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

SAMPLE images and videos

Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
24
Reaction score
11
Age
43
I'm close to deciding to but an Inspire 2 and X7 camera, I just need to see some RAW photo files first. Lets use this thread for sharing sample RAW photos and video files shot with the new X7 camera system! Can anyone show me a RAW photo file or 2 so I can make sure I will be happy with the image quality before I commit to my purchase? THANKS!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Advexure
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
1,513
Reaction score
684
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Website
www.advexure.com
We'd be most happy to. Please shoot us an email and we'll get some raw samples provided. Also let us know if there is anything in particular that you would like to see.

The first X7 units have landed in the US and are now shipping from Advexure today! :cool:
 
Joined
Sep 7, 2016
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Age
56
I would love to see some sample DNG still images from the X7. I currently fly the DJI S900 with the z15-A7 and fly the Sony A7R camera. I have not seen any DJI camera that comes close to the image quality I get from the A7R. I would like a smaller craft that can be easier to deploy and can get great images but so far I have not been impressed by the current line up of the DJI cameras. I prefer to haul around my huge S900/A7R. I mainly do hi res still photography not video and most if not all the DJI products are optimized for video. I would look at a I2 with the X7 if it could get still images that are usable.
 
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
24
Reaction score
11
Age
43
I've had the chance to play around with the sample still image RAW files. I received 100 ISO unadjusted RAW still images files from advexure, which were shot with a ND filter over the lens, requiring F4 aperture, using the 35mm lens. Keep that in mind, I have not seen higher ISO samples. I looked at X5s sample a few months ago and felt there were not good enough for my needs as a professional Nature photographer. I am very demanding of great image quality, since I make large prints of my work. Using a lower aperture like this is bound to reduce image sharpness at least a little bit, which is the one place these images were less than stellar, but still good enough. I am used to shooting with a Canon 5DSR, which is known for it's superb detail and sharpness. The dynamic range is great, as are the noise levels in the shadows. I recovered detail from very dark shadows extremely well, with almost no noise, very impressive. The highlights recovered plenty, but not as well as the shadows. The overexposed clouds started showing a good amount of unsightly colors(pinks and magentas) after a certain amount of exposure reduction. The base ISO noise level in the midtones were low, on par with a modern mid level to high end full frame DSLR, slightly better than my 5DSR. Color and contrast both look good! DJI cameras have been poorly optimized for still image shooting in the past. The good color, contrast, and noise levels make me feel the days of DJI not fully supporting still photographers with the sensor firmware are over. I am curious to see if other reviews say the same. My only criticism is the image sharpness, but that is most likely affected by the ND filter and low Aperture setting.
I've looked at all the options for shooting aerial stills, and the only way to improve from this camera is to fly a full frame DSLR, which requires most of your SUV's trunk space, more set up and break down time, and it not something you can carry into a location very far at all.
I'll be buying one early next year, it's MUCH better than the X5S for stills.
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
62
Reaction score
38
Age
58
Location
Baldwin City, KS
Website
blog.grumpysworld.com
I'll bite. Since I'm traveling, I don't have the set of test images I shot immediately upon receiving the camera yesterday, but I do have a couple of grab shots I took enroute to my destination yesterday afternoon. Kindly note that these do NOT represent what I consider to be 'good' (in any sense) photos, but I think they are technically correct in terms of showing what the X7 + 35/2.8 can (or cannot) do.
If I have time during breaks in family obligations, I'll try to shoot some test shots later today that are similar to the ones I shot yesterday, which can be used to examine lens sharpness across the entire focal plane.
Perhaps some of you saw my comments at RCG regarding initial impressions (and note that RCG is mostly a bunch of know-it-alls and shills, so I behave accordingly over there). Note that I do NOT shoot video, ever. I honestly care nothing about video, nor do I really care at all about RC flying, etc.: my only care is still photography and the I2 is merely one (of many) way(s) to get a camera where I want it. So my comments are not valid for videographers. But for stills, I think the X5S is a better camera than the X7 (with the caveat that the X7 will outperform the X5S in low light, obviously).
You can look at these images and see that they are not sharp. This is NOT due to focus error, but is instead (as best I can tell) due to the 35/2.8 being a not-very-good lens, which of course is very disappointing for a $1200 lens. You can buy an absolutely stellar 50mm DSLR lens for much less than this, but of course such a lens won't fit on an X7. Also note that the corners are simply dreadful. Obviously this lens was meant for 16:9 and not 4:3. I cannot speak to the other three lenses since I do not own those, but I would not be surprised if they suffer the same issues. Being cynical, I might suggest that maybe the Chinese couldn't find a good Japanese lens design to steal, but I wouldn't want to be a cynic, now would I? And the Olympus 25/1.8 I use on my X5S is far from a great lens either, but it is certainly better than the DJI 35/2.8 for the X7, and I have (at home) the shots to prove that.
DJI_0001.DNG
DJI_0002.DNG
 
