Hi all, my son and I have been playing in the simulator for the past few months and are ready to take the leap into buying our first quad.  We have a Radiomaster Zorro gaming style transmitter with ELRS and are limited to the sub 250g quads.  

One that has caught my eye is the GEPRC cinelog25.  Seems like a great all around beginner quad that can still venture into a bit of freestyle if we go down that path.  Is there any other quads similar to this that might be better suited that we should have a better look at?  

Is going digital right off the hop worth the extra investment in gear? 

The cinelog is only available right now with the Caddx Polar camera, how is this camera?

Hi Janz,

First, let me say that I believe GEPRC to make quality gear. I have had a couple of GEPRC Phantoms
and have built many quads with GEPRC components.

Now, having checked out the GEPRC Cinelog 25, it seems there is  currently no ELRS receiver option,
however, it is available as PNP {Plug N Play} which means it does not come with a receiver. So....
you would need to purchase an ELRS receiver and install it in the quad. This is not a big deal, but
you do have to do it. There should be space for the receiver in there somewhere. The bigger
challenge would be dismantling the quad. Yes, you will likely need to take it apart. 

If you go with a more "traditional" freestyle design like the GEPRC Toothpick Freestyle, it will be
easier to get to the FC board by removing the top plate and the VTX. You might even be able to
solder the wires with the FC board in place...or remove it too and work on it on the bench. The HD,
digital, version uses a different FC board, so you might get away with just removing the top plate.

At this point, I have only seen tiny whoops that have ELRS installed (on the FC board). Most of the
larger quads generally have a PNP option for those who want a receiver that is not an option from
the manufacturer. 

With all of this, I would first think about what it takes to install a receiver. Some quads will come
apart better than others...and...a tightly packed whoop {especially a pusher} might be challenging.

On the other hand, you might look for a quad with ELRS already on board; then you just need to 
Bind N Fly (BNF). Up, Up and away. 

As for digital...good question. Since you are just starting out, it depends on your how much you
are willing to spend. Digital costs more; a lot more. It just does. On the other hand, it provides a 
vastly better image quality for the pilot. 

I am sure that someone with digital experience will chime in here.

Save yourself some headaches.. get the Emax ez pro pilot setup.. $250.. YOU WILL CRASH.. this little thing comes bound, vtx already setup, charge the batteries and ur flying.. yes it is a small “whoop” style, but u can always fly it indoors during bad weather.. or use it to “teach” someone else..
A digital set up as a first quad (IMO), will be a expensive learning curve..

You haven't mentioned goggles on your post, but I assume you have that sorted as well.

From my understanding so far, I am a beginner too, f you have the budget and know that you will carry this hobby on, there is no reason not to go digital.
The question on this choice would be DJI or HDZero, which are the only options currently (Orca might launch something down the road too).
To keep it short on these:
- DJI is more expensive but has more options of RTF drones and has a good quality signal,
- HDZero is cheaper but with less options of RTF drones and signal is not as good (but there is an active ongoing development on the platform, so things could change in the near future).

If you're not sure about your commitment to the hobby or if your budget is limited/tight, then go analog, you have the choice to convert the drones and goggles(via external receiver) to digital, HDZero, if you want in the future..

My take on the drone in question, apart from what has been mentioned already, is that it seems like a good first drone, but keep in mind that crashing it can be more expensive and difficult to fix. Whereas if you go with a tinywhoop, even the bigger 85mm versions, its much easier and cheaper to fix.
Having said that, I think it comes down to where you will be flying to start with, if indoors or areas with many obstacles then tinywhoop to start with, if an open area, like a grass field for example, then the cinelog should be fine (as long as you are ok with putting the receiver yourself or have someone that can do it for you).

hope this helps a bit...

(30-Apr-2022, 12:52 PM)cst3x6 Wrote: You haven't mentioned goggles on your post, but I assume you have that sorted as well.

