E50 / E90

[AH-1G]

So in low light test, was this done in auto mode or did you adjust the aperture and shutter speed and what other settings if at all did you (they) use? Other than that totally awesome. That tractor machine thing that grabs the hops or whatever is really cool.

 

[AH-1G]

The video from Spain is just ok, sorry not impressed. The low light test video was very dramatic in clarity, Spain looks primitive. Why can one upload a fantastic quality video and another can't. Is one YT, what is the other upload done in or sent to?

 

[Tuna]

Assuming those videos are straight out of the camera, they're pretty much what I'd expect - shots during the day are relatively low contrast due to the lighting conditions. If you want shots that have the drama of the 'golden hour' around sunset, you either have to take them at that time, or post-process.

 

[oliver]

The Spanish video is in 1080p and badly compressed by the author (it is not YouTube), it is not possible to appreciate the qualities of the E90.

The second video is not too bad, a pity that the white balance has remained in automatic mode, it is the same problem as with the CG03 +. We can appreciate the slow motion in 4K.

 

[oliver]

a really interesting comparison
The quality is superior in photo, normal more pixels (sensor1 "), but is not obvious in video.
The image processing by the camera is not optimal, in my opinion it can do better. Or the auto settings do not highlight it. I notice again that the image is slightly blurry ...

 

[CraigCam]

a really interesting comparison
The quality is superior in photo, normal more pixels (sensor1 "), but is not obvious in video.
The image processing by the camera is not optimal, in my opinion it can do better. Or the auto settings do not highlight it. I notice again that the image is slightly blurry ...

So back to the mushroom outside like their first CGO1... that’s not encouraging. I met a P4 pilot and we compared cameras. He was shocked at the color quality of the CGO3+. We both agreed it was understanding your shoot conditions and knowing your settings that creates quality video as you can never trust auto settings because of the constant changes in color, light, and shadow relative to foreground,background, and camera angle. I’ve gotten quite good with our camera so not feeling the need to rush into the new one yet.

 

[Tuna]

a really interesting comparison
The quality is superior in photo, normal more pixels (sensor1 "), but is not obvious in video.
The image processing by the camera is not optimal, in my opinion it can do better. Or the auto settings do not highlight it. I notice again that the image is slightly blurry ...

Blurry is *exactly* what you want. The CGO3+ does in camera sharpening, which is great for hobby photographers, but a disaster for professionals (in camera sharpening is always a compromise). By not having sharpening, you allow proper post-processing of videos to a professional standard.

Now it may be that we want some hobbyist settings, but this is being sold as a commercial machine, so I'd expect the camera to be geared much more towards professionals who expect to edit and adjust in post, rather than home users who just upload the file to youtube.

 

[PatR]

Tell ya what, if my DSLR's rendered a blurred image of the prime subject they would get trashed in a heartbeat. That or they would be sent out for lens repair. Same applies to my CGO-'s, Go Pros, or any other camera, including the cell phone. Moire or Bokke the photographer sets up with the shot through lens selection and settings but clarity of the image is critical. If pros didn't want clarity and a sharp image they would would be content in using a 0.5mpxl sensor.

 

[oliver]

Ok, Ok, i use RX100 IV (normaly, the same sensor ...), or Panasonic GH4, we are far from the same result, even a sony AX53 with a 1/2 sensor makes it better. Is that the objective? Is it video processing? the auto settings not appropriate, the three I think.
In comparison I find the E50 not too bad with its small sensor.
Yunnec should offer us a video with the correct settings, but without post-production, history to be able to download it.
Edit:
On the photo side, the progress is enormous

 

[Tuna]

Tell ya what, if my DSLR's rendered a blurred image of the prime subject they would get trashed in a heartbeat. That or they would be sent out for lens repair. Same applies to my CGO-'s, Go Pros, or any other camera, including the cell phone. Moire or Bokke the photographer sets up with the shot through lens selection and settings but clarity of the image is critical. If pros didn't want clarity and a sharp image they would would be content in using a 0.5mpxl sensor.

