Canon Software Solutions - EOS Cameras as a webcam

egproductions said:
Canon has finally released software to allow using some of their EOS cameras as a webcam (no doubt because now that they see how it could help sales).

I'm only a little bit sour about it because I waited so long for my ATEM Mini to arrive (obviosuly not the same thing but still stings a little)

https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-software-solution-allows-select-eos-interchangeable-lens-cameras-to-function-as-high-quality-usb-webcam/
Click to expand...

PC only sours me. I don't use PCs, have been Mac only since the early 2000s. Maybe it'll come soon?
 
seriously, PC only? the biggest camera company in the world and they couldn't figure out how to make it work on a mac?
 
It's a product developed mostly for corporate and Windows is corporate.

(I know there are plenty of businesses/companies with all Macs - especially from the younger generation/startups - but the majority of computers in corporate settings are from Microsoft.)

Mac support should eventually come.
 
NorBro said:
It's a product developed mostly for corporate and Windows is corporate.

(I know there are plenty of businesses/companies with all Macs - especially from the younger generation/startups - but the majority of computers in corporate settings are from Microsoft.)

Mac support should eventually come.
Click to expand...

How do you consider Canon EOS cameras more of a corporate tool vs the artistic community it is actually designed and marketed to?
 
Re-read the posts above. Question is about the software's OS support.

Obviously this was a product developed/pushed ahead because of the time we are in and it's catered to the work environment, not the artistic community.

The cameras themselves are for anyone.
 
NorBro said:
Re-read the posts above. Question is about the software's OS support.

Obviously this was a product developed/pushed ahead because of the time we are in and it's catered to the work environment, not the artistic community.

The cameras themselves are for anyone.
Click to expand...

Yes but no white collar office environment is going to buy a $500 to $3,000 DSLR to use as a webcam when a $50 to $100 webcam with no confusing features to fart around with will do the job. Non tech people already can't figure out how to use Skype/Zoom/Teams when it does 95% of the work for them. There is absolutely no way this was meant for corporate use. It was meant for creatives that already have a EOS camera or want an EOS camera and would love to use it as a better looking webcam for professional live webcasts. 99% of users don't give a crap how their video conferencing camera looks and are more interested in features like adding a silly face or virtual background like the Death Star throne room.

I use a BMD Intensity to feed my GH4 into my computer to use it as a webcam because I do care about quality and I want to position the camera to get closeups of my hands or other things I want to demonstrate to people.
 
Also professional video conferencing gear is backordered months. Its getting very difficult to find gear to get a professional camera into a computer to use for a live webcast. Canon adding this feature solves a problem and gives an instant solution for EOS owners which is huge. Kind of jealous and wish Panasonic would do the same thing.

I use OBS to do live switched webcasts and it would be so awesome to not have to fart around with capture cards or clunky apps on mobile devices to use them as sources for a webcast.
 
Professional webcasting is on the rise right now as many video producers are stuck at home with no gigs and media professionals and personalities are doing webcasts from their homes. Churches all over the country desperate to keep pulling in money also suddenly found themselves in a situation where they needed to quickly setup live video streaming for services. Churches are a large reason why webcams, and video streaming gear is backordered for months. Canon adding this features allows customers like churches the option to use just the cameras they were going to need to buy anyway with OBS and no other gear needed. This is a huge for those suddenly forced into an online live video environment.
 
You have to think about it more as a businessman vs. a creative individual.

You're for the creative which makes sense, but it's too simple-minded.

This is a new business endeavor Canon is hoping will be used by companies as they forecast the future.

The very first line of their press release addresses the purpose:

"As virtual meetings and gatherings become the new norm..."

Also:

"Our goal is that the EOS Webcam Utility Beta software can help reduce some of the remote workday stress for employees who are tasked with video conferencing and virtual meetings."

___

Come on now..

It's of course also for the creative professionals; that is obvious. How could it not be? But these people also have existing solutions since this development is about 10 years too late.

