Thoughts on the Lily?

J

JimPMM

Suspended / Banned
Messages
373
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
No
Hi
I don't really 'do' video but seriously considering pre-ordering a Lily:
http://www.lily.camera
for both fun and as an little extra selling point for weddings.
Anyone got any thoughts on it. To my amateur eyes it looks like an awesome bit of kit!
Thanks in advance
Jim
 
JimPMM said:
Hi
I don't really 'do' video but seriously considering pre-ordering a Lily:
http://www.lily.camera
for both fun and as an little extra selling point for weddings.
Anyone got any thoughts on it. To my amateur eyes it looks like an awesome bit of kit!
Thanks in advance
Jim
Click to expand...

You won't be able to use it as part of a paid for wedding job unless you have undertaken the accredited training and obtained a PFAW from the CAA.
 
Thanks. I'm guessing the training & accreditation aren't cheap, even for that...?
 
Ricardodaforce said:
About £1500 and a very protracted process.
Click to expand...

That's crazy money for being allowed to throw that in the air! I totally understand and agree with the need for caution and regulation but it annoys me that as a professional it would cost me this just to get a little group footage or unusual stills (and being professional would by our nature be wary and careful when using it) but a guest who's had several beers could just turn up and chuck it in the air - a guest who would likely not have any insurance either! It's not like these are piloted in any conventional sense - they're pretty much automatic so the risk if used sensibly is reduced considerably.
(rant over)

Oh well, unless there's any dispensation for those particular ones or a loop hole that would allow its use outside of the wedding 'package' I guess that's a no then. Still going to get one though - brilliant fun just on a personal level!
Thanks
Jim
 
Ricardodaforce said:
You won't be able to use it as part of a paid for wedding job unless you have undertaken the accredited training and obtained a PFAW from the CAA.
Click to expand...

(Im not disagreeing buy the way - a genuine question) Does this apply even though it "self flies" and you have (as far as I can tell) no control over it other than it tracks you ?

On their website all it says is

5. Safety and regulation
Where can I use Lily?
Anywhere outdoors as long as you are respecting all the local laws and regulations.

Where can I not use Lily (according to current FAA guidelines)?
Near airports ...
Click to expand...

https://www.lily.camera/our_faq/
 
The CAA class these as Small Unmanned Aerial Surveillance Systems. Anyone can have them but their commercial use falls under the auspices of the CAA.
 
Jon.P.73 said:
Does this apply even though it "self flies" and you have (as far as I can tell) no control over it other than it tracks you ?...
Click to expand...

I was thinking along the same lines as it's very automated. The only other option is to see if there's a 'loophole' for the definition or execution of 'commercial use'

Jim
 
Ricardodaforce said:
The CAA class these as Small Unmanned Aerial Surveillance Systems. Anyone can have them but their commercial use falls under the auspices of the CAA.
Click to expand...

Just playing devils advocate here, but the chances of the CAA ever finding out about it are what, slim to none

And even then, the chances of them even bothering to do anything about are again, slim to none i would suggest

Better buying a lottery ticket, more chance of winning millions than being done for flying one of these i would suspect, at least that would pay for the accreditation ;)
 
rpsmith79 said:
Just playing devils advocate here, but the chances of the CAA ever finding out about it are what, slim to none

And even then, the chances of them even bothering to do anything about are again, slim to none i would suggest

Better buying a lottery ticket, more chance of winning millions than being done for flying one of these i would suspect, at least that would pay for the accreditation ;)
Click to expand...

There have been prosecutions for failing to adhere to the relevant laws and there is currently another one going through the courts.
Also to be honest, if I saw a local photographer offering aerial photography as part of his services and I knew he didn't have a PFAW from the CAA I would report him to the CAA. myself.
 
JimPMM said:
I was thinking along the same lines as it's very automated. The only other option is to see if there's a 'loophole' for the definition or execution of 'commercial use'

Jim
Click to expand...

There are many professional rigs that can fly automatically via predetermined waypoints. They are not given an exception. Whether the aircraft is under pilot control or following an automated flight plan, the rules are the same.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
There have been prosecutions for failing to adhere to the relevant laws and there is currently another one going through the courts.
Also to be honest, if I saw a local photographer offering aerial photography as part of his services and I knew he didn't have a PFAW from the CAA I would report him to the CAA. myself.
Click to expand...