      Analog Goggles come with the EMAX EZ Pilot Pro, which by the way, work with ALL analog VTXs.

From my understanding so far, I am a beginner too,  f you have the budget and know that you will carry this hobby on, there is no reason not to go digital.

      If you really know you will carry on and you have DEEP pockets, then you might want to go digital.

The question on this choice would be DJI or HDZero, which are the only options currently (Orca might launch something down the road too).  
To keep it short on these:
- DJI is more expensive but has more options of RTF drones and has a good quality signal,

     Now I am curious...    The DJI drones might have good RTF, however, you won't have
     that firmware. Even with digital video and perhaps control, it is the FC firmware that
     controls the RTF features, NOT in the digital system. RTF is a function of the Flight Controller
     (FC) board firmware. So far that I have seen, Betaflight is the only firmware installed on BNF, RTF,
     or any FC that you would build a quad with. iNav is said to have good RTF, but it doesn't ship on
     anything, so you would need to change the firmware and configure it. Now, this is not a real big deal,
     but you DO still have to DO it to get the RTF.

- HDZero is cheaper but with less options of RTF drones and signal is not as good (but there is an active ongoing development on the platform, so things could change in the near future).

     So far, I have been well pleased with my analog systems. Digital is nice, but is just too pricey for
     my blood and NOT really worth it. On the other hand, HDZero looks very promising, is more cost
     effective, and something that I may consider in the future. They have got to get the cost of the goggles
     down a bit more for me. That said, I believe that HDZero is the direction that I will go in for digital gear.
     For now, I will wait and watch. Yes, I can convert anything to digital if I want to.

If you're not sure about your commitment to the hobby or if your budget is limited/tight, then go analog, you have the choice to convert the drones and goggles(via external receiver) to digital, HDZero, if you want in the future..

      How do really know that you will like it until you get out in the field and actually fly something. 
      What a sim doesn't teach you is how it feels to do serious damage to the quad or to lose it. 
      If you lose a quad, then that investment is just gone.  All $$$$ of it. 

      Yes, if you go with analog now, you can always upgrade to digital later; at least if you have
      a quad with a standard frame. Some whoop frames are just not large enough to accommodate
      the digital unit. Of course, you could transfer the parts to an open prop frame. 

My take on the drone in question, apart from what has been mentioned already, is that it seems like a good first drone, but keep in mind that crashing it can be more expensive and difficult to fix. Whereas if you go with a tinywhoop, even the bigger 85mm versions, its much easier and cheaper to fix.  

       Oddly enough, there isn't really a lot of cost difference in repairing small whoops, even the one listed.
       Motors are about $ 10-15 each depending on what you get. Frames are about $ 10-30, again,
       depending on what you get. All the other parts are pretty much the same cost for comparative
       size ratings. On these small whoops the two things that are likely to break are the frame and the props.

Having said that, I think it comes down to where you will be flying to start with, if indoors or areas with many obstacles then tinywhoop to start with, if an open area, like a grass field for example, then the cinelog should be fine (as long as you are ok with putting the receiver yourself or have someone that can do it for you).

        The EMAX EZ Pilot Pro would likely fit in both scenarios. In fact this package might be better to start
        with than the GEPRC Cinelog. If you decide to pursue this hobby, you will have many more quads of
        different configurations. Don't worry about extra goggles, they can always be used for passengers.

hope this helps a bit...

Hi cst3x6,

Here is my take on it...

Several years ago when I started, I wasn't sure that I would like it so I bought a combo package 
similar to the one Rob listed. That way, if I didn't like it, I wouldn't be out much. 

As it turns out, I really enjoy this hobby; the flying, the building, learning, and helping others.
I have purchased many tiny whoops and several open prop (Freestyle type) quads. Plus, I 
have built about a dozen or so open prop quads. Building is a whole different part of the story.
Some like it, some don't. However, you get exactly what you want when you build, plus you
know how to fix it. 