Every product from a technology company is made in mind to sell another one of their creations.

Do I expect corporate people to purchase a Canon camera for this purpose? Yes and no. Yes, someone in the company will. No, because many probably already own one since the list consists of multiple models that are $200, $300, etc.

Many companies have positions in which individuals are tasked to order electronic equipment. Things we don't see online. Bulk orders.

Think about the money. They want to sell more cameras. Expand horizons.
 
NorBro said:
You have to think about it more as a businessman vs. a creative individual.

You're for the creative which makes sense, but it's too simple-minded.

This is a new business endeavor Canon is hoping will be used by companies as they forecast the future.

The very first line of their press release addresses the purpose:

"As virtual meetings and gatherings become the new norm..."

Also:

"Our goal is that the EOS Webcam Utility Beta software can help reduce some of the remote workday stress for employees who are tasked with video conferencing and virtual meetings."

___

Come on now..

It's of course also for the creative professionals; that is obvious. How could it not be? But these people also have existing solutions since this development is about 10 years too late.

Every product from a technology company is made in mind to sell another one of their creations.

Do I expect corporate people to purchase a Canon camera for this purpose? Yes and no. Yes, someone in the company will. No, because many probably already own one since the list consists of multiple models that are $200, $300, etc.

Many companies have positions in which individuals are tasked to order electronic equipment. Things we don't see online. Bulk orders.

Think about the money. They want to sell more cameras. Expand horizons.
Click to expand...

Virtual meetings yes but that isn't exclusive to white collar companies. Photographers and video professionals are also forced to do virtual meetings right now. In fact they likely have been doing so for some time. There are a ton of reasons to do video conferencing that don't have to be intended for banks and insurance companies.

Yes someone will be involved in purchasing gear but this is also about simplicity as well as cost. If employees don't already have laptops with built in webcams then it makes about 1000x more sense to get a webcam that clips onto a computer or monitor vs a Canon DSLR which then needs a mini tripod and all the effort to mess around with setting that up. end users want simple solutions.

There is nothing in that press release that indicates this is for corporate America. Sure some white collar employees that have a Canon camera will be like hey I can make this look so much better and will love to do it because they want to look really good but I just don't see that as the main intended market.

“Our goal is that the EOS Webcam Utility Beta software can help reduce some of the remote workday stress for employees who are tasked with video conferencing and virtual meetings.” This line doesn't even make sense. How is suddenly using a more complicated camera on a tripod that has to be positioned just right getting rid of stress? I have worked in corporate environments for a long time and very few people will want this for that purpose. I love DSLRS and I would never use for for everyday meetings. It just adds too much effort to the process vs using my FaceTime camera exactly where it should be, right in front of my face. Even during this pandemic no employee working from home wished they looked better during a virtual meeting. I have done remote video, UX design and software development work with clients for decades and never once did any of them desire to use a pro camera for virtual meetings.

Now a photographer, graphic designer, marketing exec, sales person or whatever that wants to give the best impression might be into this and its cool if thats what they want to do but there is absolutely no way the average corporate employee is going to do this when they don't care about quality at all. In fact many of those online meetings can be audio only and they are completely waiting bandwidth with people sitting in front of windows or sticking in virtual backdrops of a beach just to look funny. It is those that want to look better and care about looking better and turning virtual meetings into more of a production where this matters.
 
We're on different wavelengths and have different understandings and experiences of life (& corporate/society) and just going to have to disagree.

It's all good either way and I hope Panasonic releases similar software for your GH4.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Virtual meetings yes but that isn't exclusive to white collar companies. Photographers and video professionals are also forced to do virtual meetings right now. In fact they likely have been doing so for some time. There are a ton of reasons to do video conferencing that don't have to be intended for banks and insurance companies.

Yes someone will be involved in purchasing gear but this is also about simplicity as well as cost. If employees don't already have laptops with built in webcams then it makes about 1000x more sense to get a webcam that clips onto a computer or monitor vs a Canon DSLR which then needs a mini tripod and all the effort to mess around with setting that up. end users want simple solutions.