  • Like
Reactions: TodG
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
527
Reaction score
277
Location
Nashville, TN USA
Website
www.airnashville.net
I watch the "camera debates" on here with interest. While I would love to have an X7 the truth of the matter is it's horrific overkill for most of us. The reality is that the screen or print size intended for the audience is probably 95% of the equation. So, when I read people asking for comparisons I wonder if they are really fair comparisons. If you're looking at that comparison on anything smaller than about a 32" screen it's pointless. Yes, there may be some sharpness differences based upon lens or camera but, the vast majority of devices can deliver only 1080p resolution to the users perception due to size of the image. Yes, the gearhead in me wants an X7 but, the scientist in me reminds me every time that it costs much more, is more difficult to work with and deliver product from (SSD drives, Prores lic, hours in post, etc) and, unless your on the "big screen," pointless. I doubt most of us have the necessary equipment to view above 1080p much less, above 4k.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2017
Messages
83
Reaction score
59
Age
64
I doubt most of us have the necessary equipment to view above 1080p much less, above 4k.

That view is very hobbiest based view, and if you fly for fun, then everything you say makes a lot of sense. But, if you are a pro and fly for dough, you have to have the gear that clients want to pay for, and in the commercial and film business, when budgets cant reach to the full-boat heavy-lift bird with an Alexa or Red, then the X7 is going to be asked for. It is a superior device to the X5, and the quality difference is VERY obvious to many - myself included.
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
62
Reaction score
38
Age
58
Location
Baldwin City, KS
Website
blog.grumpysworld.com
Sorry, I got busy over the holiday weekend and didn't have time to shoot any more test shots, but I did do quite a bit of "production" shooting with the X7 and now feel a bit more confident of what I am saying.
The X7 + 35/2.8 is still quite soft compared to the X5S + Oly 25/1.8, but that said, the images can take quite a bit of sharpening in post and still survive (unlike the X5S). Also, noise is far better on the X7; ISO400 is now actually usable, unlike the noisy trash you got on the X5S.
There IS a problem with 3:2 stills, in that on occasion, the very bottom of the image is totally blown out to white for reasons unknown (undoubtedly a software bug). 4:3 images do not seem to suffer from this.
I'm a bit more positive than I was initially, but it's not $4K worth of good. For that kind of money you can get truly stellar results, albeit not from the air without some serious heavy-lifters to put your camera up there. If only the sharpness was better, I could say this was a very nice setup.
Anyone sitting on the fence, I would say to be happy with your X5S, as with care, you can get pretty much as good an image off that as you can the X7, with the caveat that you can only do this in full sunlight. Once the light fades a bit, the X7 wins hands down.
I will say that the X7 images are a totally different beast than the X5S images when it comes to post processing. I'm still tinkering in both Adobe Catpure Raw and Raw Therapee to figure out the optimum settings (a never-ending task, it seems).
 
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
1,513
Reaction score
684
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Website
www.advexure.com
I've had the chance to play around with the sample still image RAW files. I received 100 ISO unadjusted RAW still images files from advexure, which were shot with a ND filter over the lens, requiring F4 aperture, using the 35mm lens

....

Happy to hear you are enjoying some pixel peeping with the X7 samples we provided. If there is anything else you or others would like to see just let us know.

X7 units, lenses, and lens kits are readily available to ship/pickup from our facility every couple of days. Shoot us an email at [email protected] or give us a call at (424) 317-4450 with any questions. Our team is happy to help, share X7 insight, provide samples, and/or be of any further assistance. Cheers!
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
22
Reaction score
8
Age
40
I would love to see the samples too, I have one on order but have around a week before I can cancel. the dng of the train looks very soft.
would love to see a 16mm shot.
The great thing about the x5s is that we can still use great lenses that are reasonably priced, we have to buy these lenses in the dark as no one has written a review on them yet.
The x5s has a reasonable image quality, looks like a the full 5.3k res still looks like a 4k image blown up at 100% I was hoping this would be fixed with the x7 but not likely.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
22
Reaction score
8
Age
40
We'd be most happy to. Please shoot us an email and we'll get some raw samples provided. Also let us know if there is anything in particular that you would like to see.

