Originally Posted by Inevitability

This thread is very interesting reading.
FyreSG, how would you compare a V929/V949 + keychain cam against the V959 in terms of flight characteristics and video quality?

V929 is not suitable because of its agility and the lack self stabilization. It's a more of sports flyer than a video recording platform. You really don't want a responsive and nimble quad unless you like blurry videos that cause motion sickness. For some reason, it also doesn't like a heavy payload, unless you change to the GWS blades.

V949 may be a better option. It's more stable but you need to be creative in mounting your keychain camera. It's easier said than done. I've been there and done that. And when I received my V959, I was surprised how effortless aerial videography could be. Previously, I had to remove the plastic case, charge the camera battery, think if novel ways to attach the camera to the quad, realized I had not power it on, so I removed the tape and... Video recording with my V959 is ridiculously straightforward, effortless, and fast. Simply press the top-left button.

You must go through the hassle of DIY to truly appreciate the goodness of V959. Taking into account man-hours involved in the trial-and-errors, and all videos turned out to be crap, the V959 actually seems "cheap". It just works out of the box.

As stated in my review, V959 is not perfect. It doesn't have a wide-angle lens and the video is 640x480. If video quality matters to you, then get a 808#16 or similar keychain camera and think of good ways to mount it on your quad.

Originally Posted by 2lakea

Very pleaased you posted this review too. Been looking after playing with the 92 for a while. The keychain cam doesnt cut it for me either.

If you don't mind the lack of wide-angle lens, then this quad is perfect for you.

Originally Posted by FyreSG

V929 is not suitable because of its agility and the lack self stabilization. It's a more of sports flyer than a video recording platform.
<snip>

Thanks for taking the time to respond.
I ordered a V949 the other day and I'm gonna follow your advice, and that of others on this forum (which, I must add, is always EXCELLENT), and just stick to flying. Perhaps later, when i graduate to something like an Armattan with 1.21 Jigawatts of power to burn, I'll revisit the whole video thing.

Yes, good move. You'll enjoy flying your quad! It's pretty pointless to go through all the hard work only to capture crappy videos that even you wouldn't watch them!

Nice review and insightful

My thought process would be to buy a 959 for the novelty of the camera, but would anticipate removing camera and skids to fly most of the time. Have you flown it without the extra weight, and is it comparable to the 949 configured like that?

Forgive this 2nd completely off topic add, but I have to get it out! I got my first quad yesterday--a $35 syma X1 from amazon, and I'm a born again convert from single rotors. Howly cow its awesome! Completely addicted!

Originally Posted by FyreSG

Thanks for the compliments! I don't have a weighing scale so I can't provide any weight measurements. In addition to the camera, this quad is heavier than the V949 because of the tall landing skids.

I'm gonna check with Aaron to get audio recording working.

You really need to buy some cheap digital scales for these reviews as it makes it very hard to compare like with like.

Everything you described about the handling sounds exactly what you would expect when you add more weight to a quad. It's slower, more 'stately' if you like, less responsive and harder to stop once it is moving - especially as the later models v9?? firmware is already less 'sporty' so is not put off as much by the extra weight. For example: putting one of those 9 gram polystyrene protective hulls on my old U816 made it a completely different beast - in a good way.

I'd be fairly surprised if a 949 with extra landing gear and an 808 camera (could you detach and weigh the one on the 959? - buy some scales) didn't behave very similarly to the 959 - without the convenience of pressing a button to start/stop the video but with much improved 1280x720p 16:9 video.

Honestly, 640x480 video isn't much use for anything these days - it's even lower res than an SD TV screen - so a shame to go to the trouble of flying somewhere interesting and recording it at lower quality than you get on a half decent mobile phone.

Weights and flight times from the stock battery (what mAh was it?) would be useful for us to do some maths. Maybe one of those sets of landing gear on a v949 would be nice to try out and give a choice of what sort of camera to attach.

I just came back from an early flying session. I flew my V959 at 8:30am and recorded some videos. To surprise, the camera sensor does not like sunlight! There were purple noise on the video when the camera is facing objects or scenery that were brightly lit by sunlight.

I'll try to get a scale from my mum.

640x480 may be crippling but not as crippling as the lack of wide-angle lens. While the video quality is good, it is not comparable to the 808#16. I think we should adjust our expectation as this is a toy-grade product. Perhaps the next generation will be better? But for now, I'm contented.

I used to use a cheapo keychain cam on my planes and early sun was always a challenge for it.
Ordered the 959 for the looks and lights mainly and the cam will be fun to play with.
My 929 really takes a beating and is holding up well so far. They are toys, wonderful toys, but still toys.

BTW, My digital scale measures in 5gram increments so hard to weigh small parts accurately.

I opened the camera up to see if I can fix the audio problem, but there's nothing I could do.





Looks like there would be no audio recording for me.

Is it supposed to have sound? You should contact the vendor if it is defective...

Try to locate where the microphone is and if it is blocked when the cover is on.

On the other hand. In the second pic, on the lower right. The white circle indicates a missing mic shaped component !!!

Originally Posted by Tomofono

Is it supposed to have sound? You should contact the vendor if it is defective...

Yes, sound is recorded into the video. I've watched a few V959 videos which output the buzzing sound of the motors. I'll check with BangGood on this. Their customer service is usually very good.

Originally Posted by XFM

Try to locate where the microphone is and if it is blocked when the cover is on.

On the other hand. In the second pic, on the lower right. The white circle indicates a missing mic shaped component !!!

I'd love to see the photos of a working camera to compare against mine.

Honestly, the lack of sound is not a big problem because the loud buzzing motor gives me a headache after a while.

thanks a lot for review. Just needed one to make decision. I wouldn't call that thing a toy, it's more like amateur camera. if you shoot with one without turning right/left the video will be nice, just make sure sun is behind.

You need a neutral density filter if you intend to use it between (approx.) 10am to 4pm. The sensor can't handle intense light even if it is reflected from objects. Even at 3pm at the beach, the white sand causes purple noise, and chromatic aberrations are very obvious. It doesn't matter where the sun is. I took my first video in the evening around 6:30pm, and it was very cloudy. You'll understand when you experience it first hand. This is a problem because I'm at the equator and I get strong sunlight most of the time.

This camera captures indoor shots well, where lighting is not harsh.

As I'm busy with another review now, I won't be able to demonstrate the problem now. But you can trust me there's something really wrong, because I do know a bit about photography.

We need to find a way to mount filters and lenses. Is there a wide angle lens we can stick on there somehow, although this might exacerbate the lighting issue since light from a greater area Is entering the lens.