Talk:Parrot Anafi

Role and quality of the first "consumer" ANAFI

As I have the first ANAFI since July 2018 (still 05/2026 in the air), I had good insight into the first years of this drone. My impression was and still is, that the sentence "Although the original consumer model suffered from numerous issues, ..." doesn't describe this drone and isn't doing justice to it. There were some problems, that mainly could be solved by firmware updates (I counted 24 since 2018) and Freeflight App updates (about 34 since the beginning). Many "problems" with this drone were also caused by inexperienced users all over the world, spreading their dissatisfaction over a few forums. It's not enough to mainly quote the quite negative The Verge test from the very beginning (07/2018: with V1.0.0 of the drone's firmware, the last was V1.8.2 in 2021), but also the many positive tests and reports about the ANAFI should be mentioned, e.g. the test reports in CHIP, ComputerBild, drohnen.de, DroneTraveller, PCWELT, techradar, techstage, ... ~2026-28667-91 (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say, and reliable sources pointed out many problems at launch. If you have reliable sources confirming that each of the issues were resolved through firmware updates, please feel free to provide them. - ZLEA ^TǀC 15:20, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you quoted two sources. But other sources (I mentioned some also from the early years 2018/19) were much more positive, especially the picture and video quality was often found even better than the DJI Mavic, with which the ANAFI was often compared these days.

Today after 7 years its not easy to say, which of the problems you citated from the point in time Juli 2018 was solved when and by which firmware/software update.

If you are interested in the development of the drone regarding software/firmware, I have the total Parrot Release Notes from 07/2018 (V1.0.1) to 10/2021 (V1.8.2, last version), which mentions each fixed or improved item.

In the end of the drone's life (2021..23), there were very few comments about a bad video/picture quality in forums and I didn't hear of image noise or HDR problems.

I don't think, that I can provide reliable test reports that are focussed on the question, which of the single problems of mid 2018 was solved when and by which measure. I think, such reports simply don't exist, because technical reports often describe new products once, but don't update them during the lifespan of a product even if there are important improvements.

The only thing I know is:

The ANAFI wasn't that bad that it should be remembered in Wikipedia mainly as:

a) ... suffered from numerous problems

b) ... video "looks pretty terrible" and was "more or less unusable"

c) ... would lose control and crash if a person put their hand under the proximity sensor mid-flight

d) ...

That's not the drone I know since 2018 and is a wrong obituary. ~2026-28775-21 (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

We rely on reliable sources to determine what information is noteworthy. It is an objective, well documented fact that the Anafi suffered from numerous problems at launch. Yes, this is more or less normal for new products, but such serious problems with numerous key features is noteworthy. Again, if you have reliable sources that confirm that the problems were fixed with firmware updates, then please provide them. Your personal experience does not meet out standards for verifiability, and I doubt technical patch notes would be enough to say that the "more or less unusable" video issue (among its other problems) was fixed. If no reliable sources exist that confirm that the problems were fixed, then there's nothing we can do about it here.

On a side note, can you please provide links to any sources you are referring to? - ZLEA ^TǀC 22:35, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Of course reliable sources are very important and the base of Wikipedia, I fully agree!

I think, for the single articles the respective author isn't only responsible for using reliable sources, but also for the SELECTION of sources that give a representative overview over the article's matter.

Some reliable sources (no special order):

https://www.drohnen.de/19237/parrot-anafi-test/

https://www.chip.de/test/Parrot-Anafi-4K-HDR-Drohne_141683614.html

https://www.techradar.com/reviews/parrot-anafi-review

https://www.heise.de/bestenlisten/testbericht/parrot-anafi-im-test-leise-und-kompakte-4k-drohne/9h0nw7m (TechStage)

https://www.test.de/Drohnen-im-Test-5253733-detail/310000018440!SW09/

https://www.cameralabs.com/parrot-anafi-review/2/

https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/2/17523830/parrot-anafi-drone-review-price-specs (you quoted this source)

https://www.wired.com/review/parrot-anafi-4k-hdr-drone/ (you quoted this source)

https://www.pcwelt.de/article/1172448/parrot-anafi-im-test-gute-drohne-mit-no-gos.html

https://drone-traveller.com/parrot-anafi-4k-drone/

https://www.drohne-check.de/parrot-anafi-drone-ultra-kompakter-quadrocopter-mit-4k-kamera/

