Nikon Will Let You Use Its Cameras as High-End Webcams (engadget.com) 65
Nikon has at last released software that turns your fancy DSLR or mirrorless camera into a high-end webcam. From a report: Other major camera makers have rolled out similar tools in the last several months, as video calls became much more prevalent amid stay-at-home measures to combat COVID-19. The free Webcam Utility Software is available in beta for both Windows 10 and macOS. Along with video conference calls, Nikon suggests you can use a mirrorless camera or DLSR for livestreaming as well, just in case you've had designs on becoming a Twitch superstar.
Well isn't that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I say fucking finally, this should have been a thing for cameras already. Webcams almost universally suck ass.
Nobody is going to want to leave their high-end camera in place as a webcam, but the idea is to give your old camera a valuable use. Used camera gear typically sells for almost nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have an older thing around. Or you have an actual "high-end" camera which you wouldn't relegate to such chores (why is another matter), which I assume means a $4k or more expensive rig; at least the $2k range seems par for the course for full frame dSLR and mirrorless cameras. But you can go hunt and find eg. the Alpha a7ii now for a grand in a kit, and its kit lens is good enough, or grab a $200 fixed focus lens if you often need to use it in low light and don't have a good lighting setup. I wouldn'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Leave in place? No. But I'm not out taking photographs while I'm in a video conference, so..
Invites conversation w/ coworkers about camera (Score:2)
I have small kids and take pictures daily, but admittedly, if I didn't have of
This is not exactly new (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is whether it provides usable resolution or, as Canon's offering does, provides significantly lower resolution than the webcam built into any Mac built in the past decade. Unfortunately, from what I've read, it's the latter. Neither manufacturer is sending proper compressed MPEG out the wire, instead sending out M-JPEG, which limits their maximum resolution pretty dramatically. And they are apparently not bothering to crank the resolution up even on hardware with USB 3.0 ports. :-(
You can go
Re: (Score:3)
That's so much crap, why don't you go buy a box to mount it all in?
You could, I dunno, call it a "desktop case"!
--.--
Re: (Score:2)
???
A USB input dongle can't be put inside a computer realistically, nor can the HDMI cable that you use to connect it to your camera, nor the adapter that you use on the far end of the cable to plug the HDMI cable into the camera.
Not sure what you'd put in the box.
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring to the "a dongle, [...] mini-HDMI to HDMI adapter, and [...] HDMI cable".
It was more of a genral jab at how "modern" systems are like PCs without the case. So "neat" and "minimalist" that ypu need an entire crate full of dongles and cables and wall warts and hubs and adapters and most of all external devices and toola to get the damn cars out to carry along with you, just so you xan use it nomally.
Your case was actually not that bad, I agree.
It was right at the start of the slippery slope. ;
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> No one wants to use their nice dSLR as a webcam
Why? What's fundamentally different among various uses? Are webcam transmissions for eg. work use or chatting with friends in a non-sucky way inherently less worthy than the shitty photos one entertains other family members with?
Of course, the need isn't directly to use a dSLR, or for that matter, a mirrorless camera—the need is, good image in various lights incl. low light; bokeh for the background; a certain focal length to allow a combination of d
Re: (Score:2)
Camera makers suck and make it tedious. They should sell kits with power adaptor, all cables, decent (!) dismountable mic etc. and with software that even runs on Catalina, which has been out for more than a year (looking at you, Sony) or runs on OS X or whatever you run—afterall, webcam makers could mostly figure out how to support multiple OSes.
It's downright trivial. You just make your USB firmware be UVC class compliant, and you're done. It will work out of the box with any computer out there without any drivers or special software (all the way back to Windows XP, Mac OS X 10.4, etc., ostensibly, though if you want higher quality over limited bandwidth, it's probably better to support v1.5 and H.264, which is only supported back to Windows 8 and Mac OS X v10.7, I think).
Manufacturers still using their own protocols and custom drivers are a cou
Why is this new? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean you couldn't before? Why not?
Maybe because you owned a Nikon, not a Canon or Sony dSLR or in some cases a P which introduced software around May letting you use them as a webcam.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Weird, is it officially unsupported? My M50 works perfectly fine, and, IIRC, even my ancient 550D worked as well when I tried it in May or whenever that was.
