People renting gear are, by definition, not owners of that gear, and it’s impossible to tell what pieces are being used to evaluate equipment (or play with something new) and what pieces are supplements for studio tools. Enthusiasts often rent gear for an important trip or to pick up a job on their way to being a full-time pro. Pros meanwhile pick up gear to test new technology. 

But it’s still interesting to look at the year-end summary of gear loans for a snapshot-style look at the photo and video market in 2025. LensRentals’ Zach Sutton compiled and shared the list, and his blog post provides more granular details on lighting gear, memory cards, and other accessories. You can read his thoughts about it on the LensRentals blog.

Most Rented Photo and Video Gear of 2025

LensRentals’ first stats are my favorite, it’s the overall top-twenty products by number of rentals. This is a fun list, but it might not be the clearest picture of the overall state of the market. Since this doesn’t break products down by groups, it’s going to be skewed in a few ways. First, I’d suspect lenses have more rentals than cameras do, simply because someone with a camera can rent several lenses, while someone with several lenses is less likely to rent a camera to go with them. 

Here is the top rented gear, by the numbers.

1. Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS 
2. Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L 
3. Sony NP-FZ100 Battery 
4. Canon EOS R6 Mark II 
5. Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS 
6. Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II 
7. Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS II 
8. Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM II 
9. Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III 
10. Sony FX3 (Body Only) 
11. Sony 160GB CFexpress Type A TOUGH Memory Card
12. Sony Alpha a7 IV
13. Canon EOS R5
14. Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM
15. Sony Alpha a7S III
16. Canon 5D Mark IV
17. Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L
18. Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS
19. Sony Alpha a7 III
20. Canon LP-E6NH Battery

With the inclusion of memory cards as well as batteries in this list, there’s clearly some bundling going on. The Sony 160 GB CFExpress Type A card is used in Sony’s newer cameras, and it shows up in the 11th spot. 

If renters are going to get a loan of a new Sony camera, especially a video-oriented body, they’re going to need cards to go with it to maximize performance. Since video tends to use a lot of storage, it’s reasonable to expect a lot of cards to go out with Sony cameras. 

The same is true of batteries, and both Sony’s and Canon’s batteries are in the top twenty. Sony has four bodies in the top 20, and Canon has two, so it makes sense that Sony’s battery is in the number 3 spot, and Canon is in the number 20 spot. Since batteries and memory cards are tied to cameras, I mentally tend to remove them from these lists. 

Looking at the cameras in the list, I’m shocked to see the Canon 5D Mark IV here, while there is not a Nikon camera to be found. The person renting the 5D Mark IV in the 16th slot is the same as renting the EF-Mount 24-70mm f.2.8 in the sixth position. 

Canon has eight lenses in the top 20, and Sony has only two. 

Both Sony and Canon have zooms in the “trinity” of lenses in the list (Canon has just one prime), nd they’re all 2.8 or faster. These are perfect lenses to rent for someone without a lot of f/2.8 glass already. 

Canon has more camera renters, so they need more lenses, and Sony has more lens renters, so they need more cameras. Or the people renting Sony are just trying the system out. It’s hard to tell. 

Top Camera Rentals for 2025

While the last list is a fun exercise, here’s where things get interesting. 

1. Canon EOS R6 Mark II 
2. Sony FX3 (Body Only) 
3. Sony Alpha a7 IV 
4. Canon EOS R5 
5. Sony Alpha a7S III 
6. Canon 5D Mark IV 
7. Sony Alpha a7 III 
8. Canon EOS R5 Mark II 
9. Sony FX6 Full-Frame Cinema Camera 
10. GoPro HERO13 Black 
11. Canon EOS R6
12. Sony Alpha a7R V
13. Sony FX30 (Body Only)
14. Sony Cyber-Shot RX100 VII
15. Sony FX3 Full-Frame Cinema Camera
16. DJI Osmo Pocket 3 Gimbal
17. Nikon Z8
18. Canon EOS C70 Cinema Camera (RF)
19. Canon EOS R5 C Mirrorless Cinema Camera
20. Canon EOS R7

This was a surprisingly top-heavy year for Canon and Sony, with no Fujifilm products showing up in the top twenty places and only one Nikon, coming in in 18th place with the Nikon Z8. The mix of gear in the rental list is fascinating, as it includes several cameras that were current at the beginning of the year, and then were replaced with newer models.

There’s also a lot of cinema cameras showing up, I suspect because when hybrid shooters get a big video gig, they’ll often rent a more video-centric camera. Alternatively, video houses could be picking up a B-camera or a backup a-cam for jobs. 

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s look at a breakdown by brand. 

