5 ms·

If “imaging above everything” then why does the lens casing/hood have 5 wacky-shaped lopsided panels? I don’t know much about drones, but it wasn’t very long a

If “imaging above everything” then why does the lens casing/hood have 5 wacky-shaped lopsided panels? I don’t know much about drones, but it wasn’t very long ago that even consumer level camera equipment came with some degree of dignity and sincerity with respect to their purpose and their users. This could be the greatest camera ever made and that silly mess on the front would just be that much more of an insult. I just don’t understand.

cptskippy 5y ago
Do the flourishes impact the image quality somehow?
- derekjdanserl 5y ago
  >Do the flourishes impact the image quality somehow? Why undergo the research to find out? Why on Earth should that be necessary? Clearly this is more a symptom than anything, but the reason it doesn’t matter is not that the “flourish” does not affect image quality; it’s that the equipment is clearly trash anyhow. This kind of thing speaks for itself, just like the ridiculous idea that anyone should even want a Hasselblad mounted on a drone. It’s all a sad joke. For the record of nearly a century and a half, lens hoods are symmetrical with few exceptions, “flourishes” not being one of them. I don’t see changing this as a progression of any sort. It’s something closer to decadence.
  - hytdstd 5y ago
    How is it clearly trash?
    - derekjdanserl 5y ago
      I only suspect the camera is trash. I know nothing about drones. I know that with these new digital toys the more traditional rules of photography are no longer embraced as rules to be broken but rather they are treated as a grab bag of techniques with no rhyme or reason. The equipment tends to reflect this. These cameras are hot rods rather than tools, which benefits nobody. These things are designed to be used one single way and that’s it. It should be unsurprising that they produce such repetitive results. They are not designed for creative endeavors but rather for some type of extreme performance. They are not modular. They are not repairable. They don’t even have a symmetrical lens hood lol. The drone stuff is the worst of it I’m sure, and I just find it sad.
      - wmf 5y ago
        Or we'll find out how many of those rules of photography were just nostalgia or cargo culting.
      - asxd 5y ago
        > These cameras are hot rods rather than tools, which benefits nobody For what it's worth, I was thinking about getting this. I'm not a photographer, but I'd really like to try flying this around and trying my darndest to take cool pictures. I don't necessarily care about modularity or repairability. I don't have the expertise anyhow. It seems like it might be beneficial to my demographic.
        prawn 5y ago
        If you're just mucking around, get a Mini or the Air 2S. I know people doing commercial work with both. Air 2S gives you more room to move if you end up operating commercially, selling prints, etc.
  - jcims 5y ago
    Holy moly, this set you off. I don’t know anything about the Mavic 3, but their products overall are actually pretty good and for $1000-2500 you get some pretty amazing capability. Their cameras and optics (Hasselblad clout abuse notwithstanding) are decent for the size, the flight controls and automation are good, the stabilization is unbelievable and the overall quality and fit and finish is really good. I think if you tried one out for a month you would find use for it.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - dimatura 5y ago
    Out of curiosity, would you consider the example images and footage as "clearly trash"?
Jarwain 5y ago
I think the panels add character. Honestly it reminds me of an eye with the positioning and angles. I don't think it detracts from its purpose nor impacts its functional ability, and I think it adds character
aaronbrethorst 5y ago
May I introduce you to the Leica ‘Drifter’ M Monochrom Lenny Kravitz special edition in faux snakeskin? https://m.dpreview.com/news/8640603678/leica-and-lenny-kravitz-produce-limited-edition-drifter-m-monochrom-with-snakeskin-finish.amp https://m.dpreview.com/news/8640603678/leica-and-lenny-kravi...
numpad0 5y ago
That's polygon modelers' job. They start from basic geometry like a cube or a sphere, and add details by subdividing, extruding, beveling, working on surfaces and edges. The end result often shows lots of angled parallel lines. Other two major types of 3D modeling are parametric CAD modeling and sculpt polygon modeling. Sculpt is a relatively new method suited for modeling natural objects like an animal bone, and parametric CAD is extension to good ol' hand drawn mechanical schematics. If you know what to look, you might notice that polygon-modeled models often has an origin _point_ at its center of gravity towards which cross section of the model and density of surface details increases, and that parametric models has an origin _plane_ at an "end" where it extends from which tends to define average cross sectional area of a part. This drone is a mix of those two methods. ... And the real reason why I'm writing this comment is because sometimes I don't like when modelers do general aesthetics first and add internal structure as mere flavoring, making it "boneless", like all those Star Wars ships. Everything mechanical are "added details" in Star Wars mechs. I think your complaints come from something similar to what I have problems with. Photography cameras were always machined so they are always drawn in CAD with mechanical principles first and surface details to follow.