Re: (Score:2)
It's on the list -> https://www.usa.canon.com/inte... [canon.com] - it does work. If it's not on the list - it still might work.
But I know from my own experience, you need to stop the Canon utility software from loading at startup, because that stops the webcam utility from working.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He means 10-years-ago-at-least "before"!
Re:Why is this new? (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean you couldn't before? Why not?
As others pointed out, you could do it with Canon or Sony cameras since the first wave, and with some software hacks from before that too if you really wanted.
To actually answer your quesiton, I think it's mostly because it wasn't really needed. A normal person wouldn't buy a $1000 camera to use as a webcam, or bother with the setup to chat with their grandma. And anyone who needed good quality could either get a specialized camera or just capture the HDMI output form the SLRs if they really wanted.
Also some technical reasons probably too, the older sensors weren't made for continuous operation and would tend to overheat. Batteries wouldn't last very long either. This is all much better nowadays so the rona gave them a kick in the butt to finally work on the driver hacks needed to get it working.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure about why overheating would apply: video camera functionality already required continuous operation. If cameras were limited to 30min recording, then it was likely due to different tax/duty treatment, which others mentioned, rather than a technical limitation, because nothing prevents starting any number of 30min recordings right after one another.
Also, if the video stream is not getting saved to the camera's SD card, but is just streamed, then the likely video compression is lighter weight, leadin
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure about why overheating would apply: video camera functionality already required continuous operation. /p>
My Canon T2i will 'overheat' during extended video recording and stop recording. This is more likely to happen during rapid motion. It's one of the first of the DSLRs that did video recording, so the encoding processor may be underpowered and unable to keep up. The 'overheating' dropout may be a generic term for a processor being overwhelmed.
Newer cameras, especially the mirrorless ones, don't seem to be affected by this problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, so the thermal limitation applies only when recording and perhaps not when it's just streaming. Also I didn't think of that vintage, apparently introduced in 2010, just half as old, around 2014-2016.
Re: (Score:2)
I also had a 550D (which I think is the same thing as T2i), and I'm pretty sure it's an actual sensor heat issue. Maybe I'm wrong but I seem to remember it becoming visibly noiser before eventually getting an error.
More recently yeah you're probably right, it's either a tax thing or a processor issue. Last gen Sony and famously current Canon mirrorless tended to overheat when recording video, but that usually doesn't apply if you use an external recorder to capture from HDMI.
Too many limitations (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, and the HDMI grabber device will also work with any operating system. Camera needs to be able to provide a clean HDMI out, of course. That said, "it's 2020" also means that with COVID-19 etc. the HDMI grabber devices won't be quite as "cheap" as they used to be the year before...
Re: (Score:2)
This software does not transmit audio, so it's not a full webcam replacement. Buying a cheap HDMI to USB dongle is much better, and will work on any camera that provides a clean HDMI output. And it's 2020, how come not every single camera in the market is not a plug&play webcam already and requires software/dongles?
Because it takes firmware engineering effort to make that happen, and there's not enough competition in the market to drive that sort of innovation. After all, nobody's lenses are compatible across brands, so there's very little lateral motion once you've bought into a system. Also, 99% of people just buy a $100 webcam if they want something better than what's in their laptop, and don't really care about image quality anyway.
What would change the equation? If Sigma changed their lenses to, rather than be
Re: (Score:2)
This.
I bought a $15 HDMI to USB dongle and use my 10 year old Sony camera as a webcam for my teacher wife's virtual classroom. The picture quality is vastly superior to the webcam on her school issued laptop PC. And with a cheap tripod, she can point it anywhere and it even works as a document camera.
Go to Best Buy and ask for a webcam. They'll laugh. All gone. And canning jars, for some reason.
Re: (Score:2)
How come a camera is not just one of the bodies you slide your mobile compute module deck in? (Think deck of cards like mainframe boards or PCIe cards, but the cards of various thicknesses are the SoC, battery, display, keyboard, storage, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
You mostly see the Yeti Blue or the Shure SM7B mics used by folks who stream while attempting to ooze professionalism via props. Often the apparent area of microphone plus arm is larger than the head of the person who talks. Professional!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing cheap in HDMI to USB. The Elgato Cam Link 4k (which you need to get even for 1080 as they no longer sell the original) is $129. Even this setup has quite a few frames of latency, and only part of the processing is on the thing; the other part is on the compute and it does suck a good amount of CPU. Also you may need to do tricks like 1080i instead of 1080p and even with tricks, many users report being unable to make their specific setup work, for no apparent reason. So buy it with the option
Re: (Score:2)
I bought a pair of the very cheap HDMI-USB dongle adaptors from Banggood ( $12 ) for my live-streaming repairs, have to say, I'm impressed. They do have some small artefacts sometimes but overall for the price you can't complain. Worked immediately with linux + OBS.