Canon 

Canon has eight cameras in the top 20. One is a DSLR (that surprising 5D Mark IV), five “hybrid” cameras, and two “cine” cameras. 

The oldest camera in the list is obviously the 5D Mark IV, followed by the EOS R5 and R6, both released together in 2020. The R6 II was the current R6 model until October of 2025, when the R6 III came out. Otherwise, I suspect the Mark II would have beaten out the R6 Mark II, as the Canon R5 Mark II was in the list at the number four slot. 

I’m very surprised that the R5 had more rentals than the R5 II, since both were released before this year. The lower price of R5 rentals may have driven that data point. I’m also surprised to see the EOS R7 on this list, but not the R3 or R1. I’d have thought the higher-end models would be rented more than the R7, simply because they’re so expensive. 

On the cine front, only one is truly a cine body, the C70. The R5 C is a variant of the R5 designed for cine use, but not in a typical cine body. As we’ll see in a moment, Sony has more cinema cameras, but that may be because Canon cameras are notable for their video features. 

Sony 

Sony has nine cameras in this list: four hybrid bodies, one compact body, and four cinema cameras. 

I’m most intrigued, though not completely shocked, by the  Cyber-Shot RX100 VII being in this list. The RX100 VII is one of the best compact cameras of all time. I preferred the RX100 VI, but the RX100 VII is the last of Sony’s compact bodies that is not designed for “vlogging.” The ZV-series bodies are the RX series, but with features primarily for video creators. 

With the video-centric nature of the ZV cameras, the RX100 VII is the perfect choice for someone travelling. It fits in a pocket, has better image quality than a smartphone, and is more flexible to boot, with both photo and video features. 

The most sophisticated Sony in the list is the a7R V, good for both portrait shoots and video. It was also the first of Sony’s full-frame cameras to have AI-based autofocus. 

The a7S III is Sony’s most recent video-specific hybrid body, with the then-current a7 IV in the third position, and the a7 III surprisingly at number seven. 

On the cine front, Sony has a very strong showing, with a number two position for the FX3, a ninth slot for the more pricey and more powerful FX6.

Strangely, the list has the FX3 listed twice, once as “Full-Frame Cinema Camera” and once as “Body Only.” I’ve reached out to LensRentals about this, but I suspect that they have two configurations, one as a kit and one as just the body. If that is the case, then the FX3 is probably the most rented camera for 2025. (We will update this when we get their reply.)

DJI and GoPro

I’m particularly surprised to see GoPro on the list of most rented cameras, and well ahead of the Nikon Z8. Still, I assume these were rented by people going on vacation or needing an action camera for a shoot not big enough to warrant buying one. 

The DJI Osmo Pocket 3 makes more sense to me, since retail inventory was constrained for a while, and again, this is probably a case of people needing one for a single shoot. But it’s still surprising to see no camera from Fujifilm or Panasonic on this list. With the number of cinema cameras on this list, I’d have thought at least one Panasonic would cut. 

Lenses

The lens lineup is only slightly less surprising than the camera lineup. 

1. Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS 
2. Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L 
3. Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS 
4. Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II 
5. Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS II 
6. Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM II 
7.  Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III 
8. Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM 
9. Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L 
10. Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS 
11. Canon RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z
12. Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM
13. Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS
14. Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS
15. Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II
16. Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS
17. Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS
18. Sony FE 28-70mm f/2 GM
19. Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L
20. Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN II Art for Sony E

This is a lot of Canon and Sony glass. There are 11 Canon lenses in the list, eight Sony lenses, and one Sigma lens for the Sony E-Mount. 

Many of the lenses on the list are very expensive, so seeing them on the top rental list makes sense. The Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS II is more than $3,000. The top lens, the Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS, is relatively inexpensive (at $1,000, it’s inexpensive only compared to some others on this list) but is a popular lens. 

To see only two manufacturer mounts on this list, and no lenses for any other company, feels nearly unbelievable, though it lines up with the top camera rentals. It shows what a massive shift there has been in the camera market since Sony launched the full-frame mirrorless market more than a decade ago. 

Since Canon hasn’t opened up its lens mount to third parties like Tamron and Sigma, seeing a lot of rentals might mean there aren’t many alternatives for Canon shooters. 

There are only two prime lenses on this list, and while zoom lenses are the most versatile, primes tend to be more expensive, so I’d have expected more primes to show up.

What Does This All Mean

A rental list does not equal the most popular gear, mostly. Many times, people rent the things they’re looking to buy, but often they’re renting things they don’t need for everyday shooting. Some of the cameras and lenses on this list might be on it because people are shooting other systems and trying out the alternatives. 

