Having just got my first drone, I'm the opposite of a pro operator but I'm a pixel nerd and have edited high res images for print and plenty of video for commercial use. So when looking for a camera drone, I spent 8 months looking at other people's stills and videos and downloaded as many raw files as I could find - albeit my universe was restricted because I wanted a drone which could be flown without an attached mobile device.
After studying stills and footage from various sources, including early EVO stuff, I decided that the Yuneec H+ was the best of a moderate bunch; but I was unhappy with the antialiasing artifacts and pan stutter in its video footage and its horribly oversharpened in-camera JPEGs was waiting for a firmware update to improve these things.
But then Autel came out with an EVO firmware update a couple of months ago which blew me away in terms of the improvements it brought in yaw and tilt smoothness, colour depth, clarity and artifact reduction. And their in-camera JPEGs were hugely superior to the H+ and around one-third of the file size. So I went out and bought me an EVO - which was a mission as it isn't distributed in the UK.
I'm delighted with it (although still figuring out how to use it) - and still scratching my head as to how Autel have delivered superior 4k images through a smaller sensor. I know they spent many hours perfecting their algorithms, colour profiles, etc but surely Yuneec and others (try to) do that as well?
Anyway, if I were trying to produce professional 4k video or stills with a sub-$2k drone, I would value the image quality above all else - making the EVO the obvious choice (of those with an integral screen) imho. But the H+ is a more versatile tool and would be better suited to many commercial applications where image quality is not the only concern. And one day, Yuneec may figure out what they need to do with their camera to catch Autel up.
