Drone or glider? What to choose for your aerial shots

Let's discover the main differences between these two
tools for aerial photography.

More and more professions now find equipment for aerial photography and filming important or even indispensable.
Without going over again the specifics of each profession involved in this activity, let us remember that not only photographers, but also and above all surveyors, engineers, archaeologists, administrative bodies and agronomists are increasing the demand for equipment or services related to shooting from above.

Fortunately, the supply of tools suited to this purpose is growing in parallel (although at a slower pace), and technology offers ever more intuitive, manageable materials and equipment within reach of many, albeit with the awareness that great care and responsibility are needed when using them.
As in the case of multicopter drones. These are not the only tools suited to aerial filming and surveys from above; among the "rival" or, if you like, auxiliary tools, we also find gliders (also drones, but fixed-wing).

Let's look together at the main differences between these two new princes of the skies.

Duration of each single operation

The winners in this first comparison are the gliders, since with them it is possible to map a large area without having to constantly change batteries, thanks to their long flight endurance (over 40 minutes). The endurance of multicopters, whose batteries need to be changed more often, drops instead below 30 minutes.

Maneuverability

As for the ability to maneuver, move and decide the position of our aircraft, drones offer a wider range of possibilities. For example, with a glider it is not possible to hover over a point to film a subject (a building, a church, a detail) because of the very shape of the glider, which stays airborne precisely thanks to constant movement through the air.
Landing is also easier with a multicopter, which is content with small, delimited and confined spaces, while a flying wing needs a larger landing area.
Shooting footage is also generally slightly more difficult, compared to the greater potential of a traditional multicopter.

Costs

Where the flying wing regains ground is on costs. The difference is due to the fewer components on board, which greatly lower the price. And of course the economic advantage also carries over to maintenance, because the smaller number of components to replace affects the final cost.

Although these are tools that in the future will be a must in the work kit of photographers, surveyors and more, the choice is not easy.
And you, which of the two would you choose?