4 ms·
And this is probably because Canon corporate won't justify a budget for developing this software unless they expect separate revenue for it, even though it's cl
by veltas 2y ago
And this is probably because Canon corporate won't justify a budget for developing this software unless they expect separate revenue for it, even though it's clearly just value-add to the (already very expensive) hardware.
- tobyhinloopen 2y agoBit of a weird argument considering you can use other brand cameras as webcams without any third party software. At least, all my Sony cameras can just be plugged in using USB and it works immediately. No drivers required.
- franga2000 2y agoAre you sure? The article talks about using it as a webcam and none of the Sony gear I've used supports that (A6500, A7 I/RI/II/SII/III/RIII/SIII). They did make the "Imaging Edge Webcam" program, I think some time during the pandemic, but AFAIK it's just a PTP preview to webcam driver, so the quality is pretty terrible and you can do that with OBS+gphoto2.
- tobyhinloopen 2y agoA7RV + A6700 here. If you plug in a USB cable, it shows the usual "usb selection screen", but it includes a "USB streaming" option. It works immediately, flawlessly, on windows and macOS. For remote shooting, there's still the "PC remote" option. My older Sony cameras (A6300 is my newest "old" Sony camera) don't have the feature (unless you use that terrible software you mentioned) Im surprised to read that even the reasonably modern A7SIII doesn't support it. It must be one of the last models without USB streaming support.
- josephg 2y agoFellow Sony a7iv owner here. I can confirm this works on my camera too. For older cameras, probably the easiest way to do it (if you don't want to install anything) is to pick up a ~$20 usb HDMI capture card from amazon. Connect the HDMI output on the camera to the capture card. And then set your camera up to output a "clean" video source via the HDMI port. As I understand it, modern capture cards work without drivers on every OS, just like the modern sony cameras do.
- h1fra 2y agobut the software has already been built so the budget was still found somehow. My gut feeling is that it's mostly useful for streamers, and some of them have big budgets so they went for a high price
- ta1243 2y agoThe development was presumably funded off the back of expected revenue. For your "streamer" stuff, I'd expect them to use something appropiate to the job - something connecting direct to a network outputting NDI, or something with SDI output.
- swiftcoder 2y ago> For your "streamer" stuff, I'd expect them to use something appropiate to the job They mostly don't, though. The standard "high-end" streaming setup is whatever second-hand mirrorless camera has a clear HDMI output, and an HDMI capture card.
- snacksmcgee 2y agoThis is because this behavior is simply not illegal, and companies can get away with it.
- wat10000 2y agoIt reminds me a little of the time Apple charged $2 for a WiFi driver update, claiming some accounting rule said they couldn’t distribute it for free. I guess they figured out a better way to do the accounting, since they never did that particular stunt again.
- Gormo 2y agoBut it sounds like Canon actually invested extra development time to create crippled firmware that deviates from industry standards.