Aerial Imaging

[David Boulanger]

I'll do my depth of field testing today at 5.6. Read good things about the Sigma lens. I'm all about weight. Not because of flying time. Usually I'm only in the air for 10 minutes. I just want the Solo to behave properly. Shooting Raw + JPEG. I am impressed with the limited amount of time my screen goes dark with this camera on time lapse. A Gopro takes a picture and it is at least a second compared to maybe 1/4 second with the 5100.

 

[ap-007007]

A5100 looks pretty good as long as it outputs a video feed and has a interval photo setting. It appears to have an interval setting with an app. does the app have to be in communication with the camera though.

I'm interesting in this too. Can anyone answer please?

 

[Mathieu18]

Lots of details in the thread. The app runs on the camera, it's not a phone app. Setup works great if you can forego the gimbal, ie it's more of a stills solution.

 

[Mathieu18]

So did some testing (from the ground) and thought I'd share. I also purchased an RX1003 recently as just a walk about, but given its size and weight and the fact that it'll run the same app, it was worth testing. I was also being cheap, so I bought a NEX-5T instead on an A5100, but I happen to have an A6000 available, which has the same sensor, so got to test all three outputs (trying to decide if I wanted to spend extra for the A5100).

For test of the boats, I did basic edits, then outputted all three files as 5400 x 3600 files (12x18 prints) meaning the NEX-5T was scaled up, the A6000 was scaled down and the RX100 was basically unchanged. It's subtle but both larger sensors are carrying more fine detail. It's noticeable in the grass, and in details on the boats. The RX100 files also needed a bit more clarity and vibrance, it could be the lens or the sensor but it's a flatter image. Both APS-C cameras needed more sharpening though, the RX100 appears sharper at first, but at least some of it is false detail from noise. Sony seems to be baking the RX100 files to some extent.

In short, the RX100 is a great little camera, and if you have it I wouldn't hesitate to use it, but the larger format wins out again, and to my eye the NEX-5T will work great.

Camera Tests
Camera Tests

 

[David Boulanger]

My 5100 Kicks butt. At the moment my Solo weighs exactly what the Site Scan does. Pictures are awesome. 20MM lens comes tomorrow which will save me some weight and I will now probably take off the Polar Pro lights I had on for using my S110. I really thought the 12MP gopro plus 3.97 lens was good but there is obviously no substitute for high MP, large sensor and better glass

 

[Mathieu18]

Which lens were you using? 16-50? I have a 16/2.8 coming Saturday, probably a 20 down the road.

My 5100 Kicks butt. At the moment my Solo weighs exactly what the Site Scan does. Pictures are awesome. 20MM lens comes tomorrow which will save me some weight and I will now probably take off the Polar Pro lights I had on for using my S110. I really thought the 12MP gopro plus 3.97 lens was good but there is obviously no substitute for high MP, large sensor and better glass

 

[David Boulanger]

Yes. The 16 - 50mm lens that came with it. Very heavy compared to the 16mm or 20mm.

 

[Mathieu18]

I weighed my NEX-5T today with the 16mm pancake, about 345g I believe it was. Given that the Solo flew okay with the 16-50 though, I think I'm going to try and get a Sigma 19mm instead. I believe it's about 70g more, maybe 10-15g heavier than the 16-50, but said to have better corners. That said I need to do a bit more testing on the 16/2.8. It was bad at 2.8, but maybe acceptable at f/5.6 and higher.

 

[David Boulanger]

I discovered today that the lens needs to be focused before each use. I don't know what the camera does to the focus but when you cycle the camera on and off the position of a sharp manual focus changes. Did testing at home to confirm this. In other words, Focus the camera just before you fly. Used the 20mm lens with the anti flare hood that came with it. It took good slightly out of focus images. I'll try again Monday.

 

[Mathieu18]

Good point I hadn't thought of. I believe all the Sony lenses are focus by wire, meaning the focus basically resets when powered off. It's not a manual helicoid like a lot of SLR lenses. Even if it isn't "resetting" i believe it's using magnets that need constant power, so in a power off state the point of focus can slip. Yep, need to confirm focus each time before lifting off.

Tested the 16mm some more, the last 150 pixels or so of the corners aren't very good even at f/8, but cropping to 16:9 solves that pretty well, still carries more detail than the RX100 so it should work well. Should finish fabricating a bracket to keep camera upright tonight, basically just best 1/8" x 1/2" aluminum bar into a "C" shape and added some padding & drilled holes for mounts. Have to finish drilling and weigh and fit the whole thing.

