Greetings,
I hope the site admin doesn't cry foul but I wanted to publicly post an APB for those who may see this that are as passionate as I am when it comes to capturing conent from an aerial platform. Hopefully what I have to say speaks to the hearts of the pilots out there that still consider themselves Yuneec.
Amidst all the tech racing and the mad rush that usually follows, I like to remind folks that the emotion jolting inventions we refer to as drones are certainly fun to use but that we far too often use them as expensive toys instead of what they really are. Drones as we know them are simply cameras .... that can fly. The most important part of any camera is the person controlling it and let's be thankful that we no longer need to carry rolls of film to the local print shop, spend hard earned money each time we want to see what we captured, wait days or hours to get prints back, only to then see undeniable proof that you still don't know how to use your camera because of the 24 pictures you printed, only 5 came out correct enough to be used in your photo album.
With this advancement creators get to practice more and arguably at a lower cost. We could say that a formidable drone costs the same as all the money you would spend developing bad photos in print until you learn how to use your old 35MM Kodak but that's not a point I think is worth debating in this forum. At this stage, I believe that the creators are willing to practice. Willing to develop their craft (**No Pun Intended**) ... but to do this using aerial platforms, we need
reliable craft (Air Craft).
The technology in these drones has moved at a fast rate over the past few years with no drone manufacturer being able to claim a flawless run in the market. There have been fly aways, crashes, random losses in altitude, lengthy conversations with customer service techs who have no clue what they are talking about and worst of all ... staff reductions and in the worst of cases... complete withdrawal from the drone market. There have also been numerous improvements in the visualization of telemetry, ground station imaging, battery life, flight range, autonomous flight modes etc. But what I still see is that none of these improvements by themselves can create a million dollar shot. The cameras on most formidable UAVs can now be dialed in to produce competitive results by the most important camera setting ... the camera operator!
Case in point, below are 3 panoramas I created using my Q500 4K and the CGO3 camera, the DJI Mavic Air and the Yuneec Breeze 4k (In that Order). The DJI Mavic air is the only drone of the three that can do this on the fly as an automated quickshot but you would still need to crop the panorama as the foreground looks unnatural. The Q500 takes great 12MP photos and is 3 axis stabilized to stitching photos is a one step process in your chosen photo editor. The Breeze however isn't stabilized in photo mode and it's video mode is somewhat stabilized electronically in 1080p and 720p...If you ask me, it should be called the Breeze (Drop the 4K, it can't be used!!!) Because of the instability of the camera, you will have to straighten all your photos and crop before you can use them ... reducing the breeze from it's advertised 13MP photo size to somewhere usually between 10MP and 12MP ... it all depends on how windy the day is.
Having seen these photos, and ignoring the tiny error I made in stitching the horizon of the Breeze pic (if you didn't see it ...It doesn't exist
).... would you necessarily know that these photos were shot on three different cameras If I had not pointed it out? I would argue that the differences between these are largely due to decisions I made editing as well as differences in light conditions while shooting but you could also argue that a skilled camera operator should be able to negate any differences in lighting. If you agree with me on those points, then you'll agree that have the option to take different roads to get to the same destination. Shall we continue on the Yuneec road? Well to me that depends mostly on Yuneec.
As much as the cameras of most drones north of $400 are formidable, here are some factors that will make the photographer's or cinematographer's job more labor intensive than it needs to be:
1. Binary (0 or 100) yaw rates (Yuneec Breeze). A perfect orbit is almost impossible to do manually even though you can use the app to do what is at best an approximate orbit
2. Unstable landing (typhoon series Q and H). These drones both tend to bounce around when landing is opposed to gently touching down. Many have lost props due to this landing procedure toppling over the drone. If my drone always needs a repair, or I am scared to fly it because it's likely to break, I'm just not going to want to use it
3. Lack of mechanical camera stabilization (Yuneec Breeze). For video, I would argue that you need two axes mechanically stabilized and you can stabilize the third digitally. I believe this is what the DJI spark and Parrot Anafi have employed. The Breeze does all 3 digitally and suffers horribly as a result. I would love to give Yuneec a pass on this but the binary yaw rate above combined with this prevents me from doing so. If we had the correct yaw rates or at least a fully manual mode, I could live with the 1080p stabilized rocky footage ... but again... Yuneec has decided not to address this issue
.
4. Quick release and hopefully also balanced props only. This isn't often an issue but the Q500 props are often not balanced. Also, if you fly a lot and remove your props each time, some thread wear is unavoidable and you may soon have to change out a perfectly functional motor because of worn shaft threads. This is already dealt with since the newer machines all have snap on props but I thought I would mention it.
I am sure there are other points that could have been made but I didn't come here to bash Yuneec. I actually came here for the same reason that my first two drones were from Yuneec. I wanted to champion their brand and not simply follow the trend.
For as long as I could I avoided purchasing DJI but now that I have experienced both, I can honestly say that I see why DJI had cornered approximately 80%+ of the consumer UAV market. I have no complaints about my DJI drone or the attached camera and to be fair, that's probably because it's very modern technology when compared to the Q500 and Breeze. On the flip side, the Q500 remains my favorite (except during landings) but it's not as portable by 2018 standards... still my favorite drone though.
My greater point however, is that as I continue with the practice of UAV assisted photography and cinematography... whether it be for professional, personal curatorial or fun vacation content collection, I'm going to choose the company producing the more portable, mechanically stabilized and dependable UAV mounted camera. Currently that company does not appear to be Yuneec.
To some this may seem sad, but I think they have earned this result with enough customers who otherwise would have remained loyal. The Mantis $499 (Breeze 2 will be digitally stabilized
... why Yuneec, why? Put a **** gimbal on it already!) The Breeze 4k is still going for $399 on the yuneec website even though Walmart was selling them for $150 .... and the DJI Spark has better yaw rates and real 1080p and 2 axis mechanical stability for the same price $399.... makes absolutely no sense.
I wish Yuneec all the best as a company but until they wake up and stay awake, I see them withdrawing from the consumer space in the not so distant future. Someone please send them some Blue Mountain Coffee.
Fellow Yuneec pilots, if you believe that my prediction is incorrect, then please chime in and share your opinion. Have I given up on Yuneec too soon? Do you think they have what it takes to snag back some of the market from DJI, Autel, and Parrot? Am I being too hard on them? I am not convinced that they do but my eyes and ears are wide open.
Cheers!
Andre
<<PS.. Final Edit of the Q500 Picture is attached but I couldn't get it inside the body of the post for some reason>>
View attachment yuneec stitched and edited_0831_f.jpg