3 ms·

This is not a "mirrorless camera sensor", at least how it's meant to be interpreted. While technically mirrorless like all webcams, the sensor is under a quarte

This is not a "mirrorless camera sensor", at least how it's meant to be interpreted. While technically mirrorless like all webcams, the sensor is under a quarter of the area of the smallest Sony mirrorless intechangeable-lens cameras.

beAbU 3y ago
By their definition my phone camera also qualifies as mirrorless.
- seanp2k2 3y ago
  it's like yeah there's no mirror that flips up to expose the sensor because there's no optical through-the-lens viewfinder either...which is what the mirror was for in the first place... Seems like a cool idea though, but it seems like it could be done even better: get an iPhone 15 Pro Max sensor and put it behind an actual quality glass lens, then add in the beam-forming mic array stuff and MAKE IT A NORMAL CLASS-COMPLIANT WEBCAM, which unlike the C1, the Tadpole is from what I understand.
Chilko 3y ago
Agreed, the line "WITH AN F1.8 LENS LETTING IN AS MUCH LIGHT AS A PROFESSIONAL CAMERA" is also quite misleading when using a much smaller sensor size.
- rubatuga 3y ago
  What a scam.
wmf 3y ago
They call their other webcam "DSLR quality" so at least they're consistent in their exaggeration.
rfwhyte 3y ago
Came to say basically the same thing. Not to mention they also refer to their F1.8 "Glass" when their own technical specs list the lens elements as plastic. It's basically a $10 sensor, a $5 mic, $5 of miscellaneous plastic and circuitry, and yet they want $175 for what? I might have given all their typical startup BS and hyperbole a pass if it was like $79 or something reasonable, but at $175 it just seems like a scam.
- j45 3y ago
  I’d love to learn how to build one of my own from you since it’s that easy? The form factor here is ideal. Also unclear if it’s 4K (can help with brightness in less than ideal lighting. My understanding is the same components still have to be driven well to work together by custom software for high quality?
  - jfim 3y ago
    It's 1080p. From the specs > Resolution 48MP binned to 1080P
    - LoganDark 3y ago
      That's ridiculous. 48MP should be capable of at least 4K video. Are their yields still not high enough at 4K even if they're charging an order of magnitude more than what the components actually cost?
      - tw04 3y ago
        They don’t have any yields. This is an off the shelf Sony sensor and they chose the cheaper binned part. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmor
        LoganDark 3y ago
        (Non-mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmor) Ah, so they only care about money. Perfect. Also hilarious that they say it's "binned" to 1080p when they're actually only getting the rejects that weren't good enough for 4K! Way to be technically correct, Opal.
hypercube33 3y ago
Technically Sonys current smallest decent mirrorless is apsc and I guess the 1" family (25mm) rx100 cameras could count as mirrorless if you bend things...and this webcam rocks a sensor half that size.

beAbU 3y ago

By their definition my phone camera also qualifies as mirrorless.

seanp2k2 3y ago
it's like yeah there's no mirror that flips up to expose the sensor because there's no optical through-the-lens viewfinder either...which is what the mirror was for in the first place... Seems like a cool idea though, but it seems like it could be done even better: get an iPhone 15 Pro Max sensor and put it behind an actual quality glass lens, then add in the beam-forming mic array stuff and MAKE IT A NORMAL CLASS-COMPLIANT WEBCAM, which unlike the C1, the Tadpole is from what I understand.

Chilko 3y ago

Agreed, the line "WITH AN F1.8 LENS LETTING IN AS MUCH LIGHT AS A PROFESSIONAL CAMERA" is also quite misleading when using a much smaller sensor size.

rubatuga 3y ago
What a scam.

wmf 3y ago

They call their other webcam "DSLR quality" so at least they're consistent in their exaggeration.

rfwhyte 3y ago

Came to say basically the same thing. Not to mention they also refer to their F1.8 "Glass" when their own technical specs list the lens elements as plastic. It's basically a $10 sensor, a $5 mic, $5 of miscellaneous plastic and circuitry, and yet they want $175 for what? I might have given all their typical startup BS and hyperbole a pass if it was like $79 or something reasonable, but at $175 it just seems like a scam.

j45 3y ago
I’d love to learn how to build one of my own from you since it’s that easy? The form factor here is ideal. Also unclear if it’s 4K (can help with brightness in less than ideal lighting. My understanding is the same components still have to be driven well to work together by custom software for high quality?
- jfim 3y ago
  It's 1080p. From the specs > Resolution 48MP binned to 1080P
  - LoganDark 3y ago
    That's ridiculous. 48MP should be capable of at least 4K video. Are their yields still not high enough at 4K even if they're charging an order of magnitude more than what the components actually cost?
    - tw04 3y ago
      They don’t have any yields. This is an off the shelf Sony sensor and they chose the cheaper binned part. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmor
      - LoganDark 3y ago
        (Non-mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmor) Ah, so they only care about money. Perfect. Also hilarious that they say it's "binned" to 1080p when they're actually only getting the rejects that weren't good enough for 4K! Way to be technically correct, Opal.

hypercube33 3y ago

Technically Sonys current smallest decent mirrorless is apsc and I guess the 1" family (25mm) rx100 cameras could count as mirrorless if you bend things...and this webcam rocks a sensor half that size.