Please recommend inexpensive photo quadcopter

<p>Is there such a thing as a decent, inexpensive (under $100 US) photo-taking quadcopter, hexacopter, or the like? The discussions here had given me the impression that anything less than a $400 Dji was junk or a kids' toy, but I wonder about things I see, like the Hubsan X4 and UDI U818 models.</p>

<p>This would basically be an adult toy. I realize in this price range it would be limited to a tiny built-in camera. Some sort of semi-HD (i.e., 720p) or at least VGA (640x480) color video would almost be a requirement, and shooting stills would be good too. Some seem to stream the video over wifi, which would be a convenient way to aim. Obviously zoom lenses, non-fixed-focus lenses, larger sensors, more convenient memory access, better airborne stability, higher resolution, etc. would all be pluses.</p>

<p>So basically I'm looking for recommendations, and would like to hear your experience with these sorts of things. Is there a particular vendor and/or forum you'd recommend? Thanks!</p>

 

<p>Dave, aviation design roughly follows the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law">square-cube law</a> so size/weight and cost go up dramatically as payload demand is increased. </p>

<p>Something like the UDI U818A has very limited flight time due to its tiny battery to save weight. Its micro size also means it can't be flown in anything more than a gentle breeze, and its stock form is probably already near its design limit so it won't be able to carry additional payload we would consider useful.</p>

<p>Matt can probably elaborate with greater authority, but I think you'll have to pay well beyond $100 if you want capability beyond the basics that the U818A offers. <br>

<br>

</p>

<p>There is an add on this page as I type this from Newegg.com for a quad with a camera for $89.95. Probably not very big and not a great camera but fits your price range. You probably won't find anything better under about $170 or so.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>If you're coming at this from a photographer's point of view, I think you'll be pretty frustrated with anything at all in that $100 range.<br /><br />Not sure when they'll start shipping it, but I believe that version 3 of the Parrot drone family will be out soon, and it will probably come the closest to doing what you want while producing fair images and not being so tiny and lightweight that you could crash it with a sneeze. Probably around $300. <br /><br />This really is a laws of physics problem. Just like you can't expect the tiny sensor on a smart phone cam to cleanly capture low light the way a large DSLR sensor can, these tiny $100-or-less quads just can't provide the flight time, stability, or camera-carrying capacity to really satisfy someone with even a semi-serious eye for image quality. <br /><br />That said, the $50-70 style cheapy quads aren't a bad way to learn to fly - something that it's nice to have a feel for before you get a more expensive machine in the air. </p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. I realize the image quality is going to be pretty mediocre; on the other hand, if it's as good as the phone I had several years ago, it would suffice for what I intend. Is that a realistic goal?</p>

<p>I keep coming back to an apparently-updated Hubsan X4 H107C, which apparently has a camera that will shoot 2 MP stills (and 720p video?); apparently an older version has a VGA-only camera. I realize it probably uses a 1/4- or even 1/6-inch sensor and a lens that doesn't zoom--maybe doesn't even focus. I realize the rated flight time is only 7 minutes. Of course, I can't find good specifications anywhere, even on the Hubsan website.</p>

<p>I realize this copter is about 3x3 inches. I realize that much wind is going to make flying it difficult. Is something like that really limited to inside, or will it work okay outside on a calm day? Realistically, how large / what do you need to fly outside in low wind?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Realistically, how large / what do you need to fly outside in low wind?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a difficult question to answer without defining precise flying conditions, but this might help as a way of looking at the problem: <br>

<br>

A craft in hover experiencing 5 MPH winds will need to fly against the wind at 5 MPH in order to maintain perceived hover. One would expect this to apply regardless of craft size, but the greater local air disturbance created by a larger craft's thrust to maintain lift becomes some multiple of the gentle breeze such that it becomes less sensitive to it relative to the control input necessary to counter drift of a smaller craft, therefore perceived to be more stable.<br>

<br>

A smaller craft also tends to be more responsive so it can become twitchy to maintain control under more turbulent conditions. <br>

<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>What really happens is that ALL such flying machines - fixed wing, multi-rotor, helis - dance in the air, twitching and bobbing and being subject to what the air is doing. It happens to 747s and the Goodyear blimb, too. For video to appear smooth when you play it back, either the camera has to be mechanically stabilized by a gimbal onboard the vehicle, or the image has to be stabilized in software after the fact (or both, as it often happens). Fixing lower-resolution or poor quality video in post tends to have marginal results unless you really know what you're doing and have lots of computer horsepower and time to throw at it - which takes some of the spontaneity and fun out of things.<br /><br />The other thing that happens is that small digital video cameras operate using a rolling shutter. These camera don't adjust an iris to control exposure, they adjust ISO and the shutter speed. In bright light, that shutter gets quite fast - and because of the inevitable vibrations introduced by the motors on the aircraft, the intersection of the vibrations and the rolling shutter result in what's usually called "jello" in the video. This is a sort of wobby, moving disturbance that rolls across the screen and is notoriously difficult to compensate for in post. The more mass the aircraft has, and the larger the motors and props, the easier it is to take control of that situation. Smaller machines make it almost impossible to balance the props and motors to reduce the jello-inducing vibrations. <br /><br />So to get a decent enough camera (which means mass) in the air, and to get a gimbal mechanism (more mass), the overall size of the machine and its battery start to climb. Pretty soon you're in that 1000-1500g gram territory just to get decent time in the air and some quality, stable footage that doesn't bounce around and wiggle.<br /><br />For money and ease of use, if you don't want to get into DJI Phantom territory, the upcoming version 3 (the so-called "bebop" version) of the Parrot quad may be just the machine. Check out some online videos of that system.</p>

<p>Thanks, this have given me a fair bit to think about. Maybe to slice it a bit differently: if the budget were, say, $150, do things get much better? And is a $75 model okay for indoors / still air conditions?</p>

<p>As for shutter speeds etc.: that seems to be a problem with any small-sensor camera. If your average compact digital can't even stop down past f/8 (at which point diffraction is pretty severe), and has a base sensitivity of ISO 100, then shooting 30p in full sun and front-lighting, you'd be looking at a shutter angle of about 27 degrees (i.e., corresponding to a shutter speed of 1/400 s), which will make any subject motion look pretty choppy. If there's much camera motion, I guess that magnifies the effect.</p>

<p>Are there any places better than YouTube and Flickr to find example videos and stills from these little copters?</p>

 

<p>In view of the inherant instability of these things I wouold suggest forget about the zoom lens as the longer the lens to greater the stability required ....I have a quad and just getting it trimmed has been my main concern to date and I have not bothered to fit the camera :)<br>

I like Matts suggestion of getting a cheap one to learn with though I think the workmanship od the QRX350 has proved its worth in the number of crashes I have had to date.</p>