cptskippy 5y ago

Do the flourishes impact the image quality somehow?

derekjdanserl 5y ago
>Do the flourishes impact the image quality somehow? Why undergo the research to find out? Why on Earth should that be necessary? Clearly this is more a symptom than anything, but the reason it doesn’t matter is not that the “flourish” does not affect image quality; it’s that the equipment is clearly trash anyhow. This kind of thing speaks for itself, just like the ridiculous idea that anyone should even want a Hasselblad mounted on a drone. It’s all a sad joke. For the record of nearly a century and a half, lens hoods are symmetrical with few exceptions, “flourishes” not being one of them. I don’t see changing this as a progression of any sort. It’s something closer to decadence.
- hytdstd 5y ago
  How is it clearly trash?
  - derekjdanserl 5y ago
    I only suspect the camera is trash. I know nothing about drones. I know that with these new digital toys the more traditional rules of photography are no longer embraced as rules to be broken but rather they are treated as a grab bag of techniques with no rhyme or reason. The equipment tends to reflect this. These cameras are hot rods rather than tools, which benefits nobody. These things are designed to be used one single way and that’s it. It should be unsurprising that they produce such repetitive results. They are not designed for creative endeavors but rather for some type of extreme performance. They are not modular. They are not repairable. They don’t even have a symmetrical lens hood lol. The drone stuff is the worst of it I’m sure, and I just find it sad.
    - wmf 5y ago
      Or we'll find out how many of those rules of photography were just nostalgia or cargo culting.
    - asxd 5y ago
      > These cameras are hot rods rather than tools, which benefits nobody For what it's worth, I was thinking about getting this. I'm not a photographer, but I'd really like to try flying this around and trying my darndest to take cool pictures. I don't necessarily care about modularity or repairability. I don't have the expertise anyhow. It seems like it might be beneficial to my demographic.
      - prawn 5y ago
        If you're just mucking around, get a Mini or the Air 2S. I know people doing commercial work with both. Air 2S gives you more room to move if you end up operating commercially, selling prints, etc.
- jcims 5y ago
  Holy moly, this set you off. I don’t know anything about the Mavic 3, but their products overall are actually pretty good and for $1000-2500 you get some pretty amazing capability. Their cameras and optics (Hasselblad clout abuse notwithstanding) are decent for the size, the flight controls and automation are good, the stabilization is unbelievable and the overall quality and fit and finish is really good. I think if you tried one out for a month you would find use for it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dimatura 5y ago
  Out of curiosity, would you consider the example images and footage as "clearly trash"?

Jarwain 5y ago

I think the panels add character. Honestly it reminds me of an eye with the positioning and angles. I don't think it detracts from its purpose nor impacts its functional ability, and I think it adds character

aaronbrethorst 5y ago

May I introduce you to the Leica ‘Drifter’ M Monochrom Lenny Kravitz special edition in faux snakeskin? https://m.dpreview.com/news/8640603678/leica-and-lenny-kravitz-produce-limited-edition-drifter-m-monochrom-with-snakeskin-finish.amp https://m.dpreview.com/news/8640603678/leica-and-lenny-kravi...

numpad0 5y ago

That's polygon modelers' job. They start from basic geometry like a cube or a sphere, and add details by subdividing, extruding, beveling, working on surfaces and edges. The end result often shows lots of angled parallel lines. Other two major types of 3D modeling are parametric CAD modeling and sculpt polygon modeling. Sculpt is a relatively new method suited for modeling natural objects like an animal bone, and parametric CAD is extension to good ol' hand drawn mechanical schematics. If you know what to look, you might notice that polygon-modeled models often has an origin _point_ at its center of gravity towards which cross section of the model and density of surface details increases, and that parametric models has an origin _plane_ at an "end" where it extends from which tends to define average cross sectional area of a part. This drone is a mix of those two methods. ... And the real reason why I'm writing this comment is because sometimes I don't like when modelers do general aesthetics first and add internal structure as mere flavoring, making it "boneless", like all those Star Wars ships. Everything mechanical are "added details" in Star Wars mechs. I think your complaints come from something similar to what I have problems with. Photography cameras were always machined so they are always drawn in CAD with mechanical principles first and surface details to follow.