> So far no one has, there must be a reason no one can.
I am reminded of the story of two economists walking down the street. One spots a $20 bill on the sidewalk points it out to the other, who says "Don't be ridiculous, if there really were a $20 bill on the ground someone would have picked it up by now."
Welcome to what camera makers realized a long time ago - film doesn't matter, the processing does.
It's why DSLR was (is?) a thing - if you ever do research on one, you realize they factor in quantum mechanical effects to make your picture better...(in addition to the 20 or so simultaneous images they take in order to parallel process image).
I haven't kept up as much but - the flat sensor craze was all about how we didn't need DSLR anymore and could just get away with large pixel counts and better processing, and yet the processing still matters...far more than the pixel count. I think that was mainly because 100+ mirror systems are a bit expensive compared to a single flat sensor.
But when you think about them as 100+ parallel processing sensors peforming low-power auto-computation _for-free_, well.
That's another thing entirely.
I do wonder why some DSLRs suck at video - I suspect it has to do with whethey the manufacture cheaped out on the compression circuitry or not - some cameras can/could should shoot HD video, a lot did not, leaving that the pricier models.
At that price point you're competing with a GoPro, which is likely as good or better at a lower price. All (or most?) current GoPros can be used as a webcam.
Actually I tried to do exactly this. Except the gopro webcam software straight up doesn't work and they don't plan on fixing it.
Its depressing really.
That would indeed put a dent in that plan :\ I suppose there are always DSLRs, as those are also sometimes in a similar price bracket (many recent ones can act as a webcam as well).
I gather support / fixes / etc have been rolling out rather slowly, have you tried it in the past few months? Or is it currently that unusable? I certainly wouldn't expect the software to be difficult to build, there are quite a few webcam-emulating projects out there... but then again this is a company's software rather than an interested hobbyist.
GoPro is too clunky to carry around for use with a laptop.
Meanwhile, sensor and lens from a smartphone camera can fit in a small enough form factor that it makes sense to carry it around alongside your laptop.
Almost all laptops have a camera already, crappy as they may be, they still work. I don’t think laptop users are a big market for webcams? Isn’t it more for desktops where you have the luxury of space and bulk?
Growing trend in a niche market I would suggest. I know people who have 2 laptops - one for gaming, one for work (with webcam etc). Because the gaming laptop is too bulky to carry around, it's effectively a desktop.
if you are a gamer, you don't use a laptop. Gaming laptops are great portable desktops effectively. They have little autonomous time gaming or heavy compilations. So they have to be plugged in - they still are not great as a desktop gaming station, though.
I personally use a 'gaming' laptop as the default work computer (it's over 3.7kg w/o the charger which is another 600g)
A low end mirrorless camera is a fantastic webcam -- the only problem is it's clunky to set up that way especially on the software end. If you made one that's plug and play I would buy it.
Depends on who you are. "Nobody" would spend 1k+ on a desk mic, except unless you are upping e.g. your podcasting game.
I suspect a lot of vloggers, or at least wannabe, can and would easily shell out a measly 500$ for a webcam.
I agree, for a lot of people who just want to webcam mom that's going to be overkill, but if you have money, or do it professionally (I don't mean a remote work job) to the point where you are putting on makeup, investing time, often to the tune of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, its a no-brainer.
The Studio Display does have a 27" 5K P3-color monitor attached to it, which drives up the price a bit...
Seriously, though, in the context of webcams, the Studio Display is kind of a counterpoint to "just rip a camera module out of a few-year-old smartphone and it'll be terrific". That's pretty much what Apple did here, and it's rather notoriously, ah, not great. (I have one, and I think it's better than some people give it credit for, but I know I'm comparing it to Apple's laptop webcams, which have historically been pretty terrible.)
Sadly, Apple's laptop webcams are still way better than the ones in competitors. I used an HP Spectre from 2020 or so and it had literally the worst digital camera I have ever seen, including the 90s. It's pinhole sized, and it made a brightly lit room look like a closet at midnight while being grainier than off-brand film. They might as well not have bothered.
I am reminded of the story of two economists walking down the street. One spots a $20 bill on the sidewalk points it out to the other, who says "Don't be ridiculous, if there really were a $20 bill on the ground someone would have picked it up by now."