What has bothered me from the start on this post, is that it's implied that a 4K video still from any drone can compare to a 80MP or even 36MP still from a modern DSLR or Phase One back. Personally I don't believe there is any way it can, no matter what video camera/lens you have. I realize that the photographer is not using a GoPro, (the standard of the industry), but please go back and take a shot from that low end 80MP IQ180 with any lens in your inventory, then take that excellent 4K still and then uprez it to the size of the 80MP file, also please stay at 300ppi. Please now compare the files at 100% view or even print size. There is no way a 4K video still or even a still from a 12MP drone will hold up. If you are only interested in web posting, facebook, intagram etc. sure the files will look very close. But if you are working on a print say 20 x 30 or 24 x 36, the 12MP file from the drone especially if it's from a 4K still will more than likely fall apart. It has to be uprez'd as in native mode the 4K still was captured as a jpg, at 72ppi and in sRGB colorspace. No matter the camera/lens, for 1500.00 the sensor is not going to be very large in size more than likely not even the size of micro 4/3's. I have yet to find any software interpolation that can take a native 36MP D810 file to the same quality as a native 80MP IQ180 image, not at 360ppi and printed. You can get close but anytime you interpolate you lose, at least to me and I have tried them all. Which is why since 2003 I have always stitched, to reach more native resolution without interpolation.
I will agree that drones give a unique perspective on photography and have become common on most sets, (Discovery Channel, History Channel, ESPN, Nat Geo to name a few) but also please note that the vast majority of these shoots are pans, most often moving from near to far or vise versa and moving very fast so that you can't even begin to look at the details in the background. The eye is easily fooled with motion and you can get away with a lot, but just freeze one of those frames then look. These details are soft, even at 4K. The optics are not there yet mainly due to both weight and cost. Sure you can now mount a 100MP Phase One back on a drone, but make sure you have a great insurance policy as it's not a matter of if you will crash but when. I have worked
with several very highly rated (rated in both flight and photography) drone shooters and I have seen the stills, no more needs to be said.
Sadly, in the US, drones have taken on a bad name. I was into drones long before they became "in", and was flying with first person view before that was common also. It's great, and the features it offers are excellent. Great business for Farmers (field surveys), real estate.surveys etc. But instead of using this technology in the correct format, instead someone has to be the first person to loop Delicate Arch, or fly out over the Grand Canyon, or film the local college football game or fly over the White house, or use the drone around the local airport. All stupid and irresponsible, that stupid it what sticks. All it takes is one serious crash and then all bets are off unless it's being flown in a closed environment. Drones are also by nature quite loud, and the larger they get the louder they get. Using one in pubic where other people are near by should be taken with full regard to how the other people want to hear the constant high pitch sound of a 6 or 4 engine drone hovering overhead. Most times, this is not done. Where as I don't know of any still camera that makes enough noise, even a MF XF that you would be bothering someone who is standing 10 feet or even 5 feet away.
Sorry to sound a bit harsh as I try to stay on the positive, just can't on this subject. I just can't agree that the platforms mentioned in the first post are on equal terms and can deliver the same quality output.
Paul C