Nikon’s bodies are priced incredibly affordably, so there’s a chance that there is only one body on this list because people find the system affordable enough to purchase, but it does not explain the complete lack of glass. 

That said, this is definitely a good indication of at least interest in products, if not a direct statement on market demand. With so many cameras and lenses dominated by Canon and Sony, it’s clear that the camera market does not look like it did in the era of DSLRs. It also shows that an upstart player can upend a market in a decade. 

I rank this list somewhere between a curiosity and a definitive statement about the state of the camera market. 

LensRentals also calculates market share, though this is based on revenue, not rentals, so it is heavily skewed toward expensive gear. Canon and Sony’s cameras are, as I mentioned, higher priced than Nikon and Fujifilm, so naturally they rank higher, though they are significantly higher than the other brands. Combining Sony and Canon’s market share comes out to 48.13% in 2025, up from 42.73% in 2023, while all other brands have dropped. 

The full year-end review is on the LensRental blog, which includes a list of the most rented accessories. Unsurprisingly, memory cards are the top rented items when all types are combined, though there are some surprises in the list. 

We’re expecting many camera launches in 2026 from all the manufacturers, especially the higher-end cameras from all three of the main players. It will be interesting to see if the market shifts noticeably. 

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM

• Shop at Amazon

Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM

• Shop at Amazon

Canon EOS R6 Mark II

• Shop at Amazon

Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

• Shop at Amazon

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM

• Shop at Amazon

Sony FX3

• Shop at Amazon

Sony A7 IV

• Shop at Amazon

Canon EOS R5

• Shop at Amazon

Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM

• Shop at Amazon

Sony A7S III

• Shop at Amazon

Canon 5D Mark IV

• Shop at Amazon

Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM

• Shop at Amazon

Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM

• Shop at Amazon

Sony A7 III

• Shop at Amazon

The post Digging into the LensRentals Most Rented Photo and Video Gear of 2025 appeared first on Imaging Resource.

On the 23rd, the FCC added not only DJI to its list of “Covered Devices” but, as a surprise to the drone community, banned all Chinese-made drones. The Covered Devices include specific companies that the government security agencies say run domestic spying laws afoul, and so cannot be sold in the United States.  

The ban doesn’t outlaw the use of existing drones, and the inventory of drones still in the country isn’t affected. But without new models coming into the country, supplies of legal drones are going to dwindle rapidly.

I suspect companies using drones for their services (wedding photographers, real estate agents, home inspectors, etc.) are going to purchase what’s left in the country pretty quickly. 

The ability to keep using and selling the drones in the U.S points out the hypocrisy of this decision, and I’ll get to that in a moment.

It’s not just the “hobbyist” markets that will be affected, but also crucial uses by rescue teams and firefighters, infrastructure inspection, research, and more. While the discussion has been around DJI’s drones in particular, suddenly, on December 23rd, all Chinese-made drones were added, with little warning, to the covered list as well. 

RIP drone use. 

Here, at the conclusion of the government’s efforts to ban DJI, it’s easy to forget the shaky grounds on which the ban was implemented, and that the process seems either woefully incompetent at best or, at worst, a punitive witch hunt to remove DJI drones despite a complete lack of evidence about its nefarious intent. 

So let’s travel back to the start of DJI’s woes to ask ourselves…what the hell happened? 

DJI has been rushing to get models out the door, offering large sales on its drones, gimbals, and camera systems.

DJI In The Crosshairs

In 2017, the U.S Army banned the use of DJI drones, covered in this document from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that suggested DJI drones might [emphasis added] pose a security risk. I say might because no evidence was provided that there had ever been any secure or sensitive data transmitted to the Chinese government, or any data at all. 

Read the whole document if you’d like to see a masterpiece of innuendo and logical fallacies. 

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the DHS released a report called “DJI Likely Providing Critical Infrastructure and Law Enforcement Data to Chinese Government.” I think the use of “likely” in this is important; this guidance was written despite no evidence to support it.

The document says that the Special Agent in Charge of the Intelligence Program (SIP)  in Los Angeles assessed with “moderate confidence [emphasis added] that Chinese-based company DJI Science and Technology is providing U.S. critical infrastructure and law enforcement data to the Chinese government.”

It states that this was “ based on information derived from open source reporting and a reliable source within the unmanned aerial systems (UAS) industry, with first and secondhand access. 

Conveniently, they cite open source reporting as proof, but confusingly, they do not provide that reporting. And since the nature of “open source” is that there is no one author, they can say it exists without having to have any details about who wrote the report. A report they did not attach.