Except for the goggles in my first kit, I still fly that cheap little tiny whoop quad; in the house.

So far, I have lost 3 quads; one on a golf course, one somewhere in the brush about 30 feet
from where I was standing, and one in the top of a tree at the edge of a field where I sometimes
fly. Thing about this last one, I didn't realize that I was over the tree as I could not see it in the
camera. The point is that these things are easier to lose than one would think. However, we just
keep going. Yeah, I am going to try to get that last one out of the tree.

To summarize:

I would buy a combo kit and try it out. If you like it and stay in the game, it will
certainly NOT be a waste. The goggles can be used with any analog quad. As long
as it flies, you will find a place to fly the quad. If you stay in the game, then you
will end up with several quads anyway. Different ones for different things.

Just me 

I think if you get enough responses to this you'll get many varying responses but all essentially correct because we all have different experiences when we were new or what we want a quad to do now. Personally I'd stay away from the cinelog type drones if you have any desire to fly freestyle. They're NOT going to fly as well as a freestyle setup but probably perfectly fine at carrying a lighter camera if that's what your goal is. I'd also be weary of drone reviews on youtube most of these channels including the ones who tell you they're not are making those videos first and foremost for channel views and to not alienate the brand that sent the quad for review. This is true even outside of drones. Not saying that none of them have integrity but even Bardwell touched on this. Stop saying nice things and the quads stop showing up in the mail.

My first quad was a Nazgul v2 and that thing took MANY beatings and only every cracked an arm, flew a whole pack on it thinking it was a noisy prop because it was still flying great. But you mentioned sub 250 grams so that is likely out. I'm sure there are plenty of similar designs in the sub 4" that will be similar but I've not looked enough to know which ones. But once you get up and running and want to stick with the hobby building a sub250 will open up more options.

Digital is definitely worth it in regards to improving user experience.

i would also suggest andther kond of quad, while you stated it seems its a "good allrounder for a beginner" it doesnt shine in any discipline; low abilities, slow, not as good in handling, not durable, not efficiency...
as the name tells it aims cinematics, cinematics are the sort of flight where not the flight itself should be the joy, the footage is the good thing on a cinematic quad.

i would suggest a happymodel moblite7, it will provide sone flighttime :-) it can race and do some freestyle...

i like to understand how you came to the cinelog? to the impression the cinelog is good allarounder for beginners? maybe that helps to give you good suggestions

overall you cant go wrong, any step into fpv is a good step :-)

To the OP- how comfortable are you or your son with soldering and working with tiny little things that require dexterity & fine motor skills?

You said you and your son have been flying in a sim- remember how much you both crashed in the beginning? That’s going to be happening to the quad in real life- things are going to get damaged and require repair and replacement, often, especially in the beginning- and then again fairly regularly as you start to get better and then start to try to expand your flying skill set.

If you’re comfortable soldering, then letting us know where you plan to fly and how large that area is, and what kind of obstacles are in your flying environment, it would help a lot to get some responses more directly tailored to your needs.

If you’re not comfortable soldering, then I would suggest a tiny whoop that has motor plugs. We can all suggest a couple if this is the case. Motor plugs means that as you destroy motors and frames, you can easily swap out motors or transfer everything to a new frame without having to desolder or solder anything. But if this is the case, I’d suggest getting a soldering iron and practice solder board and learning the skill- it’s super helpful in this hobby.

Regarding analog vs digital- that comes down to your budget. I’m still flying analog because that’s what my budget allows, and I have no complaints with it. If you go digital, realize that it is going to significantly add to the cost of every build or prebuilt quad you make/buy.

Wow, I didn't expect to get this many quality responses, thank you all.

A bit more information is probably needed. My main priority is to use this as a learning experience and hobby for my son (10 years old), with the added bonus that I'll get to fly and bond with him. We had previously purchased a 10th scale truggy to drive and introduce him to racing. Although he liked it, it just isn't where his heart is. He has wanted to try flying a drone since the first day he saw one and we have had a ton of fun with some cheapy style non-fpv drones in the house. So the next logical step was to try a real quad and fpv system. We ended up selling the the truggy and bought the transmitter to practice in the simulator.