The thing is, the video doesn't look too bad to me - however if you compare it to a CGO3+ (which over-sharpens) then it looks softer - it is softer. Is it out of focus, or blurred? I don't think so. So the comparison against a camera which over-compensates its video settings is not a good one.

 

[PatR]

We don't know what was done to the video in post. If it was shot in 3k or 4k and down processed the imagery might have been softened by the software program. Then we have to deal with internet speeds and compression effects from the publishing media, and You Tube's sucks. This is why only the prime, unedited video downloaded from a cloud server is of any use in video grading. Even with that what monitor is used, it's resolution capability, and color balancing will impact the viewing.

As for the CGO over sharpening, they don't have to since the sharpening level is user adjustable. I'm sorry to say that most using a camera din't bother to learn how to make full use of them. I don't have a camera where I have learned all there is to know about each and every function and feature setting. The learning never ends if you're really into it or you accept what you get if you're not.

 

[Tuna]

Very true, Pat.

I've had a brief play with the E90, but have held off from any review until I can work through all the settings and figure out what works and what doesn't. Reviewing everything on auto doesn't really tell us much. From the early experience of the CGO3+, we know it's easy to get very bad results from a camera if you don't spend a bit of time with it.

 

[PatR]

The thing with reviews is that everything that went into a photo or video needs to be posted alongside the imagery for any type of assessment to have any validation. It's much too easy to mess with the final presentation by down processing, altering the final frame rate, and other things. Ultimately, if people would bother to note and list the shutter speed, frame rates, lighting conditions, processing software, white balance settings, scene setting, video resolution, and just leave the video alone after down loading from the card to post it somewhere it can be down loaded without a media compression algorithm being added to the mix we could come to conclusions. Lacking that info all we have is another basic video someone threw up for people to make uneducated guesses with. The intentions are likely pure but the execution comes up a wee bit short.

Auto settings can be useful, but only when none of the initial conditions or angles change during the shoot. That is rarely how it works with a flying camera though.

 

[Ty Pilot]

The E90 currently, to my eyes has a much narrower depth of field than most other fixed-focus aerial cameras, certainly more so than the CG03+. And while I agree that a certain amount of Bokeh adds interest to images, and I understand that various forms of blur are very important to imagery, both photo and video; on a fixed focus camera that is mounted on a UAV, it seem superfluous unless you can control it and that is not the case here.

It seems this would pretty much eliminate the E90 as an all-around landscape photography platform unless you always have your subject in the sweet spot which seems to me to be between 50 and a few hundred feet. In some cases that might work but it certainly takes the versatility factor down considerably. And while it is true, that the CG03+ is over-sharpened right out of the box in auto modes, there is no denying that the focus is very consistent from a few meters to infinity while the E90's field of focus will always be evident regardless of what is done in post.

It would be interesting to see if this could be adjusted/fixed.

I would rather have a fixed-focus camera that has a consistent focus from wherever it starts out to infinity; rather than a focus point somewhere in the middle that dictates my distance from subject.

 

[JCFlippen]

Surely apart from the E50 aimed at structural inspections at a short distance any aerial camera should have the distant horizon in focus for general work.

The CGO3+ had factory set up issues and then started using a non screwthread mount! Are they putting more care into the new cameras performance and set up?

I am totally happy with my screw mount CGO3+ cameras fitted with after market higher quality lenses. I take the flight quality of the H520 as read as I have two good Typhoon H machines.

The camera is all. Some of the E90 material I have downloaded to FCPX looks very good so I hope to pull the trigger in the near future - perhaps the next production batch.

 

[PatR]

If the E-90 was designed around being what I called earlier a "one trick pony", intended primarily for mapping generation, it may well be set up for a 50'-100' focal range. If such is the case they severely limited the number of units they will sell.

