Hello Fellow Yuneec Pilot!
Join our free Yuneec community and remove this annoying banner!
Sign up

Anxiously Awaiting the New 520 and Cgo Pro Camera!!!

Not sure about the rest of Europe (I've never seen myself as an European but that's a thing for another forum) but in the U.K. PAL is the standard for television. This doesn't apply with the H video, though. The image format (codecs) is the same as yours as far as I know.

Thanks for the education:)
 
I'm hoping that this will not be an issue in the EU H520 which is one reason why I will hold off from getting one for a few months after its release. After a year of this issue with the H I would have thought that it would have been sorted out by now. If it's evident with the H520 then my experience with the H tells me that it wouldn't be rectified any time soon in the H520.

The new camera has a very different antenna arrangement which should mean reception is not going to be affected by the relative positions of the drone and controller.

Most of the problems are to do with signal strength and directionality (which is also affected by nearby obstructions and reflective surfaces). It's quite a challenge to get a reliable video downlink to operate at the low powers that are mandated.
 
I *think* the numbers refer to FOV - the field of view expressed as an angle. So you get a 50 degree field of view (narrower focus) or 90 degree field of view (wide angle).

For comparison, the CGO3+ is around 85 degrees horizontal angle, so the E90 would be a little bit wider.

The E50 is 50mm (in 35mm terms ) equivalent
The E90 is 90mm (in 35mm terms ) equivalent
So the E90 is zoomed not wide.
 
I *think* the numbers refer to FOV - the field of view expressed as an angle. So you get a 50 degree field of view (narrower focus) or 90 degree field of view (wide angle).

For comparison, the CGO3+ is around 85 degrees horizontal angle, so the E90 would be a little bit wider.

Boy that would be great but what would the CGO Pro be then? It's my understanding that, it's going to be the wide angle everyday use and the 50 and 90 are zooms. Actually the CGO3+ is 95fov and the CGO3 is 105fov. Remember the CGO2? It was a whopping 115 fov (gasp!) lol..
 
The CGO-Pro is the original name for the E90 AFAIK
And the E50 was the CGO-Ci version
 
The CGO-Pro is the original name for the E90 AFAIK
And the E50 was the CGO-Ci version

You're kidding me. So there's no everyday new camera coming? Just the CGO3+ with an updated lens and a seriously sub-par 50mb bit-rate 4k 30fps? Say it ain't so... please
 
You're kidding me. So there's no everyday new camera coming? Just the CGO3+ with an updated lens and a seriously sub-par 50mb bit-rate 4k 30fps? Say it ain't so... please

Let's not do this again. The bitrate of the CGO3+ is not an issue.

On the other hand - as Pixaero lens owners will confirm, the standard CGO3+ lens does cause some problems with white balance and sharpness. The CGO3+ with an updated lens arrangement could be a perfectly good camera for everyday use. If you want something better, then there's always the E90.
 
Boy that would be great but what would the CGO Pro be then? It's my understanding that, it's going to be the wide angle everyday use and the 50 and 90 are zooms. Actually the CGO3+ is 95fov and the CGO3 is 105fov. Remember the CGO2? It was a whopping 115 fov (gasp!) lol..

I believe the aim is to provide a good rectilinear lens, which is easier when you go for a narrower field of view.

I'm not too sure how they measure FOV, as the actual 'recorded' view is smaller than the theoretical lens arrangement permits. It makes a bit more sense than quoting lens aperture though, as that means nothing without considering the sensor size. You can't even quote 35mm equivalents, as the sensor proportions are completely different for the most common use (video at 16:9).
 
Let's not do this again. The bitrate of the CGO3+ is not an issue.

On the other hand - as Pixaero lens owners will confirm, the standard CGO3+ lens does cause some problems with white balance and sharpness. The CGO3+ with an updated lens arrangement could be a perfectly good camera for everyday use. If you want something better, then there's always the E90.

The 50mb bit-rate is an issue for some us. Especially those of us who do 4k screen grab TIFFS in our daily work.