The first X7 units have landed in the US and are now shipping from Advexure today! :cool:
Hi, These images are not that bad, I had a look at DJI436.dng it looks good...the focus looks a little soft but mostlikley the lens, they look on par with the x5s 15mm for softness.. I was hoping for sharp sharp images for the prices of these lenses.
dji_0436.dng looks like it could be a focus issue. a higher aperture could pull the distance more into focus but at f4 they shouldn't be this bad.. I agree with the grumpster and would say the lenses are bad but saying that, the oly 12mm on the x5s is mushy but on the olympus cameras the lens works well.. could be a sensor to lens mount distance issue..
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
22
Reaction score
8
Age
40
I would love to see some sample DNG still images from the X7. I currently fly the DJI S900 with the z15-A7 and fly the Sony A7R camera. I have not seen any DJI camera that comes close to the image quality I get from the A7R. I would like a smaller craft that can be easier to deploy and can get great images but so far I have not been impressed by the current line up of the DJI cameras. I prefer to haul around my huge S900/A7R. I mainly do hi res still photography not video and most if not all the DJI products are optimized for video. I would look at a I2 with the X7 if it could get still images that are usable.
Should try this inspire 2 42mp.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: ringolong
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
62
Reaction score
38
Age
58
Location
Baldwin City, KS
Website
blog.grumpysworld.com
Wow, WTF? I used to fly a D800E and D810 with a Sigma 50/1.4 Art and the IQ was phenomenal; I really miss it. But the truth is, a cobbled-together box of miscellaneous parts is no match for a fully-integrated solution like the I2/X7.
And honestly, even before DJI announced the X7, I kept thinking that what they need to do is get away from that tiny M43 sensor and go to a bigger sensor with a slow lens (to make it light enough to fly), and that's what they did, so cheers for them. If only it was sharp.
Latest Thoughts:
I've now shot 58 images with the X7/35. I know that seems paltry to most people, but considering my subject, it's not too shabby. And this is enough to have really given me a lot of files to play with in Photoshop, etc. So here's what I think.
The noise situation is greatly improved. Candidly, the X5S is useless above ISO200, which is pretty much true of all M43 sensors. The X7 held up adequately even at ISO800, and is definitely usable at ISO400, so this is very good news. As to dynamic range, that too appears to be improved, but this is harder to prove in an objective way.
Sharpness is still quite bothersome to me, in that every image looks slightly out-of-focus. The results are still usable for the web (because any jpegs that fit on the kind of monitors most people use - say 1600px wide or thereabouts - are so low-res that you could shoot a photo with a 10-year-old cellphone through a blurry pop-bottle-bottom and it would look fine), but I'm really looking for something that will hold up on a print as well as a DSLR from 15 years ago, and that's not where we're at, as best I can tell.
Oddly enough, the lens shows as being made by Sigma, so it should be a decent lens. Sigma certainly knows how to make great glass, as the 50/1.4 Art for the Nikon is absolutely stellar. So I am puzzled. My dealer (a photographer, BTW) says that he thinks DJI just doesn't have their formula right when it comes to processing the data off the sensor. And he may well be right. DJI didn't make this sensor (I don't know who did), but they did (presumably) have to develop their own software (likely based on someone else's reference code) to process the sensor data. So maybe there is hope. But it could be the case that the sensor anti-aliasing filter is very strong, as one might expect for a video camera where moire is bothersome but high acutance is not typically desirable or useful.
So overall, I still am not pleased with the X7/35 because it really isn't as sharp as I require. I may very well go back to shooting with the X5S because it is much sharper and produces adequate (though not great) images in full sunlight. For sunrise and sunset, the X7 is really the only choice.
And if I wasn't so addicted to the fully-integrated user experience of the I2, I'd get off my *** and get my sole remaining octo back in shape to fly my D810 again (my first octo flew away with my D800E a year ago, just part of the game since everything in the air is ultimately disposable).
 
