Drone vs Satellite - Which is better?

As a drone operator, I often get asked, "Why not just use satellite imagery?" The answer varies depending on the end use case of the data and may not always favor drones.    

Both methods have their strengths and weaknesses. Deciding what is best for your application depends on three main factors: cost/resolution, time required to obtain images, and the area that needs to be covered. Other considerations, such as file size and accuracy, will be addressed in a future article. For now, let's focus on the primary factors.

If you need to capture an area of 1000 hectares with a resolution of 10cm per pixel, satellite imagery will generally be more cost-effective. However, if you require the same area at a resolution of 3cm per pixel, drone capture becomes less expensive. Additionally, satellite imagery often requires a minimum area, which means you may pay for more coverage than needed, whereas drones can specifically target the desired area.

Drone capture 3cm/per pixel

The cost of a satellite pass depends on the urgency and the number of passes required, which helps mitigate cloud cover issues inherent to satellite capture. The sooner you need the imagery, the higher the cost. However, satellites can cover large areas quickly. Drones are typically faster to deploy, unaffected by clouds (though they have other weather constraints like wind), and usually only need one flight over the area.

Google Earth

For large areas, satellites have the advantage but may require multiple passes due to cloud cover, resulting in extensive over-capture. Drones, being more targeted and operating below clouds, often only need a single pass.

Ultimately, if larger areas at lower resolutions are needed and time sensitivity is not a concern, satellite imagery may be preferable. Conversely, if high-resolution images are required quickly, drones are more advantageous.