The rest of the evidence comes from one “reliable” source, and it should be noted that “secondhand” access means “hearsay.”

Another “proof”  that DJI is participating in widespread espionage is that they were marketing products to “companies in the critical infrastructure and law enforcement sectors…” and “at least ten large companies and organizations in the railroad, utility, media, farming, education, and federal law enforcement sectors have already purchased and begun using DJI UAS. The most frequent uses include mapping land, inspecting infrastructure, conducting surveillance, and monitoring hazardous materials. They also cite the hobbyist consumer and professional use, in other words, us. 

So, the government is convinced that DJI is spying because DJI is marketing its drones to the exact customers that would benefit from those drones. The government points out that they’re even going so far as to take out booths at trade shows that include businesses that potentially benefit from the use of drones.

I guess if DJI had gone after solely the poet or bakery owner markets, they’d have gotten away with it. 

This document uses the word “likely” eight times. It also uses “low confidence” twice, “moderate confidence” twice, and “high confidence” four times. At no time does it use the phrase “definitely.”

A few more comical things caught my eye in this document. The first is from this list of what DJI collects.

“GPS imagery and locations, register facial recognition data.”Much of the information collected includes proprietary and sensitive critical infrastructure data, such as detailed imagery of power control panels, security measures for critical infrastructure sites, or materials used in bridge construction.”

I find it interesting that a big risk is that DJI drones gather information on “materials used in bridge construction.”

Want to know what they’re making a bridge out of? Watch them build it. Bridges are built, by definition, where there are people and traffic. If you want to know what materials they’re using, sit there and watch. Or ask a construction worker. They’re happy to tell you what their job entails.

But if you don’t have the time, I can tell you. It’s mostly steel, concrete, and asphalt. Please don’t tell the government, I don’t want them to know I’m sharing critical bridge-making information with you. 

And the final bit of evidence is that DJI confirmed that the company would turn over information about users based in China if a request were made by the Chinese government. It also says it would respect the laws of the countries in which the drones are used when it comes to data privacy and information provided to local authorities.

Our government also points out that DJI’s Terms of Service says, “Please note that if you conduct your flight in certain countries, your flight data might be monitored and provided to the government authorities according to local regulatory laws.”

In other words, DJI is letting customers know that if governments in a country where the drones are operated require access by law, they have to give the information to them. 

In other words, DJI’s transparency told people it would obey the laws of the countries in which it operates. Very suspicious.

They also said that in China and probably Hong Kong, they would have to give the government flight data if required. 

So we’re limiting the use of DJI in the U.S. because in China, they would be required to do so. 

I keep intending to write “and now turning away from that document,” but I keep being reminded how absurd it is.

In 2017, it attests, DJI started to offer drones with infrared scanners called NDVI that farmers can use to figure out nitrogen levels of their cops. A “large, family-owned wine producer in California” purchased drones to use this scanner, and “soon afterward, Chinese companies began purchasing vineyards in the same area. According to the [single source they had], “it appeared the companies were able to use DJI data to their own benefit and profit. 

Or, maybe it’s that vineyards are only in specific areas where wine-producing grapes are grown, and if you want to buy a vineyard, that’s where you go. 

But I guess it’s more logical that the Chinese government stole the information about nitrogen levels in grape harvests and used it to figure out where in the country to buy vineyards.

One thing DJI was accused of does seem accurate; DHS said that DJI had been “dumping” products to kill off competition. Dumping is the act of selling products below their manufacturing costs in order to generate market share. 

I remember the early days of drones, and DJI’s pricing was extremely aggressive. A lot of companies engage in dumping to kill off competitors, and Chinese companies are often accused of dumping products.

But there were also a lot of companies making unpolished and poor quality drones, and it’s hard to say which competitors were killed because of pricing and which were dead due ot poor quality control. 

I’m not qualified to say there’s no reason to be concerned about DJI, or that it’s out of the realm of possibility that they have, in fact, sent data to China. What I’m qualified to say is that the original complaints about DJI came with no evidence, no specific instances of infrastructure spying, and no proof of who the single source the government was quoting might be. 

DJI drones can be put into Local Data Mode in the DJI FlyPilot app and Restricted Network Mode, which allows downloading of maps to DJI drones, but then the drone is shut off from all other network-accessing tasks. But does this mode really restrict data breaches? 

If the U.S. Government is convinced that DJI is a cover for a Chinese espionage ring, mustn’t there be a way to test this? An independent audit?

Shop for DJI Products Now – Once They’re Gone, They’re Gone

Visit the Amazon DJI Store

Visit the B&H DJI Store page

The Many Independent Audits of DJI. 