  • Like
Reactions: gruvpix and Casey53
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
22
Reaction score
8
Age
40
Wow, WTF? I used to fly a D800E and D810 with a Sigma 50/1.4 Art and the IQ was phenomenal; I really miss it. But the truth is, a cobbled-together box of miscellaneous parts is no match for a fully-integrated solution like the I2/X7.
And honestly, even before DJI announced the X7, I kept thinking that what they need to do is get away from that tiny M43 sensor and go to a bigger sensor with a slow lens (to make it light enough to fly), and that's what they did, so cheers for them. If only it was sharp.
Latest Thoughts:
I've now shot 58 images with the X7/35. I know that seems paltry to most people, but considering my subject, it's not too shabby. And this is enough to have really given me a lot of files to play with in Photoshop, etc. So here's what I think.
The noise situation is greatly improved. Candidly, the X5S is useless above ISO200, which is pretty much true of all M43 sensors. The X7 held up adequately even at ISO800, and is definitely usable at ISO400, so this is very good news. As to dynamic range, that too appears to be improved, but this is harder to prove in an objective way.
Sharpness is still quite bothersome to me, in that every image looks slightly out-of-focus. The results are still usable for the web (because any jpegs that fit on the kind of monitors most people use - say 1600px wide or thereabouts - are so low-res that you could shoot a photo with a 10-year-old cellphone through a blurry pop-bottle-bottom and it would look fine), but I'm really looking for something that will hold up on a print as well as a DSLR from 15 years ago, and that's not where we're at, as best I can tell.
Oddly enough, the lens shows as being made by Sigma, so it should be a decent lens. Sigma certainly knows how to make great glass, as the 50/1.4 Art for the Nikon is absolutely stellar. So I am puzzled. My dealer (a photographer, BTW) says that he thinks DJI just doesn't have their formula right when it comes to processing the data off the sensor. And he may well be right. DJI didn't make this sensor (I don't know who did), but they did (presumably) have to develop their own software (likely based on someone else's reference code) to process the sensor data. So maybe there is hope. But it could be the case that the sensor anti-aliasing filter is very strong, as one might expect for a video camera where moire is bothersome but high acutance is not typically desirable or useful.
So overall, I still am not pleased with the X7/35 because it really isn't as sharp as I require. I may very well go back to shooting with the X5S because it is much sharper and produces adequate (though not great) images in full sunlight. For sunrise and sunset, the X7 is really the only choice.
And if I wasn't so addicted to the fully-integrated user experience of the I2, I'd get off my *** and get my sole remaining octo back in shape to fly my D810 again (my first octo flew away with my D800E a year ago, just part of the game since everything in the air is ultimately disposable).
Yes I built a basic bracket for sony a7r2 with the new lightweight samyang 35mm... great lens for its size and weight. cost $360 here in Australia unlike the Dji lenses at $2200.. The cam is a little shaky but as expected, good for fast shutters and get a 42mp shot..
I am taking the Sony back up again with the S900 tonight for a job. hope I can get decent image the s900 have terrible problems with vibrations.
Thanks for sharing the info on the x7, I just wish we had a few more letting us know exactly what they think of this, I am so close to cancelling as $6k for a gimbal/sensor and lens....(already paid for the processor in the inspire 2) is ridiculous but just need the best for my clients and if they haven't fixed the sharpness issue then its a no brainer to stay with the x5s with lots of decent fast lenses and a quarter of the price.
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2015
Messages
244
Reaction score
77
Yes I built a basic bracket for sony a7r2 with the new lightweight samyang 35mm... great lens for its size and weight. cost $360 here in Australia unlike the Dji lenses at $2200.. The cam is a little shaky but as expected, good for fast shutters and get a 42mp shot..
I am taking the Sony back up again with the S900 tonight for a job. hope I can get decent image the s900 have terrible problems with vibrations.
Thanks for sharing the info on the x7, I just wish we had a few more letting us know exactly what they think of this, I am so close to cancelling as $6k for a gimbal/sensor and lens....(already paid for the processor in the inspire 2) is ridiculous but just need the best for my clients and if they haven't fixed the sharpness issue then its a no brainer to stay with the x5s with lots of decent fast lenses and a quarter of the price.