 

[oliver]

The E90 currently, to my eyes has a much narrower depth of field than most other fixed-focus aerial cameras, certainly more so than the CG03+. And while I agree that a certain amount of Bokeh adds interest to images, and I understand that various forms of blur are very important to imagery, both photo and video; on a fixed focus camera that is mounted on a UAV, it seem superfluous unless you can control it and that is not the case here.

It seems this would pretty much eliminate the E90 as an all-around landscape photography platform unless you always have your subject in the sweet spot which seems to me to be between 50 and a few hundred feet. In some cases that might work but it certainly takes the versatility factor down considerably. And while it is true, that the CG03+ is over-sharpened right out of the box in auto modes, there is no denying that the focus is very consistent from a few meters to infinity while the E90's field of focus will always be evident regardless of what is done in post.

It would be interesting to see if this could be adjusted/fixed.

I would rather have a fixed-focus camera that has a consistent focus from wherever it starts out to infinity; rather than a focus point somewhere in the middle that dictates my distance from subject.

View attachment 7431

Totally agree
Comparison of depths of field at 4:20

@ JCFlippen
Please, what are your higher quality lenses on your CG03+ ?

 

[Tuna]

If the E-90 was designed around being what I called earlier a "one trick pony", intended primarily for mapping generation, it may well be set up for a 50'-100' focal range. If such is the case they severely limited the number of units they will sell.

The thing to remember is that the H520/E90 combination is being sold specifically as an inspection/survey drone. Anyone buying it for general cinematography is going to struggle - DataPilot is not a camera operator's app and the whole set-up is tuned for post-production of reports. Yuneec are pretty clear on this - this is not an 'upgrade' for the Typhoon H. It's not a general purpose drone, it's designed to do one job well.

Now it may be that we see a V90 camera in future with a lens and firmware tuned for videography, and a H520-V drone that comes with a different flight control app. Or it may be that the E90 will gain more settings and adjustments in firmware. Certainly the CGO3+ had regular firmware updates for most of the first year it was available, and each improved the quality of the output. But we're unlikely to see the H520 having lots of general purpose features added.

I'm waiting on the first proper tests to come out for the E90. Bo Lorentzen took some time to do some really informative tests on the last generation of cameras, so it'll be good to see something similar for this one. There are a few details that need fixing in firmware first, but early indications are that this is a good camera. We'll see.

 

[arruntus]

If the E-90 was designed around being what I called earlier a "one trick pony", intended primarily for mapping generation, it may well be set up for a 50'-100' focal range. If such is the case they severely limited the number of units they will sell.

What you're saying makes no sense. Taking into account the GSD that tends to achieve the flight altitude is usually about 350 feet up or down. Also by regulation of the different countries where normally the height is limited to between 400 and 500 feet.

I don't know why you say that the H520 is mainly intended for map generation when from the beginning it has been said that mainly the E50 camera is for inspection and the E90 (due to its sensor) is for image and video recording. The E90 is good for photogrammetry due to the size of its sensor. You say that with a YT video you can not appreciate the quality of the image but then you say that it may be the focus set at 100 feet and therefore is not valid for recording images. Sorry, buddy, what you're saying makes no sense.

How many people do you think make photogrammetry? I'm sure the vast majority of people who buy the E90 will use it for video and image recording, something that has nothing to do with photogrammetry. The cameras in both cases are the same.

I am the first one to criticize something that is not right, but I will make constructive criticisms to try to get Yuneec to improve things. If the product I'm looking at doesn't convince me, I'm looking for one that does and I don't focus only on talking badly about a product that I haven't tried and that I say I don't have the information to do it, this way I don't contribute anything and I confuse others.

It's nothing personal, mate. I just think you see bad things or imagine them. We've just started receiving information from users, not directly from the company, don't you think it's too early to start drawing conclusions?

 

[oliver]

On paper, the E90 is better than the CG03 +, so it has to prove it.
If the lens is good, if the focus between the lens and the sensor is good, the rest is only computer processing of the video, but perhaps it is the most difficult...