In 2017, the same year that the DHS issued its memo about DJI, the company submitted that DJI FlightHub had passed the SOC2 audit from the Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Flighthub is the company’s cloud-based fleet management tool. 

While it sounds like it’s a financial audit, the SOC2 certification “…ensures your business or application is handling customer data securely and in a manner that protects your organization and the privacy of your customers. 

In 2018, DJI’s overall data practices were evaluated by the independent firm Kivu. According to the DJI press release about these tests, “Kivu independently bought DJI drones as well as iOS and Android devices in the United States, and downloaded the DJI GO 4 mobile apps. Kivu set up systems to capture all data transmitted through iOS and Android devices running DJI GO 4, and reviewed source code, application data, server addresses, and data generated during operation.”

DJI passed this audit as well.

In 2019, the United States Department of the Interior released a report detailing the Office of Aviation Services’ multi-year-long process to ensure drones used for government purposes could safely protect data. Its work began in 2014, and in 2015, the OAS determined that DJI drones could not protect sensitive data. 

The OAS planned to work instead with drone-maker 3D Robotics, but it closed due to market competition (from DJI). The OAS noted that “UAS (drones) from U.S.-based companies were up to 10x less capable aircraft for the same price or 10x more costly than similarly capable DJI aircraft.”

The same report details that in 2017, the OAS and Department of Defense (DOD) began implementing a test plan to find a way to create solutions to meet the security needs of governmental flights of drones. 

That same year, DJI approached the OAS with an offer to “collaborate on the development, testing, and potential fielding of a customer-focused enterprise solution that would meet the interior’s…” data safety requirements. 

The 53-page report is not a lot of fun to read. Still, it details page by page how the government and DJI developed a certification program to fly DJI M600 and Mavic Pro drones, along with custom software and firmware from DJI to ensure data safety further. 

While one governmental agency was recommending discontinuing the use of DJI products, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Defense were working on safely expanding their use through the development of  “Government Edition” models with advanced protections in place. 

DJI also passed the Idaho National Laboratory cybersecurity audit on the Government Edition Matrice 600 Pro and Mavic Pro 2 GE drones and “found no major areas of concern related to data leakage, thereby supporting that the multi-layered mitigations DOI has in place are in fact working as designed to meet their published security requirements.

But these auditing programs only certified the government version of the drones. Surely the Local Data Mode must be leaking data?

Not according to the FTI Security Audit completed by the consulting firm in 2020, which DJI says investigated the source code for DJI applications, and also reviewed DJI’s hardware. The link to this study has 404’d, and as we can’t find an additional source, this claim has to be taken skeptically. However, cybersecurity blogs at the time mention this study as well.

In 2020, the notable cybersecurity firm Booz Allen Hamilton performed an audit on the Mavic Pro’s government version, and the Mavic 2 Enterprise Edition in conjunction, an audit performed with the firm PrecisionHawk.

This audit did find some “unmitigated risks” that applied to drones in general, not specifically to DJI. One such risk is an IP address connection to U.S.-based servers in the case of drones being flown here and in Germany. The first were connections to Google Maps, McAfee, and Amazon Web Services—all components of map loading. The German IP address was Akamai, the global data distribution company on which almost all websites run. Those IP address lookups could likely be spoofed, but they were normal, and multiple companies accessed those resources.

All other risks they deemed possible would “require either physical access to the drone, or, in the case of one issue, need an attacker to be within radio range of the drone.” The document does not indicate how an attacker would get access to the encrypted transmissions. 

In 2022, TÜV SÜD performed an audit. In a document from DJI called “tests against national cybersecurity and privacy protection standards,” it was reported that this security firm independently reviewed the DJI Mavic 3, Mini 2, and Air 2S drones and attested to their security features. 

Another FTI audit was performed in 2024, and the cloud-based FlightHUB 2 received ISO 27701 and 27001 certification that same year.

Congress to the…Rescue? 

In 2019, Congress passed the Secure and Trusted Communications Network Act, which requires that the FCC create a list of companies that pose an unacceptable risk to the United States domestic security. The FCC’s listing is called the “Covered List” as it’s the companies the FCC lists as being a possible danger. 

That list is updated regularly as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Under that act, companies like Huawei, ZTE, as well as some technology providers, surveillance gear manufacturers, and antivirus companies are prohibited from being sold in the United States.

In 2024, DJI was added to the list of companies to be part of the Covered List as part of the 2025 funding of the NDAA. However, part of including DJI  on that list was the congressional requirement that an appropriate government agency perform a security audit to see if DJI should be on the list or not. 

