As the new Inspire drone landed, many of us were surprised by the steep price compared to its predecessor. So we made a table showing the main differences between these flagship drones. Basically, Inspire 3 is at least twice the price of Inspire 2. But does it worth it?
To get inspired
The DJI Inspire series is a professional model of camera quadcopter drones similar to the Phantom line, but with an aluminum-magnesium body with carbon fiber arms, as well as detachable props on the Inspire 2 and Inspire 3. The series includes 4 models: Inspire 1, Inspire 1 Pro, Inspire 2, and now, the Inspire 3, which was released a few days ago, and eight years after its predecessor. You can still buy the Inspire 2 on the DJI website, BTW. We’re telling you that, as the Inspire 3 is basically twice the price compared to the Inspire 2. However, the differences are not so significant — in total.
Main differences: 8K and FF
First, the notable differences between the Inspire 2 and Inspire 3 are two: Full frame sensor and 8K resolution. That’s basically it. If you are willing to pay twice for a bigger sensor, go for it. Besides that, there are more dissimilarities in various aspects of both drones. We made a table demonstrating the main differences between Inspire 3 and Inspire 2. As you can see, the main disparity is the price. Explore it below (click on it for a full-resolution view):
Initial thoughts
The Inspire 3 has a few technological advantages that may be useful when shooting in certain complex aerial conditions. Furthermore, it got a full frame and 8K. Nevertheless, in 8 years, DJI could have done more than that and released a much more advanced drone. The Inspire 3 costs twice, but doesn’t have twice the benefits as compared to the Inspire 2. BTW, we’re not so sure if a full-frame sensor constitutes an advantage in an aerial cinematic shooting. In fact, the full-frame sensor might hold you down in some cases. As for the 8K resolution—yes, you will need it when shooting with a full-frame sensor, in order to crop in when editing. Our two cents are that the price delta is much higher than the actual benefits. Thus, Inspire 2 wins this combat. Also, in our personal opinion, DJI should lower the price of the Inspire 3 by $2,000, and our guess is it eventually will. Let’s know your thoughts about that.
Product List
Here’re the products mentioned in the article, and the links to purchase them from authorized dealers.
- DJI Inspire 3 Drone
![RED V-Raptor OG vs. [X] vs. ARRI ALEXA 35: Dynamic Range Insights](https://u7s8g8p6.rocketcdn.me/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/red-v-raptor-x-arri-alexa-35-480x384.jpeg)
if the Inspire 3 camera was interchangeable with the Ronin 4D, this would be a no brainer for many.
But since it is not, I agree the price is not worth it for me. But this drone is not made for an independent filmmaker like me. I have my license and own an Inspire 1 RAW, but I only use the Inspire sparingly at best. This, the Inspire 3, is a drone for an aerial production company, studio or dedicated drone pilot. Then I would say that the Inspire 3 is a bargain, if the image quality is up to par. If I had an Inspire 2 with an X7, would I upgrade? Absolutely not, but I see people selling their Inspire 2’s on Ebay with a full X7 package for between 3 and 4 thousand. I don’t think this is wise but again, I am not a dedicated pilot. Hopefully one will chime in on the discussion.
I will say that the dual native ISO is a big deal for night photography on a drone. It is one thing I do not like about the Inspire 1 and 2 with the X5 camera system. I have not used the X7 system.
Again, if the Inspire 3 camera was interchangeable with the Ronin 4D, this would be a no brainer for many and would probably sell more Ronin 4Ds. They could software limit ProRes RAW to the Inspire 3 only and have a great land to air system that people could buy into. DJI really dropped the ball with this.
Yes. But for that price, it may be smarter to buy Sony’s Aripeak and use your mirrorless cameras and lenses to achieve better imagery.
Yes absolutely. 16K is way over priced. Maybe they made a lot less of them and know that it won’t sell many units.
I appreciate that comparison. However, you are not saving any money with the Sony Airpeak. They are very equal in price. We have to remember that DJI is including everything but a set of lenses in the price. Sony doesn’t give you that and when it is all said and done the Sony may be more.
Again, I would love to hear the opinion of a dedicated drone pilot. I agree the Sony is a solid option but it is not a cheaper one.
I find your assessment of the i3 to be questionable, and it appears premature. The package did not cost twice as much as the i2 when it was initially introduced with the X7. Furthermore, it seems that you have overlooked everything that is included with the i3.
Worst “comparison” I have read and worst review of the Inspire 3. Honestly makes no sense. There are a litany of new features in the I3. Will never return to this site.
The benefits of the Inspire 3 over the Inspire 2 are almost entirely in the UAV not in the camera. Having flown and hired operators to fly both alot by now, the shots you can get with the Inspire 3 are nearly limitless, and the Inspire 2 had lots of limits. Mainly because the Inspire 2 would drift like a drunkard and would be about as reliable as a thousand dollar car.
I’ve been flying drones for over 10 years now and was by far the earliest adopter of my circle of friends and workmates shooting on small projects and a good number of independent films that were purchased and distributed, shown in theaters, and won awards at Sundance and SXSW. I say that to qualify my input on this drone. I refused to get an Inspire (but used a few different Studios Inspire 2) because until now in my opinion the difference in imagery you could make on the smaller more portable Mavic series was usually just as good and the difference was not enough to make me buy one. You put the specs up and say it’s not a big difference but there really is, the cinema DNG files have so much latitude for grading and there is a level of clarity/sharpness without artifacting that you can match most ground cameras. The Inspire 2’s specs may seem similar on paper. I’d take the Mavic 3 cine over the Inspire 2 even though it doesn’t have raw capture based on what I personally was able to color grade out of a lot of imagery shot on both.
What you can’t appreciate in the specs on paper is the significant jump in color science. The Dlog from the Inspire 2’s sensor recorded as pro res raw now just looks muddy, overly digital, and full of artifacts. I think we are seeing now with using atmos to record prores raw from these different cameras how important the color science of camera is even when capturing in prores raw. Sony’s color science is way better than Canon’s and so even though the fx3 has a smaller megapixel image sensor than an r5c the signal sent and recorded as prores raw is inferior
The image you get from the new full-frame sensor and the new color science is brilliant. I really did not want to buy a 20k drone however, once you shoot on it and color-grade the files I think most professionals would agree that you will be disappointed with the inferior stuff you get from anything else. Every time you’re shooting on something important in the back of your mind you will think about that and if you’re like me that will drive you crazy