I can provide more information about the development of the 1st Anafi, if necessary and if you like. ~2026-29096-17 (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The fact that some reviewers did not mention the problems others found does not mean that said issues were negligible or that we are giving WP:UNDUE weight to them. It just means that those reviewers tested the product under different parameters. That said, if you would like to propose more positively-received features to highlight in the article, please feel free to do so.

I can provide more information about the development of the 1st Anafi, if necessary and if you like. So long as it is supported by reliable secondary sources, that would be great. - ZLEA ^TǀC 20:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Again the weighting and prominent role of the two sources you quoted from isn't representative for the 1st Anafi as you see in the other sources I've listed. Especially this article is not balanced regarding four aspects:

1. Talking about software/firmware, a balanced report would include the development (positive/negative) over the drone's lifetime.

2. Talking about hardware, it would be essential to highlight the single problems and explain the role of those problems for the usability of the drone.

3. If you look at your article, the 1st Anafi is the ONLY drone, whose "quality" was mentioned (in an only negative way). ALL other drones are only described with their technical data and a few other known infos. Where are possible problems regarding e.g. the Anafi Ai mentioned? I read about some in forums like the Parrot Pilots Drone Forum.

4. The main picture in this article shows the Anafi Ai (2021), below the date "2018 ...". Below the Ai the 1st Anafi is shown. I would exchange the two pictures, because the Parrot Anafi (2018 ...) should be the main picture of the Wikipedia article Parrot Anafi.

I'm thinking about rewriting the consumer Anafi part, but that would be a longer and detailed text, actually not fitting to a C-Class article. But if you plan to improve the other drones descriptions, I would take the 1st Anafi part. ~2026-30469-34 (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

1. Talking about software/firmware, a balanced report would include the development (positive/negative) over the drone's lifetime. If that can be done with the reliable sources available to us, then we absolutely should do that. However, I did not see any such sources when I wrote the article, nor do any of the sources you provided cover such a timeline.

2. Talking about hardware, it would be essential to highlight the single problems and explain the role of those problems for the usability of the drone. To the extent that they are covered by reliable sources, I believe this has already been done.

3. If you look at your article, the 1st Anafi is the ONLY drone, whose "quality" was mentioned (in an only negative way). ALL other drones are only described with their technical data and a few other known infos. Where are possible problems regarding e.g. the Anafi Ai mentioned? I read about some in forums like the Parrot Pilots Drone Forum. First of all, it's not "my article". Just because I created it doesn't mean I or any other user owns it. Second, forums are user-generated content and therefore do not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards in a vast majority of cases. If you want to cover problems with later models, then you would have to find actual reliable sources covering them.

4. The main picture in this article shows the Anafi Ai (2021), below the date "2018 ...". Below the Ai the 1st Anafi is shown. I would exchange the two pictures, because the Parrot Anafi (2018 ...) should be the main picture of the Wikipedia article Parrot Anafi. In-flight photos with non-distracting backgrounds are preferred for aircraft articles. There are currently only three photos in the category for the original Anafi variant, none of which are better than the current photo. The only other in-flight Anafi photos of somewhat reasonable quality are this overexposed Anafi Ai photo with a distracting background, this Anafi USA photo with low contrast with the background, and this Anafi USA photo with very poor color grading.

If you want to propose a rewrite of the article, then feel free to do so. However, given that you seem to be giving personal experience and forums equal or greater weight to actual reliable sources, I suggest you write your proposed changes to your sandbox first so others can verify that the sources you use are actually reliable and your content accurately reflects them before posting it to the article. - ZLEA ^TǀC 20:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)