Despite a year between the NDAA passing and the implementation date of the NDAA, no audit was made. There is no indication that they had even entertained the idea of performing an audit.

After months of trying to get a government audio, in December, DJI made final appeals to the FBI, DOJ, and other bodies to complete the congressionally-mandated review. Unfortunately, none was forthcoming. 

In June, President Trump issued executive orders scaling up the domestic production of “trusted, American-manufactured” drones. He added that “building a strong and secure domestic drone market is vital to reducing reliance on foreign sources, strengthening critical supply chains, and ensuring that the benefits of this technology are delivered to the American people.”

I completely agree that there should be a vibrant domestic drone industry. I’m sure most customers would prefer to buy drones built in Kansas instead of China, but we can’t. 

The current domestic drone manufacturers, including Freefly Systems, Skydio, and Teal Drones, all make enterprise-class “reconnaissance” drones, not commercial or “hobbyist” drones. And these drones are very expensive as a result. The SKdyio X10 is about the size of a DJI Matrice, but instead of costing around $8000, it starts around $16,00

On December 23rd, the clock ran out on DJI and every other foreign-made drone as well. 

While President Trump discussed reducing the dependence on foreign drones, instead, imports of drones were outright banned, with no good domestic alternatives for the majority of users. 

Drone-centric companies like wedding videographers, travel companies, real estate videographers, home inspectors, and dozens of other categories are likely to go out of business. Those business owners are unlikely to feel that the executive order and the Covered List changes delivered any benefits to them. 

Also impacted will be search-and-rescue teams, fire departments, law enforcement departments, news crews, utility companies, and countless other agencies. 

Having to buy a $10,000 drone instead of a $1,000 drone will suddenly remove drones from the front lines of safety, research, and infrastructure. 

While I’m not an economist (I’m not even particularly good at managing my finances) it seems that if we wanted to reduce dependence on foreign drones without devastating the markets using them today, we would have been better served by implementing the security audits mandated by congress, providing incentives for domestic drone companies to ramp up, and given DJI and others the choice of making drone manufacturing facilities here, or having imports cut off. 

“New” Versus New

There has been confusion around the terminology used in the FCC Covered List implementation, which refers to the ban on “new” drones being imported into the United States. Some have suggested that existing models could still be imported to the U.S., as they’re not new models. 

The Covered List applies to “new” models, but it means drones that are not already present in the United States. Retailers may sell their inventories until they run out, but no more units are entering the country. DJI’s store is showing all products as out of stock.B&H still has many models in stock as of this writing, and Amazon does as well.

So we can still use the drones that are already present in this country.

But why? 

Shop for DJI Products Now – Once They’re Gone, They’re Gone

Visit the Amazon DJI Store

Visit the B&H DJI Store page

If DJI is a Risk, Why can we Still Use DJI Products?

The Consumer Product Safety Commission is the agency in charge of recalls on products due to defects or hazards to users. If the USCPSC finds that a dresser poses a risk of death, it requires a recall of the product—every affected unit. 

But in this case, we have governmental agencies claiming that DJI drones pose a clear and immediate threat to infrastructure, privacy, and government operations, but we’re allowed to go ahead and keep using them. 

If a product is dangerous enough to public safety that it can no longer be imported into the country, those units here should be grounded as well. If the units here are allowed to keep flying, it shows that the security concerns aren’t as dire as reported. 

It seems our government is protecting us from the outrageous security concerns of operating these drones by allowing them to fly until they wear out, perhaps decades from now.

Where Do We Go From Here?

It’s hard to say what the next steps are. The FCC says it could remove products from the Covered List if the proper governmental agencies perform the legally required security audits. But the President has indicated that he considers the domestic drone market in need of protection and issued an executive order to that effect. I’m not sure how those two things get reconciled. 

It would be safe to assume that for the foreseeable future, there will be no new imports of DJI or other foreign drones into the United States, and to plan accordingly. If your business or agency relies on drones, I’d suggest stockpiling replacement units.

The entire process of adding DJI to the Covered List has unfolded bizarrely, and there’s no telling what will happen next. DJI has said they’ll continue to lobby for a government audit and to be allowed to fly in the United States again, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. 

For now, it seems that when the current inventory of drones dries up, they’re gone for good. While domestic drone manufacturers may be willing to invest in the “consumer” category of drone, a desire to do something and the plans to do it are completely different. 

This is a cautionary tale that at any time, a technology or product we rely on can be made illegal and banned without a public comment, certification process, or alternative solutions. And that doesn’t benefit anyone. 

The post The U.S. Government Kills Drones – Everyone Suffers appeared first on Imaging Resource.