There is nothing in that press release that indicates this is for corporate America. Sure some white collar employees that have a Canon camera will be like hey I can make this look so much better and will love to do it because they want to look really good but I just don't see that as the main intended market.

“Our goal is that the EOS Webcam Utility Beta software can help reduce some of the remote workday stress for employees who are tasked with video conferencing and virtual meetings.” This line doesn't even make sense. How is suddenly using a more complicated camera on a tripod that has to be positioned just right getting rid of stress? I have worked in corporate environments for a long time and very few people will want this for that purpose. I love DSLRS and I would never use for for everyday meetings. It just adds too much effort to the process vs using my FaceTime camera exactly where it should be, right in front of my face. Even during this pandemic no employee working from home wished they looked better during a virtual meeting. I have done remote video, UX design and software development work with clients for decades and never once did any of them desire to use a pro camera for virtual meetings.

Now a photographer, graphic designer, marketing exec, sales person or whatever that wants to give the best impression might be into this and its cool if thats what they want to do but there is absolutely no way the average corporate employee is going to do this when they don't care about quality at all. In fact many of those online meetings can be audio only and they are completely waiting bandwidth with people sitting in front of windows or sticking in virtual backdrops of a beach just to look funny. It is those that want to look better and care about looking better and turning virtual meetings into more of a production where this matters.
Click to expand...


Buddy of mine showed me a video post from a still photographer around here that did some "remote shooting". He was at his house or office and a model was somewhere else(her house?) and the stills cam was hooked up to the computer/internet and he could see the live view. She'd place the cam somewhere and then he'd direct her for the pose and remotely trigger the shutter. I didn't see any strobes or obvious additional artificial lighting. From what I could tell, she was framing the shots and choosing the background herself and the cam was in auto. It's another step to "us" being completely irrelevant, professionally.
 
laverdir said:
So, noone in video/film forum is bothered that this solution is targeted to stills cameras only?
Click to expand...

I understand your frustration. I don't own Canon anything, so I don't have a reason to care at this time.

What kind of bothers me, is that these cameras can't add face filters like cellphones can. Get this nice camera, but you will look worse than if you stream with your phone for many people. They should have subtle face filters for teleconferencing and journalism. Dedicated camera world is starting to fall behind in that regard.
 
Tamerlin said:
My condolences ;)
Click to expand...

I would guesstimate that stress from PC issues with manufacturers blaming MS, MS blaming the manufacturers and the hardware/software makers blaming both lost me at least net 5-8 years off of my life expectancy in the late 90s.
We had a PC based DAW called Soundscape at my Audio Post facility that was brilliant but it only ran on Windows and at the time, Windows 95, then 98, was a crashy, bug infested, Kludgy mess. I've still never forgiven Windows for so much frustration, crashing, incompatibility
and blown customer deadlines.

Mac is not that great either but it's a hell of a lot easier to make things actually work. I worked for a Swedish business consultancy 2010-2013, was issued the standard Windoze laptop. I sent it back after two weeks and my boss and I
tried to survive with Parallels, which worked fine for most, but not all of the PC programs we used. We were the sole two Mac users out of 450 employees, had no IT support and still made it work because we both hated trying to get actual work done with PCs and Windoze.
I tried modern era Windoze and still spit the bit out, I couldn't take the non-logic in how it worked. I don't think PCs are bad at all, I work with an amazing motion graphics designer who is PC only and my latest partnership my company just signed is with a live stream company and we use
Livestream Studio (PC only) and Vmix Studio and Vmix Call, both PC only. I endure it but with both of those programs, I can just click the program and I no longer have to deal with the Windoze OS, just the interface for the program.

