV & flooding of the airwaves that would result... I still feel it addressed the focus of the original intentions: air traffic safety and Homeland Security threats. Personally, I think there is a solution using ADS-B with maybe additional technology or boradcasting. The FAA basically led the trail, and globally the FAA was roughly duplicated. I think the same on sUAV, the Remote ID has been a discussion point for well over 3 years and as the technology addressed the new requirements for BVLOS, the Remote ID direction was constructed & modified to focus on Corporate BVLOS as primary. That will probably be the focus globally as the large corp BVLOS industry matures and other countries will probably adopt a similar methodology, if for anything else to be compatible with developing hardware.

I find it extremely frustrating they're (NPRM constructors) attempting to propose a method that makes backward compatibility or an economical upgrade path for existing sUAV a challenge to accomplish. That simply shouldn't be a block, for the massive number of existing crafts of various scale platforms. They've proposed this NPRM, in my viewpoint; on the false premise & mind-set that they are effecting only sub- $1000 crafts used for hobby & pleasure... which based on that premise would not be a big concern to the "mass" when you consider how quickly many upgrade anyway. It totally lacks inclusion of larger scale or premium priced hardware that may easily continue stable operations for 6-plus years. I also feel there will be a wake-up on the price of standard remote ID certified crafts... it certainly won't be a low cost add-in, new craft cost will stun many and prevent new Buyers.

I supported the AMA for years, although the AMA isn't a reliable voice for sUAV. They primarily now and will continue to operate at fields that if not already, will be recognized as FAA authorized zones. I do see the AMA addressing the parameters of certain flying fields to address the needs of their large scale, but again within sanctioned ground. Those that currently enjoy flying off these sites, would be prohibitive like the sUAV's... but in comparison to sUAV density that's an insignificant number of little concern to the NPRM. Over the last several years, the AMA has basically done zip for sUAV industry or Pilots.

I'm hopeful the construct of the Remote ID does receive major modifications. But in my mind it'll need to be voiced by multiple businesses and industries within & serving the sUAV. All the manufactures, I can't see loosing a huge percentage of their income / sales. The sUAV skills training sites, PT107 training, 3rd party hardware developers, Insurance, radio, parachute, and various payloads: Ag, SAR, etc.
The loss of income for these businesses will be great, and that should carry a strong voice for the needs to maintain existing crafts and provide a desire to purchase new craft. The belief and dependency on PT107 or AMA Pilot organization when no current organization clearly represents; I think the current NPRM would esenitally go unchanged... big business has no concern on airspace being used by any hobby or small business. Realistically, I think the voice of sUAV business entities will push some welcome modifications.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: adm_geomatics
Over the last several years, the AMA has basically done zip for sUAV industry or Pilots.

True. Having focused upon the model aircraft community for decades (longer than the FAA has existed, in fact), AMA has been slow to expand coverage to include the drone community. But I expect recent developments will change that.

For example, the failure of the FAA to officially recognize AMA as a "community-based organization" right out of the gate (even as AMA participated in new rule making activities) is rather mind-boggling. Second, airspace authorizations and exemptions (such a altitude caps for aerobatics flights & competitions) that have been extended to AMA pilots for decades are now at risk due to newly proposed restrictions on recreational unmanned aircraft systems (i.e., no waivers for recreational fliers.)

Bottom line - ALL unmanned aircraft system pilots and operators (<55lbs or >55lbs, 107 or "recreational", prop driven or turbine, rotor craft, fixed wing or lighter-than-air) are in this same dinghy together. So, we can all work together to keep it afloat, or very likely go down together.

F-86s.png
Can you imaging having to limit loops and other aerobatics to under 400' AGL in these turbine-powered birds? :oops:

Sorry. We seem to have veered a bit off thread topic here. But we all certainly seem to be concerned about how the future is going to play out for the UAS "little guys" (and gals.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: adm_geomatics
I have been debating myself ever since they rereleased it whether or not to grab one. My current Parrot Anafi Work is my current mapping workhorse and it does make decent maps and models, but the smaller sensor at 21MP is not going to be better than the P4P V2's larger 1 inch sensor. My problem is that I have to fly much slower to get my pictures than I could with the P4P, I could really increase the pace of my workflow with the P4P. The Anafi's biggest pro for me is it is so small and quiet, I can sometimes be unnoticed while I work, but at the end of the day I would prefer to have the best possible data at a reasonable price point.
 
I have been debating myself ever since they rereleased it whether or not to grab one. My current Parrot Anafi Work is my current mapping workhorse and it does make decent maps and models, but the smaller sensor at 21MP is not going to be better than the P4P V2's larger 1 inch sensor. My problem is that I have to fly much slower to get my pictures than I could with the P4P, I could really increase the pace of my workflow with the P4P. The Anafi's biggest pro for me is it is so small and quiet, I can sometimes be unnoticed while I work, but at the end of the day I would prefer to have the best possible data at a reasonable price point.
If you're wanting the smallest "footprint" and best possible data you might want to look at the new EVO 2. With it's new, more powerful cameras (3) and interchangeable gimbals it may be the new benchmark.

Of course, you may also want to wait to see whether the final Remote ID rule follows the original ARC proposal (which would be free for most users) or goes the way of the current proposal (i.e., a privatized, for-profit subscription service requiring additional hardware.)
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
4,277
Messages
37,605
Members
5,969
Latest member
KC5JIM