The Sony “a7” line has been the generalist camera since the Sony a7 was introduced in 2013. The new Sony a7 V is packed full of features, but influencers and some reviewers have chosen to focus on the lack of “open gate” video recording, and some have even said that Sony no longer listens to customers, it has “lost the plot,” and is doomed.

None of that is true.

 Comments sections, forum threads, and YouTube Shorts have been filled with anger about Sony’s decision not to include high-end video features like 6K recording, open gate, and internal RAW. But the more videos I watch, the more I’m convinced that much of this outrage is manufactured. It’s ragebait designed to trigger YouTube’s algorithms into promoting these videos.

This is a good example of how camera reviews, particularly those on social media, use negative takes to make the algorithm gods promote them, and that’s a disservice to potential customers.

Take the Canon R6 III as an example. That camera is heavily video-centric. It’s stacked with video features, but it has added very few tools or improvements for photographers, compared to the previous version. That doesn’t mean Canon has “lost the plot” as one creator said about Sony. It means they targeted that camera for video creators.

I’ve seen this happen over and over with camera reviews. No company is immune to the clash of haters and fanboys. The years after Sony got its stride in mirrorless cameras and before Nikon and Canon got into the market were incredibly brutal to Nikon and Canon in comments sections, and that really left a bad taste in my mouth.

But let’s talk about what’s really happening here.

What Is Open Gate and 6K

Open gate is an odd term that means that when recording video, it’s possible to capture in the full 16:9 aspect ratio by using data from the full width of the sensor, instead of just the 4:3 aspect ratio used to record footage normally. An open gate video will be wider than the standard video capture, requiring no cropping to deliver content for vertical uses. 

6K recoding, which the Sony camera also does not have, is a higher resolution format than 4K, which means you can crop footage by quite a bit and still have full 4K resolution left. To me, this is a bigger miss than open gate, because the camera is already recording 7K and then converting it to 4K

The Rage-Baiting Problem

Controversy drives clicks. Videos with titles suggesting Sony “failed” or “doesn’t listen to customers” get views. Thumbnails that suggest doom perform well in the algorithm. And suddenly, every channel needs to weigh in on why the A7V is a disaster.

The problem? Most of these creators don’t actually need Open Gate, and probably only a fraction of their audience knows what open gate is. Many of the loudest voices complaining about the “missing” features are shooting YouTube videos and shorts. While 16:9 is YouTube’s preferred aspect ratio, YouTube will resize the browser for 4:3 or any other resolution.

Another argument is that vertical video creators rely on the wider aspect ratio of 16:9 because 9:16 is the standard format for vertical videos. (9:16 is what you get when you turn a 16:9 image on its side).  But all of the platforms deliver vertical content in 1080. There’s plenty of headroom to crop a 4K video down to 1080 without losing any resolution.

Open gate isn’t a magical format. You can shoot a bit wider and crop, albeit losing a bit of data. People have been editing 4:3 content forever, long before open gate recording came to digital cameras. 

So, Is It A Problem for real, for real?

My Take on Open Gate in the A7 V

I review cameras for a living. I’m paid to find faults in products. I’ve been critical of Sony before when they’ve made decisions that have taken features away from its target customers. My review of the Sony RX1R III highly criticized Sony for removing the tilting screen, a feature that was on the RX1R II, and for not having IBIS, something a $5000 camera should have.

 Our Video Review of the Sony RX1R III

I want to be clear here. The Sony a7 V absolutely should have had open gate and 6K recording. Other cameras at this price have these features, and a major consideration in camera purchases is how it stacks up—even customers who will never use a feature check to see if competing cameras have it.

The biggest issue here is the price of the a7 V, it feels out of line with the video features and how Sony is branding the camera. Sony’s marketing says that this camera redefines “basic.” Well, sure, but “basic” is now $2,900. 

Open gate recording is very useful for many types of creators, but it’s not crucial for most customers of this category of camera. Sony’s A7 series has been pretty expensive for a “basic” camera for the last few versions, but those cameras had the best specs possible. When Sony released the APS-C a7000, it had the same AF system as the Sony a9.

It’s Sony’s most affordable camera. And that’s a problem here. Nikon and Canon both have cameras without video capabilities above 4K, and without open gate, but they’re less expensive than this camera. They’re lacking things that this camera has, but they’re relatively on par.

Sony’s also pointed to the video features in their press materials, and in photos like this, Sony is clearly appealing to a customer who is invested in video.

The Nikon Z5 II is $1,900 and is very similar on paper to the Sony in terms of video. It’s missing a lot of photo features that this Sony has, but it’s easy to give up some features for $1,000 less than Sony’s “basic” camera if your main content is video.