I have owned and raced many RC cars when I was younger so i'm no stranger to working around RC cars/components. I've been out of the scene for awhile and a lot has changed since I did it so there is some catching up to do. I have an automotive background and build/race cars as a hobby. One of the reasons I had looked at the cinelog was the hope of maybe some cross blending of hobbies. It would be cool to do some videos of the race season/build or something along those lines. From some of the reviews on youtube, most of them mention it was a great quad for cinematic style flying but the added benefit of some light freestyle flying. I do realize it may not be great at freestyle, but if that's the direction we end up leaning towards we can always buy another down the road. For now im concentrating on learning how to fly and making sure whatever we buy is robust enough to handle all the crashing we have ahead of us.

When I purchased the Zorro, I ordered it with a few ELRS receivers knowing that depending on the quad we may need to swap a receiver in if it didn't come natively with it. This also opened up the option of finding something in the used market if it fit our requirements. I'm in Canada so for now we need to stay in the sub 250g category.

We may end up buying a tinywhoop at some point to fly indoors, but for now Id like to get something that is capable of flying outdoors. Possibly carrying a naked gopro, or 360? We have two smallish sized parks (one has an abandoned baseball diamond in it) just down the street from us to fly at. We also do a ton of mountain biking in the summer so forest/clearings are pretty frequent to fly at if we get good enough.

The reason I brought up the never ending digital debate, was to try and make it the best experience I can for my son. If this was just for me i could easily get by on analog from what I've seen. Our budget is flexible enough that we could go the digital route if the consensuses was that it is that much better than analog. I should also mention, we have no purchased goggles yet as I wasnt sure what route to go.

With all this said, should we still be looking at the Cinelog, or do you guys think something else may be better suited for what we intend to do with it.

CineLog25 is OK.
It well built. Sturdy.
But best case with 6 blade props, still loud and feels sluggish.

CineLog30 much better!!

CineLog30
35A F411
1404 3850KV
HQ 3030*3
Ratel2
140g

CineLog25
20A F411
1404 4800KV on new
D63 loud props
EOS2
120g

They have pic comparing specs. IMHO the claimed 2.5" flight time is double real life.
https://geprc.com/product/geprc-cinelog-...oop-drone/

If I was starting all over again today, and budget wasn’t an issue-

Regarding analog vs digital:
I’d buy Skyzone 04x goggles, and preorder an HDZERO vrx.
This would allow me to fly analog or digital. I’d order some various hdzero video transmitters, so that I could convert any analog quad to digital if I wanted.

Back to you, there are couple things to consider. It sounds like you will be flying in open enough areas that prop guards aren’t needed. Most (all?) of the cinewhoop style quads have prop guards so that they can safely fly in close proximity to people. Beyond that, there isn’t anything special in the design that makes them more suitable for filming than any other quad. The stability they’re known for is in software settings (roll rates, etc), and prop choice (more blades per prop for stability) and motor choice for lifting power.

Any quad of sufficient size and with sufficient power can carry an action camera. It sounds like the cross hobby filming you would like to do is primarily chasing cars and other things that aren’t in close proximity to people.

Given that you need to stick below 250g, those prop guards are extra weight that doesn’t seem necessary in your case. I think you might be better off just going with a 3” open prop design.

This is just my humble opinion.

I can’t give you a good recommendation on 3” open prop BNF or PNP because I jumped straight into building, because I like tinkering, but others here can definitely recommend a couple.

I guess my main point here is that you don’t have to choose between analog and digital, you can do both with the right gear- and that I think your needs would be better served by not going with a cinewhoop.