 

[David Boulanger]

I have flown every day for the last three days testing the 20mm Sony lens and here are my general observations.
1) Under extreme digital zooming the kit lens at 16mm seems to be slightly sharper than the 20mm fixed lens. Same camera settings and lighting. However, no one would ever look at this kind of detail.
2) 20mm lens weighs 50 grams less than the kit lens. My Solo with the Sony 5100 and 20mm lens weighs the same as my Solo with gimbal, Gopro, and Brite Lites on it. 1950 Grams
3) Auto analysis of logs shows no motor mismatch showing that the Solo is fairly well balanced.
4) My one concern. Looking at the logs on Mission Planner my X-Axis vibrations are about twice normal and twice that of the Y-Axis. The Gopro static mount was designed for carrying 4 oz not 11. It's a bit to much weight to be carried so low under the Solo's center of gravity. It flies fine but I plan on building another mount that raises the camera about an inch higher. The upside down problem isn't bothering me so much. I lay my Tab A flat and just put it upside down. I have become used to looking at the Solo App information upside down.

 

[andrew.baker.142]

You can add an alternate camera mounting location to the accessory bay. It is closer to the Solo's longitudinal CG.

 

[David Boulanger]

Thank you for that. The Solo is no more nose heavy now then set up with gimbal and gopro. The camera is just to low and vibrating left and right. I have an extra Gopro static mount I will modify to carry the camera a bit closer to the bottom of the Solo. Again thanks.

 

[andrew.baker.142]

If you are using the stock vibration absorbers, try and increasing dampening by rolling up foam ear plugs and inserting them inside the balls. Really helps!

 

[David Boulanger]

I have ear plugs rolled up in them already. Firmed them up a lot. Basic physics says the higher I can get the camera to the belly of the Solo the better. No worries. Imaging is awesome. I've seen worst vibration on some of my DIY stuff. Just trying to improve things. Thanks.

 

[Mathieu18]

Thanks for the thoughts David. I tried my first go at a rig to keep the camera upright. Test flight was a disaster unless I bumped focus, which I don't believe I did... terrible softness from vibration. I found a stiffer bracket that I might try again. It could lift the camera as well, but it will push it forward if I do that which I'm hesitant to do given your above observations on the balance. I could mount the GoPro foot on the other side, but that will force it down lower... Do you think you'd be better with it lower from the center of gravity or further forward? I also had trouble with the tripod mount being a good bit off center, maybe 1cm+. You're not seeing issues there?

I'll be curious to see what you come up with to get the camera up higher.

Im surprised you find the 16-50 sharper, though it's better than it's reputation (except for distortion which is terrible...) Did you try in the air or on the ground? I'm wondering now if the OSS on the 16-50 is useful.

Thanks for the ear plug tip, I'll certainly have to try that one out.

 

[David Boulanger]

I will have some pictures of my new mount tomorrow. Camera still upside down but higher up against the underbelly. Whether it takes good pictures remains to be seen but I think it will. Here is a picture with the kit lens. Zoom in on the yellow ball in the lower left corner of the pond

 

[Mathieu18]

Looks pretty good there, corners look like a kit lens but still better than a small sensor. What aperture were you using?

Look forward to the mount. I could see it tightening up if you leave it upside down. I've got one more bracket to try right side up, then I give up.

I will have some pictures of my new mount tomorrow. Camera still upside down but higher up against the underbelly. Whether it takes good pictures remains to be seen but I think it will. Here is a picture with the kit lens. Zoom in on the yellow ball in the lower left corner of the pond

 

[David Boulanger]

Looks pretty good there, corners look like a kit lens but still better than a small sensor. What aperture were you using?

Look forward to the mount. I could see it tightening up if you leave it upside down. I've got one more bracket to try right side up, then I give up.

Camera was set at 1/1000 shutter, F8, ISO 250.

 

[Mathieu18]

I think I'm going back to the 16-50 with OSS. I can't seem to get much sharp with the 16mm though it's fine on the ground, I think the stabilization is making a good difference.

Need to get Mission Planner running too. It's odd, the ones that do get sharp with have a decent center, but blured edges, even with decent shutter speeds. Can't tell if it's vibration, rotation etc. The 16-50 was heavier but had a much better hit rate the few test flights I did with it.