The problem is that the target audience for a “basic” camera will likely never use Open Gate recording, but for nearly $3,000, many customers will be above “basic”.

The  A7 V appears to have the ability to record in at least 6K and open gate, because it’s got Sony’s brand new processor. It records 7K video and downsamples that on the fly to 4K. I can’t imagine that recording open gate right off the sensor is less processor-intensive than converting 6K to 4K.

Final Thoughts

So the Sony a7 V coulda, woulda, shoulda have 6K recording and Open Gate. The lack of 6K is a bigger issue. With 6K recording a slightly wider framing, a shooter could easily crop to a 16:9 format with no image quality lost.

The A7V is an excellent camera for its intended market. The backlash we’re seeing is driven more by YouTube’s need for controversial content than by genuine customer disappointment. It’s entirely fair for a reviewer to call out features that they think are missing. But acting like its absence makes Sony a failure? That’s rage-baiting, not honest reviewing.

Before joining the chorus of criticism about any camera, ask yourself if you are the target customer. Do I actually need these features? Or am I just caught up in manufactured outrage?

Context matters. Understanding who a camera is designed for matters. And recognizing the difference between genuine criticism and clickbait matters most of all.

Check our Recent Sony Product Coverage

The post The Sony A7V Backlash on YouTube Is Missing the Point. Click-bait Criticism Hurts Everyone appeared first on Imaging Resource.

Drones already at retailers are not subject to the ban. For drone users, this is the last chance to pick up drones for work, hobbies, or racing. Read our full coverage of the ban and its implications here.

Get DJI Products Before they’re gone

Visit the Amazon DJI Store
Visit the B&H DJI Store page

The FCC has also proposed adding more companies to the list of banned products, though they have not made it clear which companies might be on the list.

The issue, or at least the supposed issue, is that the U.S. government wants to eliminate spying on critical infrastructure. Huawei is another company on the list, with the suspicion being that Huawei phones have a backend that would allow the Chinese government to spy on users.

This is not the only hurdle DJI faces. DJI is subject to a review by the U.S. national security agencies by the end of the year, and if that is not completed, DJI will be automatically added to a list of companies that are prevented from getting certified to operate in the United States. Unfortunately for DJI, that review is not guaranteed. Without action, DJI will almost certainly be prohibited from selling drones in the United States permanently.

It’s also not the only hurdle faced by the drone industry. The Commerce Department, under the guidance of the Trump administration, is pushing to ban all Chinese-made drones and components.

As reported by Reuters: “The Commerce Department in January said it could also target for restrictions drone systems like onboard computers, communications and flight control systems, ground control stations, operating software and data storage.”

The result will be a complete and total ban on not only DJI drones, but also any other Chinese drones, parts, or technology.

The FCC has announced it is working on plans to remove previously authorized device certification, preventing the products currently available in the U.S. from being imported, sold, or even marketed. 

The government has provided no proof to indicate that DJI drones are engaged in spying. DJI also argues that they offer a local-data-only mode that disables all internet connectivity on demand, and they have offered independent auditors to review their equipment. Many in the drone community think the move is more about stifling competition than protecting infrastructure.

The argument about Chinese cell phones seems like a good one to me. After all, a phone is a self-contained device with full access to the internet, as well as access to your contacts, calendar, mail, browser history, and is complete with cameras and microphones. A cell phone is also carried around all day, giving it a wide range of spy-friendly targets.

Personally, I am much less convinced that DJI drones are being used to spy on things via the technology they use, though individuals have been caught flying drones near military installations.

The continued grounding of DJI’s drones means that emergency rescue operations will be curtailed, and creators will have to seek alternative drones. Unfortunately, DJI owns the majority of the drone market, leaving consumers with little choice in gear.

No matter your position on these governmental policies, a ban on all imported drones and components will decimate many industries and will have a significant impact on creators in travel, adventure sports, real estate, wildlife, and more.

Normally I’d call for some action, but in this case I’m not sure any can help. The FCC can pass regulations without congressional approval, as can the Commerce Department. With the current administration, there’s little to no chance that DJI will be saved, as it’s the current administration that is pursuing these changes.

Will DJI drones return to the shelves in the U.S.? It’s unlikely, and there is no telling yet how much of an effect this will have on the company. The U.S. is its biggest market, and few companies survive losing the biggest base of customers

Source: Drone Life , Reuters

The post DJI Still Grounded in the U.S. – A Complete Ban of Chinese Drones and Parts may be Imminent appeared first on Imaging Resource.