Hi Janz,

Overall, I like Lemony's thoughts: 
1) goggles that will support both analog and digital
2) HDZero VTX (and camera if needed)

The caveat here is that you won't find any pre-built quads, so you might as well be
considering just building it the way you want from the ground up. Now, this is one
way to go. HDZero is still in its infancy so it is still evolving. 

If you don't want the hassle and you have the money, then you could just go ahead
and buy the DJI goggles (choke) and a BNF quad that had an HD digital, DJI or Vista,
package, install your receiver and be done with it. At least it would likely be the best
FPV video that you could experience, there is plenty of gear out there, and a lot of
"support". If you decided to bail, you could probably get a fair portion of your money
back on the used market.

Now lets consider the Quad:

A little about the regulations. I just reviewed the Canadian drone regulations and they are
very similar to the FAA regs here in the USA, they draw a line at the 250 gram weight mark.
Personally, I want to avoid entanglements with the FAA or the authorities so my primary
focus is in the sub-250 gram weight category. So...let's stay UNDER 250 grams. Also,
I presume that the Canadian weight is the All Up Weight including battery and any payload; 
that it is the weight of the entire package at takeoff; just as it is with the FAA.

Just to be clear, a quad that has a dry weight, without battery or any payload (camera),
of 149 grams has a 100 gram allowance for any remaining load regardless of what that is.
In my Parts Guide spreadsheet on the Batteries tab, I draw a line at a little over 100 grams
as anything much over 100 grams is just not feasible for a sub-250 gram craft. Yeah, the
minute you strap a 105 gram battery on that 149 gram puppy, you just blew right through
the 250 gram mark. So, in good faith {and whether anybody else knows or not}, I work to 
keep the AUW of my quads, including battery, below 250 grams.

By the way, adding cells adds weight to a battery faster than going up in mAh. 

Ok, let's spin this in a little different direction; sort of like working backwards.

My "pet" battery, the one I use on everything regardless of size and the one that I default
to most of the time is the GNB 3S 1100 mAh 67 gram (new ones are 74 grams) battery.
This particular battery is very light for the "Energy" and well within my 100 gram allowance.
I get about 15 minutes of fly time with a 2.5 inch GEPRC Phantom analog. Most of my 
4 inch rigs get over 10 minutes on this battery. Consequently, I will use this as a benchmark
or baseline. Now, this is mostly high altitude, smooth, easy cruising as is my flying style.
I am NOT an ACRO stunt pilot NOR a Racer. I fly high, mostly over 300 feet, because I like
the scenery and there is nothing to hit up there. 

Consequently, if I were looking at a ready made quad, BNF, one of the things that would be
at the top of my criteria list is the dry weight. With a 100 gram battery allowance, I could go 
as high as 149 grams, but that would be the maximum and allows a bit of buffer since the
actual battery that I use would be less than 100 grams. I might stretch the dry weight a bit
if I knew what battery I would use and the combined weight did not exceed 249 grams.

I would also be looking at the specs for battery requirements. For me, it would need to be able to 
fly with a 3S battery. Now, I am not just talking what they say it is rated for. I would be looking at 
the motors as well since I pretty much know what to expect from a motor by looking at its specs. 
If the motors have a KV rating much less than 3500Kv, they will be getting marginal for a 3S.
OK, it might fly, but probably won't have much "performance". As mentioned, weight on a battery
goes up faster when you add cells than it does when you increase the mAh. I don't know why, it
just is what it is. Most 4S batteries up to about 1000 mAh weight less than 100 grams. GNB has
now come out with a 4S 1100 mAh battery that weighs 92 grams...WOW. 

So, add the dry weight of the quad and the weight of the battery you intend to use and that will
tell you if the quad even comes close. IF the AUW is over 250 grams, then it isn't the quad for me.
By the way, most quads do NOT come with a buzzer which would need to be added and does
add some weight. 

Now, we have not even considered strapping an action cam on the craft. Yeah, more weight here
means less weight allowance for the battery. Not necessarily bad, but it will eat into the Fly Time.