For writing and editing for me though, it has to be Mac, it's the only OS that makes any sense to me. I don't hate Windoze, I just don't want to have to endure it. But I can peacefully moonlight with it for certain things. But here I am, TDing live streams with a home built high end PC box.
 
puredrifting said:
I would guesstimate that stress from PC issues with manufacturers blaming MS, MS blaming the manufacturers and the hardware/software makers blaming both lost me at least net 5-8 years off of my life expectancy in the late 90s.
We had a PC based DAW called Soundscape at my Audio Post facility that was brilliant but it only ran on Windows and at the time, Windows 95, then 98, was a crashy, bug infested, Kludgy mess. I've still never forgiven Windows for so much frustration, crashing, incompatibility
and blown customer deadlines.

Mac is not that great either but it's a hell of a lot easier to make things actually work. I worked for a Swedish business consultancy 2010-2013, was issued the standard Windoze laptop. I sent it back after two weeks and my boss and I
tried to survive with Parallels, which worked fine for most, but not all of the PC programs we used. We were the sole two Mac users out of 450 employees, had no IT support and still made it work because we both hated trying to get actual work done with PCs and Windoze.
I tried modern era Windoze and still spit the bit out, I couldn't take the non-logic in how it worked. I don't think PCs are bad at all, I work with an amazing motion graphics designer who is PC only and my latest partnership my company just signed is with a live stream company and we use
Livestream Studio (PC only) and Vmix Studio and Vmix Call, both PC only. I endure it but with both of those programs, I can just click the program and I no longer have to deal with the Windoze OS, just the interface for the program.

For writing and editing for me though, it has to be Mac, it's the only OS that makes any sense to me. I don't hate Windoze, I just don't want to have to endure it. But I can peacefully moonlight with it for certain things. But here I am, TDing live streams with a home built high end PC box.
Click to expand...

It's not that the actual computes are bad, it's Windows the operating system that sucks big, greasy dirty donkey c o c k. I ran windows from 1998 until maybe 2009. I bought my Mom a laptop several years ago(2016-17?) just so she could surf the internet at my Grandmothers house when she went over there. I was going to buy here another Mac, but I could get her a windows laptop for a few hundred bucks. Less than I could even get her an iPad for. Originally it was JUST so she could surf the 'net. She actually ended up using it for work. I HATE it every time I have to do something for her on that computer. Jesus. The devil himself could not have come up with anything more sadistic than Windows OS. I think receiving a circumcision as a full grown adult would be easier and more enjoyable than using Windows. I don't care how much computing power and speed you can get vs. $ compared to a Mac computing power and speed vs. $, I'll take Mac every single day and twice on Sunday.
 
puredrifting said:
I would guesstimate that stress from PC issues with manufacturers blaming MS, MS blaming the manufacturers and the hardware/software makers blaming both lost me at least net 5-8 years off of my life expectancy in the late 90s.
Click to expand...

I moved to NT pretty early on... saved me a lot of stress. But I moved to NT from Linux.

Mac is not that great either but it's a hell of a lot easier to make things actually work.
Click to expand...

I like the OS, but I also had a lot of fun laughing at people who one hand proclaimed the "it just works!" mantra while on another thread complaining about things that didn't work on their overpriced and underpowered macs. :)

Things got a lot better after the transition to OSX when Apple finally abandoned that crapfest that preceded it.

For writing and editing for me though, it has to be Mac, it's the only OS that makes any sense to me. I don't hate Windoze, I just don't want to have to endure it. But I can peacefully moonlight with it for certain things. But here I am, TDing live streams with a home built high end PC box.
Click to expand...

I went back and forth for a while. I just got tired of the mediocrity of the hardware, and especially now when I have a laptop with two rather nice screens and a whole lot of horsepower under the hood... and it still looks nice ;)

But once open up an application like Scrath or Resolve, the OS ceases to matter, so I don't care anymore.

I'm still not a Windows fan, but until Apple starts competing again, it's not worth it for me. But then I shoot mostly in 8K so I need the horsepower for color and finishing so...
 
If DVXUser was really concerned with "keeping the peace", they wouldn't waste their time worrying about "political talk", they'd ban Windows vs Mac debates, because they get WAY more heated than anything related to politics. Lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top