I've been looking heavily into buying the Phantom 2 Vision + for still photography. I've been researching it for about a week. The still camera function is 14 MP, but it looks like it's almost a fisheye and doesn't work well in low light. The other (relatively cheap) option is the regular phantom quadcopter with a GoPro Hero camera.
I think this technology will revolutionize landscape photography (until it's outlawed :), because there's almost no angle you can't have. I'm almost sold on getting one, but I still want image quality and control over things like aperture, ISO, etc.
There's a bigger "octacopter" that will actually carry a Canon 5D Mk III, which I would also love to do (If I were a Canon guy and had an extra $6,000-7,000 to spend), but that's just not possible now, so I'm seriously wondering if this Phantom 2 Vision + is a happy medium where I would be happy to get quality images and learn the craft.
I'd love to hear if anyone's had experience with this stuff yet.
My partner has the DJI Phantom, not sure if it's exactly the same as that one. He uses a GoPro with it for video, not still photography. If you'd like to know more about it, just message me and I'll give you his email.
Hey Rob I've been flying quads for about 3 years now. When I first started the Phantom was still a year away and the only way to get into it was to scratch build, although the parts I used were mainly what the 1st Phantom was built from. IMO you really need to think about this in different levels:
1. the flying
2. the photography
No doubt the Phantom is a turnkey solution if you want to take aerials ASAP. But as you already noted the pics aren't going to be the best. Many of the pros using Phantom size gear have a Nex attached and getting great results. Mine is for hobby and I'm happy with the GoPro3 Black.
In your position I would probably learn to fly on a cheaper platform 1st (eg: Walkera X350) then upgrade to a Nex carrying rig.
Hey Rob I've been flying quads for about 3 years now. When I first started the Phantom was still a year away and the only way to get into it was to scratch build, although the parts I used were mainly what the 1st Phantom was built from. IMO you really need to think about this in different levels:
1. the flying
2. the photography
No doubt the Phantom is a turnkey solution if you want to take aerials ASAP. But as you already noted the pics aren't going to be the best. Many of the pros using Phantom size gear have a Nex attached and getting great results. Mine is for hobby and I'm happy with the GoPro3 Black.
In your position I would probably learn to fly on a cheaper platform 1st (eg: Walkera X350) then upgrade to a Nex carrying rig.
I'm pretty experienced with flying quadcopters, although most of it was from the Parrot A.R. drone. These seem pretty intuitive to learn, and I don't think I'd have a hard time with that part.
The Sony NEX is intriguing. I definitely need to research this further. My biggest hesitation with all of this is putting quality glass and hardware behind it at a 'reasonable' price.
In that case it shouldn't take you long to get the hang of a phantom. If you look around on the forums like rcgroups &fpvlabs you will soon find out what mods they are doing to get good glass up there.
Indeed I do, and I've been having a blast with it. I have the Phantom 1.1.1, with a GoPro black. Of course now that I've had this for a few months, I'm licking my chops for a P2 with the gimbal, but I'm sure that'll come in time :)
I'd definitely start with a lower end model and get the hang of flying it (EDIT: Now that I have re-read the thread, it looks like you have already dipped your feet in the water with the Parrot). It would probably suck to start out with a many thousand dollar hexacopter with a DSLR attached to it, and then fly it into a wall or something. :)
I spent a good bit of time with an app on my iPad called "Electric RC" before I even bought the quad. It uses the same controls as the real thing, and really helped me get the hang of it before I had the real one in my hands. The quad in the app was actually harder to fly than the real thing (the real one uses GPS to maintain control), so it actually made the transition very easy.
PS -- I would recommend jumping right in by getting a unit with a gimbal. You'll definitely wish you had one... much like I am wishing right now :)
Originally posted by scalvert:
Alanfreed has a Phantom. I'm sure he'd be happy to discuss if you sent a PM.
...i thought i read recently that the FAA wants to start requiring a pilots license to operate drones.
The proposed rules have yet to be published, but the expectation is that for non-commercial use there will be no such requirement. For commercial use, however, it is looking like there will be significant hurdles. There will certainly be a "public comment period" and I would encourage all parties with an interest in this area to comment. My personal attitude is that if an operator complies with a reasonable set of restrictions, e.g. altitude < 400 feet, craft remains within line of sight, etc. then why does it matter whether the use is commercial or non-commercial? What they want (and need) to regulate is the broader category of commercial use (think unmanned package delivery).
...i thought i read recently that the FAA wants to start requiring a pilots license to operate drones.
The proposed rules have yet to be published, but the expectation is that for non-commercial use there will be no such requirement. For commercial use, however, it is looking like there will be significant hurdles. There will certainly be a "public comment period" and I would encourage all parties with an interest in this area to comment. My personal attitude is that if an operator complies with a reasonable set of restrictions, e.g. altitude < 400 feet, craft remains within line of sight, etc. then why does it matter whether the use is commercial or non-commercial? What they want (and need) to regulate is the broader category of commercial use (think unmanned package delivery).
What the FAA is most likely looking for is a way to regulate and produce revenue through taxation and licensing requirements.
I have a Fantom 2 and am enjoying it, even though the legality of it is still in flux. A previous FAA ban was lifted, and it is currently legal to use them for commercial uses. However, the FAA will be passing some laws on them in March 2015. Remains to be seen what will and won't be allowed. One thing is for sur: you need liability insurance ant that runs at about $1500/yr..
Is it not strange in the USA that remote control toys are more highly regulated than firearms?
In Australia & New Zealand they are at least looking at the prospect of only regulating UAVs over 2kg. This makes a lot more sense as then kids playing with RC toys in their backyard or local park will not be breaking laws.
As when any new technology is introduced to the general public, certain things need to be worked out The US is unique in several (not necessarily good) ways:
we're sue-happy
we are concerned with privacy issues (idiots trying to film celebrities and lesser mortals) by flying where they shouldn't
we have a preponderance of Darwin-award recipients who think it is funny/clever/orrginal to fly drones into the path of someone/something
Etc., etc.
The FAA will likely issue guidelines regarding their use in public areas, but I don't think they will prohibit their use for commercial purposes
Let us take a simple example of A wants to spy on his neighbour B. He can send up a drone and then everyone gets in a tizz and you can ban drones, but then he could just stick a GoPro on the end of a broom and hold it up and no-one would call for the banning of brooms.
This is an extreme simplification but my point is you should regulate the activity (spying/privacy/whatever), not the technology.
As when any new technology is introduced to the general public, certain things need to be worked out The US is unique in several (not necessarily good) ways:
we're sue-happy
we are concerned with privacy issues (idiots trying to film celebrities and lesser mortals) by flying where they shouldn't
we have a preponderance of Darwin-award recipients who think it is funny/clever/orrginal to fly drones into the path of someone/something
Etc., etc.
The FAA will likely issue guidelines regarding their use in public areas, but I don't think they will prohibit their use for commercial purposes
You forgot the part where the government has to figure out how to generate revenue from it through regulation and fees.