Many thanks for your comments on this, and please don't take this as anything other than a genuine question:
I can completely understand and be on board with the need to be regulated, tested and have PfAW for the vast majority of aerial photography - the drones are not easy to fly (so I'm told, not done it myself), they require a decent amount of maintenance, planning and operator oversight and there is a definite need for training and due diligence..
BUT...
These Lily cameras (and whatever comes after them - I can see this being quite a big thing in the near future as the tech gets more advanced and the units smaller and cheaper) aren't anywhere near that realm - the only similarity is that they are in the air at some point. The piloting skills required are 'press a button' - I'd go as far as to say that one of those little plastic RC helicopters you can pick up for a few quid these days are vastly more complicated to fly and control and are in fact more dangerous as a result. The range is very small in comparison with normal drones (max 100ft away and max 50ft up).
That said - do you believe that these particular devices should indeed be categorised the same as an all-singing all-dancing drone used for aerial photography? Is there perhaps a middle ground required with oversight from CAA but with reasonable relaxation of the standard drone regulations and requirement for training which is, essentially, not applicable to 95% of the flying of these things? Also, and again this is a genuine question, how would you know if someone local to you had PfAW or not?
Hope you don't see this post as argumentative - it's really not meant that way but rather a genuine interest in debating the issue.
Regards
Jim
 
Last edited:
As above, i see these Lily drones more as toys rather than the all singing, all dancing DSLR carrying Drones that i suspect are the ones involved in the prosecutions Ricardo mentions

I bet half (if not more) of these "toy" drones don't come with any warning about CAA approval and what not

Until reading another thread about this on here i wouldn't have had a clue you would need such thing to fly a toy drone, whether being paid to do so or not
 
JimPMM said:
Many thanks for your comments on this, and please don't take this as anything other than a genuine question:
I can completely understand and be on board with the need to be regulated, tested and have PfAW for the vast majority of aerial photography - the drones are not easy to fly (so I'm told, not done it myself), they require a decent amount of maintenance, planning and operator oversight and there is a definite need for training and due diligence..
BUT...
These Lily cameras (and whatever comes after them - I can see this being quite a big thing in the near future as the tech gets more advanced and the units smaller and cheaper) aren't anywhere near that realm - the only similarity is that they are in the air at some point. The piloting skills required are 'press a button' - I'd go as far as to say that one of those little plastic RC helicopters you can pick up for a few quid these days are vastly more complicated to fly and control and are in fact more dangerous as a result. The range is very small in comparison with normal drones (max 100ft away and max 50ft up).
That said - do you believe that these particular devices should indeed be categorised the same as an all-singing all-dancing drone used for aerial photography? Is there perhaps a middle ground required with oversight from CAA but with reasonable relaxation of the standard drone regulations and requirement for training which is, essentially, not applicable to 95% of the flying of these things? Also, and again this is a genuine question, how would you know if someone local to you had PfAW or not?
Hope you don't see this post as argumentative - it's really not meant that way but rather a genuine interest in debating the issue.
Regards
Jim
Click to expand...

Hi Jim, the CAA issue a list of operators that have a current PFAW, so it's easy to check. You raise some interesting points. Many would consider a DJI Phantom as a toy. But add a 3-axis gimbal to it and a GoPro and it has suddenly becomes a capable aerial platform for filming ultra-HD video.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
But add a 3-axis gimbal to it and a GoPro and it has suddenly becomes a capable aerial platform for filming ultra-HD video.
Click to expand...
Surely that's quite a telling point though - it requires additions to the 'normal' configuration to be an aerial HD video platform and yes, there should be some regulation and testing involved with those who do that. But the Lily, taken as it is, doesn't have a 3-axis gimbal or Go-Pro attached to it and isn't in the same league. It is what it is - basic, with (very) minimal operator control with the ability to record video / stills and a very limited range. I think my main point is that the concerns about it seems to be backwards - the people who are forced to shell out a large amount of money and time to use them are the very people who would be the most careful operators, whereas any Joe Public who's had a skinful can throw it around as for them, and only them, it's considered a toy. If it's considered dangerous enough to warrant a lengthy ground course, operators manual and flight test for one person then surely that should apply to all. Likewise if it's not, that should apply to all as well. I'm not saying there shouldn't be regulation, just that it should apply to all and be reasonable for the device.
Also, I would be a little upset at handing over £1.5k for a course very little of which applicable to the thing I'm having to fork out the money for because it's just being lumped in with everything else remotely like it.
Thank you for the comments and points Ricardo, it's always good to hear the other side of an idea!
Regards
Jim
 
I think the big issue here is commercial use vs. personal use.

For someone who is making money (or not) and selling a service in exchange for payment, the rules are there, clear, and set for everyone to follow. One would assume that if they're a commercial photographer/aerial videographer, whey'll have decent equipment, which will require decent investment, and will not see a problem investing in the necessary licenses.

For a hobbyist, or someone using for personal reasons, these rules don't affect these you. The Lily is no way pitched at the professional market, in the same was as the Parrot, and by large, the DJI Phantoms. As @Ricardodaforce mentions though, it's very simple to make a Phantom "professional ready".

One a side, and back on topic, I pre-ordered one. I have a Parrot drone as a gift and to be honest I hate the thing. I hate not being able to fly it straight, and it wobbling all over the place - that's probably more me than the drone - but I also hate not being able to do anything else, apart from fly the drone.

I often go out in to the desert by myself shooting events, or mountain biking in the mountains outside of Dubai, or walking, whether in the UK or abroad. For this reason, the Lily is a great idea and concept as I can now continue what I love doing and having some different footage of me (which isn't something I have much of) either out shooting, walking or biking.

As a comment I made to a friend who asked how much it was - probably about 1/2 price again a couple of weeks after it's delivered and I get bored and stick it on eBay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top