Re: (Score:2)
Footage from the other night, timestamp is where the Microscope camera is being used with the HDMI-USB adaptor.
https://youtu.be/pt6pj7el00U?t... [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Looks good, thanks!
Re: (Score:1)
No D70 support (Score:2)
Re: No D70 support (Score:2)
It still is. I believe the body has a motor and you can mount any Nikon f mount on it. The majority of images that I take from a 35mm FX are distributed at less than screen res. Unless you have dead pixels, do you need to replace it?
The only hesitation I have is that leaving the camera running for extended periods may damage the sensor.
It's not because of COVID (Score:5, Informative)
This silly distinction was dropped about a year ago, so the camera makers have slowly been rolling out firmware updates removing the video time limit.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool story. But one which has zero to do with "webcam" functionality which these cameras didn't have before or after the WTO changed their rules.
Will it work on my Nikon F? (Score:3)
I guess not.
Re: (Score:2)
It won't even work with my state of the art F6
Re: Will it work on my Nikon F? (Score:2)
Should work but you'll need development fluid and slide scanner. Would be the best virtual meeting.
Nah, you'll have to upgrade (Score:2)
to the FM2.
Have had that for years (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All you need is an HDMI converter, the terrible 30 minute timer (originating from ridiculous and ineffective camcorder taxes) is still there though
That's only when recording. In USB camera mode there is no limit. At least not on Canon's version of this same idea, which I've used for an hour nonstop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean by screen display elements? It's just the video in the Canon web software..
Re: (Score:1)
Is this not disable-able on all models? I changed a setting in my D7500 and it doesn't have any issues doing multi-hour streams.
Err don't bother (Score:2)
The DSLRs can't be powered over USB, and if you leave them in camera mode recording you can expect to have a flat battery before your morning check-in meeting is over.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, they do not support standard USB AC adapters like phones and modern laptops?
E.g. USB-C.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the mirrorless ones do but the gp specified the DSLRs. The current models still use mini-USB connections (not even micro-) and only for data out.
Re: (Score:2)
Hahahahaha. One would think. But nooo, you can buy eg. a "power adapter" for the Sony A7II which ends in a battery-shaped thingie :-) Costs a mere 80 bucks. Insert it, the cord will stick out of the bottom of the camera, so you have to raise the entire camera for it to remain level. Also, what a great usability, you want to grab your camera to go and shoot photos, you need to remove this jury-rigged contraption and insert the real battery. Which, by now, lost its charge as there's charge loss when it's outs
Re: (Score:2)
It varies by camera manufacturer.
My camera can run off the mains, so I don't need USB charging. I also have USB powered battery chargers for it, for when I'm off-grid.
As for staying level, you're going to have to put your camera on something to make it viable as a webcam anyway. I could use my tripod, or my mini tripod, or my micro tripod - they're all viable options and between them give me substantial flexibility. Putting the camera on a table wouldn't - I'd have to kneel in front of the table to be prope
Oh how grand of them! (Score:3)
It's a freakin normal OS! If they would not lock it down for thuggery reasons in the first place, this would be as easy as /dev/remote/nikonWebcam.socket
$ while nc -l | grep -q "^START"; do nc $pc
(plus setting that socket as the webcam device)
on the PC.
Read the fine print (Score:2)
It's mostly a shitshow. Looking at the major camera makers, including Canon, Nikon and Sony, there are all kinds of limitations. Often, the software isn't provided for OS X, or it is, but Catalina isn't supported (the current version for the last 1+ year, ie. 99.9% of MacBooks are on it) right, Sony? Or iirc. Canon transfers it with a resolution of like 500 rows. It's incredibly immature and for no justifiable reason, as optically and electronically much less equipped webcams could somehow do this already.
black bars? (Score:1)