11–20 of 26 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a private pilot, not sure I'd want these things up at 15,000ft w/o a transponder and radio. Sounds like disaster waiting to happen...
There are birds heavier than these, and planes usually handle bird strikes quite well.
This looks amazing however $2800 price tag is way up there for all but real or may be semi-professionals. It can fly to almost 15,000 feet which is just amazing considering that's where private small plane airspace is. In other words, you no longer have to rent a plane or helicopter to get that cool aerial shot of New York's Center Park or SF's Golden Gate bridge. Flight time is 18 mins which is also slightly higher.…
As a private pilot, not sure I'd want these things up at 15,000ft w/o a transponder and radio. Sounds like disaster waiting to happen...
DJI's Phantom quadcopters (with newest firmware) enforce the 400 foot ceiling in software, not sure what their plans are with this one since it is being marketed as much more pro-sumer than than the Phantom line, but if Joe Schmoe Parkflyer flies one of these above 400 feet he is violating FAA regulations and theoretically could be charged large fines currently.
For amateurs, it's rather expensive compared to the other DJI options out there. Especially if you already have a GoPro.
If you're a pro, you probably opt for something more customizable. You want a camera that you can get a great footage out and there is a nice and commonly understood post-processing and grading option available and not use some propriety camera.
So I think real pros would spend a bit more and attach their existing camera (GH4, Canon 5D III, etc.) system that they are familiar with to a large drone or if they want a smaller drone they'll go with the LX100 or some one of many Sony offering (if they don't need 4K)
I'm waiting to see some more real-world feedback as the Inspire 1 gets into the hands of more people. I can see myself seriously considering purchasing one... even without a very specific need at the moment (I consider myself more of a photo/video hobbyist than anything). Still, a part of me feels like there must be some kind of dealbreaker/issue that just hasn't come to light yet. I wonder how the camera compares to other options in the price range - not just in specs, but in actual image quality, dynamic range, color reproduction, etc.
The one thing that would make me more confident in buying one (other than a better reputation for DJI's support) would be some kind of statement (either from DJI or from customers' experience) of compatibility with GoPro.
Also, is anyone else annoyed that they don't stop the background video when you click to view the product video? Even on a new Macbook Pro, I get choppy video with both of them competing for resources. Even if it did play smoothly on my hardware, the background video is very distracting when you're watching the product video in a lightbox. Of course, clicking the YouTube link and watching in another tab worked better, but still..
I don't understand their consumer segments. Who is this product targeted for? For amateurs, it's rather expensive compared to the other DJI options out there. Especially if you already have a GoPro. If you're a pro, you probably opt for something more customizable. You want a camera that you can get a great footage out and there is a nice and commonly understood post-processing and grading option available and not us…
That said, a non-Vision Phantom with a gimbal and a GoPro can probably also get satisfactory results for those same customers. Still, the price wouldn't be significantly less, and the Inspire 1 has a full 360 gimbal with yaw and separate camera controls (which is huge), seems to have more flight control features (last I checked, Phantoms didn't support waypoint navigation), and might have better video quality than a GoPro.
This looks amazing however $2800 price tag is way up there for all but real or may be semi-professionals. It can fly to almost 15,000 feet which is just amazing considering that's where private small plane airspace is. In other words, you no longer have to rent a plane or helicopter to get that cool aerial shot of New York's Center Park or SF's Golden Gate bridge. Flight time is 18 mins which is also slightly higher.…
I don't understand their consumer segments. Who is this product targeted for? For amateurs, it's rather expensive compared to the other DJI options out there. Especially if you already have a GoPro. If you're a pro, you probably opt for something more customizable. You want a camera that you can get a great footage out and there is a nice and commonly understood post-processing and grading option available and not us…
Why not somewhere in between? Ignoring bans on commercial drone usage for the moment, I could see this working well for, say, a realty agency or a local news-gathering team. Really any small organization that has an obvious path from aerial photography to more revenue, can afford this, but can't afford and doesn't have individuals who are dedicated to UAV configuration and piloting. That said, a non-Vision Phantom wi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a private pilot, not sure I'd want these things up at 15,000ft w/o a transponder and radio. Sounds like disaster waiting to happen...
These can't be flown at 15,000 feet legally (in the US) without a special FAA civilian UAS license. Without such a license you can fly them under 400 feet using the model aircraft rules but going over 400 feet is not allowed sans license. DJI's Phantom quadcopters (with newest firmware) enforce the 400 foot ceiling in software, not sure what their plans are with this one since it is being marketed as much more pro-su…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a private pilot, not sure I'd want these things up at 15,000ft w/o a transponder and radio. Sounds like disaster waiting to happen...
There are birds heavier than these, and planes usually handle bird strikes quite well.
See video of a Canadian CT-155 Hawk (Not F-16 as titled) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN_Zl64OQEw
For an airliner like an Airbus A320, a small bird can damage the engine fan blades and require an expensive repair. If the bird goes through the core even minor damage becomes very expensive to fix.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These can't be flown at 15,000 feet legally (in the US) without a special FAA civilian UAS license. Without such a license you can fly them under 400 feet using the model aircraft rules but going over 400 feet is not allowed sans license. DJI's Phantom quadcopters (with newest firmware) enforce the 400 foot ceiling in software, not sure what their plans are with this one since it is being marketed as much more pro-su…
Regarding the 400ft limit in software: Has it got some sort of radar altimeter or does it just assume the launch point is the ground and will not travel 400ft above that?