hey guys thanks for sharing. do you know if you need to purchase the raw dng/prores license again or "upgrade" it as its now 6k raw vs x5s's 5.2k raw?
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2015
Messages
244
Reaction score
77
I'll bite. Since I'm traveling, I don't have the set of test images I shot immediately upon receiving the camera yesterday, but I do have a couple of grab shots I took enroute to my destination yesterday afternoon. Kindly note that these do NOT represent what I consider to be 'good' (in any sense) photos, but I think they are technically correct in terms of showing what the X7 + 35/2.8 can (or cannot) do.
If I have time during breaks in family obligations, I'll try to shoot some test shots later today that are similar to the ones I shot yesterday, which can be used to examine lens sharpness across the entire focal plane.
Perhaps some of you saw my comments at RCG regarding initial impressions (and note that RCG is mostly a bunch of know-it-alls and shills, so I behave accordingly over there). Note that I do NOT shoot video, ever. I honestly care nothing about video, nor do I really care at all about RC flying, etc.: my only care is still photography and the I2 is merely one (of many) way(s) to get a camera where I want it. So my comments are not valid for videographers. But for stills, I think the X5S is a better camera than the X7 (with the caveat that the X7 will outperform the X5S in low light, obviously).
You can look at these images and see that they are not sharp. This is NOT due to focus error, but is instead (as best I can tell) due to the 35/2.8 being a not-very-good lens, which of course is very disappointing for a $1200 lens. You can buy an absolutely stellar 50mm DSLR lens for much less than this, but of course such a lens won't fit on an X7. Also note that the corners are simply dreadful. Obviously this lens was meant for 16:9 and not 4:3. I cannot speak to the other three lenses since I do not own those, but I would not be surprised if they suffer the same issues. Being cynical, I might suggest that maybe the Chinese couldn't find a good Japanese lens design to steal, but I wouldn't want to be a cynic, now would I? And the Olympus 25/1.8 I use on my X5S is far from a great lens either, but it is certainly better than the DJI 35/2.8 for the X7, and I have (at home) the shots to prove that.
DJI_0001.DNG
DJI_0002.DNG


out of curiosity, maybe I misunderstood, but are these samples images from the x7?
Isn't the x7 a 24MP camera? when i looked at the files with bridge, it stated 5240x3928 (20MP). are these from the x5s? did I get something mixed up here? Screen Shot 2017-12-05 at 10.10.26 PM.png

im not much of pixel peeper but I am very excited for the x7.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr. Ifly Drones
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
1,513
Reaction score
684
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Website
www.advexure.com
I am 99% sure the licences are bound to the cinecore which is inside the inspire 2.. you should be fine.

@DamesNY@skyrisaerialphotography is 100% correct. Your licenses that you are using with your X5S are bound to the Cinecore image processor which is housed inside your Inspire 2's main controller. When moving to the X7 your existing licenses will be used and no additional purchase of licenses are needed. If we can be of any further assistance don't hesitate to reach out. Safe flying!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DamesNY
Joined
Nov 4, 2016
Messages
591
Reaction score
196
...
Oddly enough, the lens shows as being made by Sigma, so it should be a decent lens. Sigma certainly knows how to make great glass, as the 50/1.4 Art for the Nikon is absolutely stellar. So I am puzzled....

Interesting that Sigma made their 30mm. I know the Sigma Art lenses can be very good, but they are probably far more heavier than the I2/X7 can handle. I have their 35mm FF f/1.4 Art and it is heavy! The DJI one must be a copy of their faster 30mm f/1.4 but trimmed down in diameter and they probably gave up the heavier glass as well which might be part of the sharpness loss. Wonder if Sigma made the entire X7 lens series?
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
62
Reaction score
38
Age
58
Location
Baldwin City, KS
Website
blog.grumpysworld.com
did I get something mixed up here?
Nope. You're seeing the real deal. But here's what may have you puzzled. The X7 is only 24MP if you shoot 3:2. Now as best I and a friend can tell, there is a bug (anyone listening?) in 3:2 stills with shutter speeds 1/1000 and under, in that you get a nasty blown-out horizontal stripe across the bottom of the image. And given my subject, I don't find 3:2 to be all that useful, so I shoot 4:3, just like on the X5S. And at 4:3, you only get 20MP. And you can also shoot 16:9 (like on the X5S), and that will give you even fewer MP, although I haven't shot at that aspect because I don't find it useful for my work.

And as to the lenses being made by Sigma, that's mere speculation on my part, supported by the data embedded in the dng (you can see it in Lightroom if you look hard enough at the meta-data). And I like Sigma, I really do. I really wish I knew who made the sensor though. Because I'm sure the X7 isn't the only camera where it is used. And if we knew where else it was used, we could figure out what this thing should be capable of.

Oh, and one other piece of good news, that being that the sensor alignment, at least on my copy of the X7, seems to be okay, unlike the situation on my first X5S (corrected thanks to Casey's very informative post).
 
  • Like
Reactions: DamesNY

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
21,694
Messages
207,231
Members
31,693
Latest member
Johnnieyaz