In using the Cinelog 25 and Cinelog 30 from the link in the prior post (both are Digital Vista),
the 25 weighs 125.6 grams and the 30 weighs 158.5 grams. When you add a battery, what
is left is the allowance for an action cam. Of course, with digital, I would think that you would
Not need an action cam, but don't know for sure since I don't do digital. 

Since you already have tiny whoops for indoors and you want this quad for outside, I would say
that you don't need the ducts which just add weight and really offer NO benefit to flight 
characteristics. I have a 2 inch whoop and that is the smallest thing that I will fly outside, but 
this is my own build and I just fly around out in our small yard with it. In your case, I would be 
looking at a 2.5 inch or 3 inch open prop, freestyle type, quad. I have several 2.5 inch quads
including a GEPRC Phantom and a clone that I built. These are my favorite quads to fly in 
smaller places or to do some proximity flying...around obstacles. When in ACRO mode, they
fly sort of like a light weight 5 inch. 

Some people might believe that a 3 inch is better than a 2.5 inch, however, I would disagree with
that. They are just different and it depends on what you want to accomplish with them. For me,
the extra .5 inch doesn't make a difference. In some respects, I prefer the 2.5 inch just for fun
and playing around. I also believe that the 2.5 inch is a good size to learn and train on. Thing is,
I wouldn't let the difference between 2.5  or 3 inch be the deciding factor. 

When you go over 3 inch, the craft covers a lot more ground quickly. With very little throttle the
bigger quads will be at the end of the field. The bigger quads are nice when you have some
space to "stretch out" in. It is like flying in a circle if the space is too small. Also, I wouldn't 
suggest on to learn on.

By the way, you might find it interesting to go through my Parts Guide  <-- Click to Download

Just for fun, here is a video of my 2.5 inch Phantom-i "clone" which has flight characteristics
very close to the GEPRC Phantom that it was patterned after. 



. 

Great points about the weight and working backwards from the battery. Most of the 2.5-3.5" quads I have been looking at are 3s/4s compatible. As long as the quads are in 140g or under, it should open up a few options for batteries. Like you, I would like to keep this quad under the legal limit of 250g to avoid any future hassle. The weight in Canada is in fact an all in weight, as the quad sits ready for take off.

From videos I have seen, the onboard digital video footage would be more than good enough for any of the cinematic footage I would like to do. Not having to strap an action camera should help keep things under the 250g limit.

Just to give you a perspective on the size of the area we would be flying, in the video above, we would have the area of approximately the baseball diamond. We live in the inner city so anything we fly will be fairly small. There are a couple areas under bridges and with some natural landscapes to fly as well. It would be slightly more aggressive flying than what was shown.

Here are a couple more quads I had previously looked at:

-GEPRC SMART HD Toothpick
-GEPRC Phantom HD Toothpick
-EMAX BABYHAWK II HD <---- This one is probably slightly out of what I was hoping to spend considering we also need to purchase goggles

To be perfectly honest, I'm not really sure what the intended difference is between the smart HD and the phantom HD.

Or if ur not in a BIG hurry.. rumor is Happy Model maybe first off with the new HD-Zero 1s whoop set up already built..

On GetFPV page for the Smart HD it says it's the replacement for the Phantom HD. Noticed that comes with the Caddx Nebula Nano camera. This is a 60fps camera compared to some of them at 120fps and I've generally noticed anyone reviewing it that it has inferior video. They came out with a Nebula Nano Pro camera which is also 14mm wide (the non nano DJI cams are 19mm and 20mm depending on which). I've noticed when buying a vista kit with cam, the non pro nano vtx sells for $30 cheaper ($135 vs $165).

I've got a Nebula Nano Pro on a 3" toothpick build with a naked vista and the image is as good as the original DJI cam. I don't know if that cam is an option on any BNF but worth it to grab one that already has it. I highly recommend that if you're wanting the google DVR since it will look a lot better on playback.