- Joined
- Oct 24, 2016
- Messages
- 235
- Reaction score
- 91
- Age
- 26
CES 2017
- Thread starter BillyTexas
- Start date
- Status
You mean like present H is advertised 25 minutes and actually You only have 16 minutes ? I could have maybe 2 more minutes but then I would be draining battery to 14.3 V and everyone suggest to land at 14.8 V.
Based on this I don't think H520 will have more than 20 minutes of flight.
Yes all new cameras will fit on old aircraft. Many upgrades on the platform - read on. I saw it a CES
I saw it at CES - yes new camera will fit onto old platforms, same mount. They demonstrated that for me.
The product manager who I met in person at CES swore he tested it himself and got 30 minutes solid, every time. Has bigger battery, larger motors and props also.
Is there any news on an update for existing H units? I would love to see some new features. Can someone at CES ask?
I've got to say I'm really disappointed at Yuneec's 2017 announcements and the complete lack of detail and facts behind it's CES news releases (why isn't the Yuneec websire showing more facts and info?)
At the end of the day the drone itself is totally secondary to the camera it's carrying (the whole point is it's a aerial camera platform). There are no real details on the new CGO-CI camera, but from what I've seen I'm guessing it's a rehash of the current CG03 camera with the same (too) small sensor.
With DJI's Phantom 4 Pro already offering a 1" sensor camera along with 100Mb/sec H265 encoding, I fear that Yuneec have missed the boat here. If they've based the CGO-CI on a 1/2.3 sensor again and just bumped up the bitrate and added better optics, then I won't be buying a 520, much as I'd like to. Bigger airframe and better battery performance aren't going to cut it.
(I'm hoping I'm wrong and that someone can correct me)
At the end of the day the drone itself is totally secondary to the camera it's carrying (the whole point is it's a aerial camera platform). There are no real details on the new CGO-CI camera, but from what I've seen I'm guessing it's a rehash of the current CG03 camera with the same (too) small sensor.
With DJI's Phantom 4 Pro already offering a 1" sensor camera along with 100Mb/sec H265 encoding, I fear that Yuneec have missed the boat here. If they've based the CGO-CI on a 1/2.3 sensor again and just bumped up the bitrate and added better optics, then I won't be buying a 520, much as I'd like to. Bigger airframe and better battery performance aren't going to cut it.
(I'm hoping I'm wrong and that someone can correct me)
Hi,
I just purchased the Typhoon H pro and then got a CGO-ET camera to go with it. The CGO-ET was the same price as the pro so your getting up there in price. But, I bought it for SAR/Fire dept possibilities. It's easy to change out the camera and I saw a unit working at the Europeen drone show in Birmingham, UK in early Dec. That's what made me go and get it. I have a phantom pro advanced as well and have a Tau FLIR but was not able to find a way to put them together in the air hence the purchase. Only got it 3 days ago so haven't even flown it yet.
I think what we're seeing here is the market moving apart a bit. It used to be that one drone would fit all uses, so you wanted the best camera (when cameras weren't all that good) on the best airframe (when stability, flight times and so on were still quite variable). The limiting factor was just how much you were willing to spend.
Now suddenly, the basic technology is 'sorted' and it's a question of different drones for different markets. You no longer need the absolute best camera for most uses - the Mavic has a camera that's no better than the P3. Nor do you need the most powerful air frame - the Breeze is a blast to fly indoors and out. You have to look at a drone and ask if it's the right one for your particular needs.
You might not care about high visibility and longer flight times, but commercial pilots probably do. Yuneec are making a big deal of the low distortion for the new camera, and I'm guessing that people using this for surveying and photogrammetry will be excited about that. This really isn't a drone for would be film makers - they're aiming for search and rescue, power line inspection and 'broadcast' - which I take to mean news crews rather than Spielberg. It's boring stuff to gadget lovers, but clearly a market Yuneec want to address (and probably more profitable than trying to sell to YouTube stars). I've heard more than one professional user say they don't want to use something like the Phantom because it looks like they've turned up to do their job with a toy.
You're right though that after the big new products of last year, this is a pretty muted response. Yuneec really haven't done a great job of communicating what they're doing and their media releases have been rather uncoordinated. Insiders are saying that there's a lot going on in the background, but CES this year seems to be very much about solid business rather than world shattering announcements. What is good news is that they're clearly committed to making the Typhoon into an ecosystem of cameras, airframes and the controller, so unlike DJI, you're not going to have to buy a whole new machine every time they announce a new model.
Rather than upgrade my drone, I will probably purchase another CGO3+ and then upgrade my current one with a 3.97 Peau Lens and the new one with a 8.25 Peau Lense...
I was hoping that Yuneec would at least meet the P4+ specs.
Maybe they will come out with a new camera later in the year.
I was hoping that Yuneec would at least meet the P4+ specs.
Maybe they will come out with a new camera later in the year.
So here it is, Trent from Yuneec at around the 7:20 mark in this video says the range on the H520 is around 3000 - 4000'. I'm betting that is more or less what the practical range of the H is also, not the 5,280' under optimum conditions.
Per the Yuneec US website under the specs for the H -
Video and Control Transmission Distance/Range (Optimum Conditions) 1.6km / 1 mile.
Per the Yuneec US website under the specs for the H -
Video and Control Transmission Distance/Range (Optimum Conditions) 1.6km / 1 mile.
I'm disappointed with Yuneec. The H520 is basically an H painted orange and seeing fly away posts from H owners everyday, I think they need to fix some issues before they kill the potential till for first responders to use their products. I wish they would have released a better camera for the q500+ crowd...
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2016
- Messages
- 991
- Reaction score
- 247
- Age
- 55
I was flying over a lake in November and flew over 4500 ft with stock antennas and no loss of signal.
Bill W.
Tuna, I am a commercial UAV pilot 
for me battery life and airframe are very important, but that counts for little if the camera is mediocre in performance, which unfortunately the CG03+ is..
To quote Yuneec's press statement - CGO-CI's longer FOV and edge-to-edge distortion-free lens captures sharp, high-contrast imaging, which meets the needs of filmmakers and broadcast producers
From the info so far, i can't see how the CGO-CI meets the needs of filmmakers any more than the CG03+. If it's just a CG03+ with a narrower FOV...that's not really much of a benefit.
Perhaps for survey work it will be better, but Yuneec are claiming improvements for filmakers.
Regarding - I've heard more than one professional user say they don't want to use something like the Phantom because it looks like they've turned up to do their job with a toy. - I agree, I'd love to buy a 520 rather than a Phantom 4 Pro, or indeed an Inspire 2....but at the moment Yuneec doesn't have a viable answer for a professional-grade camera system, unless you buy a 920.
for me battery life and airframe are very important, but that counts for little if the camera is mediocre in performance, which unfortunately the CG03+ is..To quote Yuneec's press statement - CGO-CI's longer FOV and edge-to-edge distortion-free lens captures sharp, high-contrast imaging, which meets the needs of filmmakers and broadcast producers
From the info so far, i can't see how the CGO-CI meets the needs of filmmakers any more than the CG03+. If it's just a CG03+ with a narrower FOV...that's not really much of a benefit.
Perhaps for survey work it will be better, but Yuneec are claiming improvements for filmakers.
Regarding - I've heard more than one professional user say they don't want to use something like the Phantom because it looks like they've turned up to do their job with a toy. - I agree, I'd love to buy a 520 rather than a Phantom 4 Pro, or indeed an Inspire 2....but at the moment Yuneec doesn't have a viable answer for a professional-grade camera system, unless you buy a 920.
- Status
Similar threads
