DJI confirming X5S or X7S compatibility with I3?

[Dobmatt]

Sorry Dobmatt, not sure to have understood this your, "luck of a draw".
Please try to reformulate it, otherwise I am not able to replay to this.

Regarding the CA (chromatic aberration), Olympus 25 mm, as almost all the lenses, you have to resign yourself to see it in jpg if the camera (whatever it is) does not automatically correct it.
Yes, use the RAW files, with DJI cameras, DNG files, eliminating almost every trace of CA with a good application, a RAW converter such as Lightroom or Camera RAW of Adobe, or others.
You can try to delete it also with jpg, but would be a bad way to operate.
The lateral CA easily disappears without obvious damage to the picture resolution, but the axial CA cannot be eliminated easily, not with an app like those, and in any case it's necessary to spend a lot of time and be patient in Post Production, with Photoshop or others.

However it's rare to have to worry about this kind of aberration when the camera flies, thus with a flying drone, usually not having to focus on a very close objects and blurring the infinite, or similar situations with diaphragm full open or almost full open.
If you don't know what I mean, what axial (or longitudinal) chromatic aberration means, please search the web for photo sites where the photographic lenses are tested.
One of the best, competent, accurate and complete for the number of parameters considered, is LensTip.com

Even the intensity and appearance of the lateral chromatic aberration, particularly around the borders, can vary a bit between one sample and another of the same lens, especially for a zoom and especially if it has a light and delicate mechanism like these small pancakes.
A small blow on the lens, a fall, without any visible structural damage outside, is enough to ruin the alignment of the internal elements resulting in a subpar lens.
Sometimes after a harder shock, can be ready for the trash, or if you are a scammer, a wicked, you could try to sell it to the first chicken you find on your way, possibly not in Ebay.

I do not sell anything...

Claudio, "the luck of a draw" is an expression to describe the act of getting something of uncertain quality, to be the result of chance and something that you have no control over. In this case - I assume - you stated that off three pieces of pancake type Olympus 14-42 zoom lens you owe one only performs surprisingly well. That's the luck of a draw ... You must pick up few of them to choose a good one ...

 

[ClaudioNC]

Claudio, "the luck of a draw" is an expression to describe the act of getting something of uncertain quality, to be the result of chance and something that you have no control over. In this case - I assume - you stated that off three pieces of pancake type Olympus 14-42 zoom lens you owe one only performs surprisingly well. That's the luck of a draw ... You must pick up few of them to choose a good one ...

I see, well... yes.
It may seem almost unbelievable to non-experts, the optics that are generally thought to be perfect elements, as well as more or less expensive, but that is how actually is.
Many professional and not professional photographers are aware of these problems, some live with them, others not, do not tolerate to have them, as me, and probably have a more difficult live.

Obviously it happens more easily and often with less expensive lenses, but none is completely immune to this issues, not even Zeiss, not even Leica, Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Tamron and so on.
I consider myself very lucky to have that good copy of Olympus 14-42.

I am almost sure that if I bought other ten or more units, would have a very high chance to not find even one on a par with the good unit I have.
Finding one good unit every 2 or 3 of these lenses?
I doubt it.
Hope I don't ruin it with a crash, is not enough to have money and buy another one.
However if I had to buy other lenses, this one or others, I would only address those sellers accepting returns without any difficulty.

This is an extreme case because it's an optic not easy to produce really well, being structurally so light, thin and complex at the same time.
It would not be commercially reasonable to sell them at much higher prices as they should if they were to eliminate all the units badly made in the factory, those out of tolerance.
Indeed, I am certain the quality control, as often happens with almost all the lenses not extremely expensive, nowadays done on a sample, say 1 of 10 or of 50 units produced, here is done even more indulgently, with this cheap pancake lenses, so useful for the multirotors.

 

[dougcjohn]

I see, well... yes.
It may seem almost unbelievable to non-experts, the optics that are generally thought to be perfect elements, as well as more or less expensive, but that is how actually is.
Many professional and not professional photographers are aware of these problems, some live with them, others not, do not tolerate to have them, as me, and probably have a more difficult live.

Obviously it happens more easily and often with less expensive lenses, but none is completely immune to this issues, not even Zeiss, not even Leica, Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Tamron and so on.
I consider myself very lucky to have that good copy of Olympus 14-42.

I am almost sure that if I bought other ten or more units, would have a very high chance to not find even one on a par with the good unit I have.
Finding one good unit every 2 or 3 of these lenses?
I doubt it.
Hope I don't ruin it with a crash, is not enough to have money and buy another one.
However if I had to buy other lenses, this one or others, I would only address those sellers accepting returns without any difficulty.

This is an extreme case because it's an optic not easy to produce really well, being structurally so light, thin and complex at the same time.
It would not be commercially reasonable to sell them at much higher prices as they should if they were to eliminate all the units badly made in the factory, those out of tolerance.
Indeed, I am certain the quality control, as often happens with almost all the lenses not extremely expensive, nowadays done on a sample, say 1 of 10 or of 50 units produced, here is done even more indulgently, with this cheap pancake lenses, so useful for the multirotors.

I follow your statements, not that I agree with your summarized conclusions of quality control and a poor attempt to justifiably lump high quality & low quality products into the same market and quality control. That simply isn't accurate in any market or product, price isn't the sole indicator of quality but it's certainly a variable that represents a higher grade, and a "Brand" that demands a premium didn't obtain recognition & market respect by sprinkling inferior product through inventory... not even a low volume of poor quality. There is a difference in "poor quality" and a "defective unit"; if defective discovered in quality control, it's determined why and applied corrections. In comparison, poor quality indicates lower tolerances and higher acceptance of inferior product. If applied your track of reasoning, in a short period of time the "product" wouldn't be recognized as quality, nor justify the substantial price difference from lower quality product. Nikon, Leica, Sony, Zeiss Batis, etc have extremely low... percentage practically approaching zero defective quality... not based on my simple limited opinion as suggested; the opinion of many recognized Pros and the test results of recognized labs, that in my opinion has much more recognition than most or the ramblings on this forum.

Bouncing back a few posts, Your response to mine post indicated my lack of experience and I was limited to my personal knowledge of lens... the 14-42 you took offense of my comment that it wasn’t a quality lens... it was a lower quality lens. Hmmm... haven't I read that elsewhere... like a dozen or more reviews.

Interestingly, you’ve continued to defend proclaimed professionalism and wide breath of knowledge yet, at the same time acknowledging & indicating that finding another quality 14-42... even if you acquired 10 more would most likely not occur... you probably had one of the few.

Indirectly, stating a similar conclusion that you took initial offense; the 14-42 pancake isn’t of high quality and obtaining better than average results is very unlikely... unless you obtain 1 rare lens from a large quantity of inferior 14-42 lenses. In any market, that’s referred to as poor quality, cheap, product that provides low quality output and a low price reinforces that conclusion.

The 14-42mm pancake was a lens made for a compact camera package, wasn't intended to be used for professional usage. For it's design, not a bad lens knowing it's intended target audience. For the drone, if needing a sharp mapping lens it's not a good choice but shots of landscape... capable to give acceptable results....maybe.

Regarding my post... tests, focus charts, f-stop comparisons, etc were not utilized or provided... pretty challenging to call that a report.
You personally own 3 x 14-42... indicated as 1 aluminum and 2 black... so professionally you're stating 1 silver & 2 black or 1 aluminum and 2 black metal.... ??