Shooting video with a 90mm lens (in terms of 35mm talk) is not pretty on a drone. I have a 45mm (90mm equiv. in 35mm talk) Zuiko I fly with on my CGO4 for images, I'm not really sure what kind of video you could make with that lens, none that I nor my clients would want to watch. So it's not an upgrade, it's an inspection imaging lens.
 
If I recall correctly, Yuneec stated they were making a camera with a lens specifically intended for inspection work. Such a camera targets a commercial application with a large following. For conversational purposes, the other day I encountered a person working for a power line inspection company that was calibrating a new Inspire 1 for that purpose after crashing one at work. What really ticked me off was learning neither the company or the operators are commercially licensed.
 
The 50mb bit-rate is an issue for some us. Especially those of us who do 4k screen grab TIFFS in our daily work.

If you're grabbing from video where the camera is relatively still, the 50mb bit rate limit is pretty irrelevant. The limitations then are largely down to sensor size.

Shooting video with a 90mm lens (in terms of 35mm talk) is not pretty on a drone. I have a 45mm (90mm equiv. in 35mm talk) Zuiko I fly with on my CGO4 for images, I'm not really sure what kind of video you could make with that lens, none that I nor my clients would want to watch. So it's not an upgrade, it's an inspection imaging lens.

4K screen grab TIFFS for daily work means you don't want an every day camera though, doesn't it? You can't ask for both a low cost, every day camera and then expect to do something moderately specialist with it. If your work demands top quality, spend the few hundred bucks on the top quality camera and stop moaning about the cheap one.

And, again, it's not a 90mm equiv lens, its 90 degree FOV - which i think is about 18mm equiv on a 35mm camera.

The 50 is a 50 degree FOV - about 39mm equiv.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eagle's Eye Video
The new camera has a very different antenna arrangement which should mean reception is not going to be affected by the relative positions of the drone and controller.

Most of the problems are to do with signal strength and directionality (which is also affected by nearby obstructions and reflective surfaces). It's quite a challenge to get a reliable video downlink to operate at the low powers that are mandated.
I did notice with my flights on Wednesday where I didn't experience the issue I took off with me (and the controller) positioned about 10 to 15 feet away to the left and slightly to the rear of the H and raised the landing gear when it was roughly 20 feet high and about 30 feet away, but I was still to the left and rear of the aircraft. I did this for both flights. I expected video to drop out for at least one of these flights but it didn't. I have to say that I don't normally take off with me to the left of the aircraft...I try where possible to take off with me directly behind the aircraft.

I have had the suspicion in the past that some of the issue could have had some root in directional reception but I doubted any directional impact would be significant over the short distances involved particularly when I notice that if after an initial take off where the video signal does drop out I land then on a second take off with me in the same position it does not drop out again when raising the landing gear. Also, I never see any problem with video dropping when the aircraft is some distance away towards my LOS limit no matter the orientation of the aircraft to me.

Also, and I know that this should have no impact on the dropping out issue, it is interesting to note that for these last two flights I had changed my pre-flight procedure regarding the insertion of the battery, but this was the only thing I had changed from previous flights so is worth mentioning for that fact alone (again I doubt very much that this would have made an impact on the dropping out issue).

It is my view that the issue is fixable but Yuneec has not seen fit to address it yet. I am not an electrical sort of person (my degree is in mathematics). My knowledge of radio propagation is largely built on my CB radio experience from the 1980's so I am aware of issues caused by direction and the impact of a ground plane (an antenna placed on the rear of a car will tend to make the signal stronger in front of the car) however my somewhat limited knowledge of radio propagation tells me that while the direction and strength of the signal may have some impact I do believe that there is something else going on. I've seen many posts in threads on this forum relating to this matter but as far as I can recall I've seen nothing that conclusively explains or addresses the issue short of installing the american firmware which is not an option for me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tuna
Never experienced this (nor any issue). I fly EU version, newest frimware.
It's the only significant issue for me. Apart from that I'm happy with my H and if the new H520 doesn't throw up that issue with it's EU firmware I'll happily buy one.
 
....if the new H520 doesn't throw up that issue with it's EU firmware I'll happily buy one.

Why should it come up @520?

If you are so sure the issue is within the EU firmware (which I do not believe while if so everyone with EU firmware would experience this issue) why not check that out by installing the A firmware for a day or two.

Cheers!
 
Why should it come up @520?

If you are so sure the issue is within the EU firmware (which I do not believe while if so everyone with EU firmware would experience this issue) why not check that out by installing the A firmware for a day or two.

Cheers!
The issue has been reported by others that tend also to be using the EU firmware. I grant that not everyone that has the EU firmware experiences this issue but it would seem that those that do have the issue also tend to have the EU firmware. Indeed it has been established in other threads of this forum that the EU firmware has some significance with regard to the issue. My experience is intermittent...I don't get it on every flight so whatever is causing it is marginal.

Regarding installing the 'A' firmware: I am a commercial operator so I must remain legal at all times and I must keep my aircraft to the same technical specifications as outlined in my Operations Manual. Although I suppose I could get away with changing to the 'A' firmware for a few days there are other considerations to be aware of, one of which is the fact that the 'A' firmware uses channels that may be used for other things in the U.K. so opening up the possibility, however remote, of interference.

I do welcome the suggestion, though, so I will consider it.
 
Pretty hard to make and market a "one size fits all" camera using only one lens, even if it's a telephoto, which brings a plethora of gimbal balance, stabilization and focal length adjustment issues along with it. The big name camera makers recognized this a long, long time ago.

Something that might be considered for the 520 batteries would be to change the color of the battery latch end. Thee have been too many power loss crashes caused by users failing to properly seat the battery and making the end a color different from the aircraft would automatically draw the users eyes to the battery. helping to increase battery awareness.

Speaking of batteries, I doubt all three camera models will be of the same weight, and expect all of them will will be heavier than the existing CGO-3+ camera. More weight requires more battery if a reasonable level of flight time is desired, and differences in camera weights will generate more or less flight time depending on the camera being used. Inspire users that change between a fixed and zoom lens camera already know this, experiencing much less flight time with the zoom lens camera. I fully expect some buyers of the 520 will lack that understanding and end up complaining vociferously about low flight times if using the heaviest camera.

F.V.
I don't know why it is so but the camera drop out with landing gear action has been pretty much limited to the E.U. version of the H. That version differs from the U.S. version only in the firmware. How that causes conflict between the landing gear and camera is beyond me. A general interest question; Does the E.U version of the H use the PAL image format?

Many should also keep in mind that the 520 model is designed as a workhorse for commercial use, not for everyday hobby use. The TH was for the general public and also worked well in some ares for those in the commercial arena. The 520 is Yuneec's upgrade to heavy duty use for commercial work. Longer focal length lenses for inspections, etc., bigger motors, etc., etc. So if you are planning to fly hobby, shooting scenery, etc. the extra expense, larger aircraft, zoom lenses, etc. may not necessarily be a smart choice. And as PatR stated, you will probably start complaining here and elsewhere. Don't let your eyes do your shopping, look at your intended use and see if the 520 fits the bill.

Just my opinion.
 
My experience is intermittent...I don't get it on every flight so whatever is causing it is marginal.

Regarding installing the 'A' firmware: I am a commercial operator so I must remain legal at all times and I must keep my aircraft to the same technical specifications as outlined in my Operations Manual. Although I suppose I could get away with changing to the 'A' firmware for a few days there are other considerations to be aware of, one of which is the fact that the 'A' firmware uses channels that may be used for other things in the U.K. so opening up the possibility, however remote, of interference.
.


There is no research as obvious and straight as Empiric research.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tuna
Gee, that lens says 23mm. The CGO3+ is 14mm with a 1/2.3" sensor and 94-deg FOV. Assuming that photo is of the new E90 camera a 1" sensor, what is its field of view? I don't think those sensor "dimensions" are enough to answer that question accurately. But it looks to me as though the larger sensor and longer focal length create similar FOV to our trusty CGO3+ camera.
 

New Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
20,955
Messages
241,593
Members
27,286
Latest member
lahorelaptop