Not your fault… I’m not screaming at you, the owner of this channel but screaming at Canon. *** Why not have the /@#$% cards show up on the desktop like disks!?!? Just like they would if the cards were plugged into a card reader. *** There… I’m done. I feel better now,
I tried to use the R5C as a webcam and sadly found out over USB c It is limited to under HD. No idea what the point is of advertising webcam capabilities when it's going to look that crap lol😅
To start with, the webcam functions that got added to Canon's cameras are all products of the pandemic. With people working from home and having to use Zoom and what not for meetings, Canon (like all the other camera makers) added webcam capabilities to their cameras. The feed in the R5 (and by extension the R5C) is a hack, pure and simple. It's the live view feed, that never was intended to be used for that purpose, it's high enough resolution for the EOS Utility's live view window to show you what the camera is seeing. Using that was the fastest way they could get webcam functionality into the camera in a short time in 2020. That said, regarding quality, you obviously haven't looked many webcams, as there are a lot out there that are absolute trash. Many advertise full HD, but there are a ton of both webcams and USB capture sticks, that at best send a 720p feed (sometimes up-scaled poorly) instead of an actual 1080p feed. And in any event, the R5/R5C will likely have better glass than most webcams anyway. Moreover, for a webcam, resolution really isn't that important, especially if you're just being squished into a grid of other people in a zoom meeting. As for the marketing... Ultimately, it was marketed, and it continues to be listed in the features list because it's there. When push comes to shove, not all marketing is intended to be a core driver for product sales, sometimes you just have to tell people that something they own (or are looking at) does something. Though I would point out, that on at least Canon USA's R5C page, the webcam function isn't listed in the features or description text.
@@SamA-kl6pi I'm not saying it looks like crap I'm saying limiting the resolution and aspect ratio to something akin to a 2003 smartphone is kind of pointless.
@@PointsInFocus yeah I totally understand what you're saying about the glass making the image still look better. I prefer using a capture card and tweaking the settings myself. That is a interesting history about the camera as a webcam thing. I found it shocking that I could not control my R5C with my phone in video mode. The Panasonic GH5 I bought 5 years earlier was fully capable and gave me a live view on my cell phone. I understand there is no perfect camera. I of course am not asking for that. However, when canon sells a video camera accessory for over $1,000 to solve the problem I just realize they are different companies with different marketing teams. Canons selling extremely overpriced accessories. 😂
Switch it in to photo mode, and you can remote control the R5C... for pictures at least. The R5/R5 mark 2 can be controlled that way in both photo and video modes. Though at least in the case of the R5, the WiFi performance is awful. The problem here is that the Cinema EOS OS that the R5C runs wasn't written the market the camera's been adopted by (e.g. you and me). It was written for Canon's Cinema and Pro video cameras and their users. That means is that the standards for reliability and functionality are, arguably, higher. The short of it is that the WiFi chip and the associated antennas in the R5 (and by extension the R5C) are pretty bad. I got barely 40 Mbps in the best case, and more usually 30 Mbps on 2.4Ghz and only ~3 Mbps on 5GHz. And that was within 10 feet of a good consumer AP (I've since replaced my wifi gear with some SMB/Enterprise grade hardware and the speeds are the same). Go any further away, add any obstacles or any RF noise, and the performance is going to be so low that it's not going to be usable... which is probably a big part of why the R5C requires the WiFi grip for wireless in video mode; better antenna, better chip, dedicated battery (which means less load on the already power constrained camera). Being able to occasionally get 40 Mbps isn't good enough to reliably stream video to a video village or director's monitor. Yea, it may be fine for you and your smartphone, and you may not care that it drops out or gets pixelated, but that doesn't fly in a production situation. And that's ignoring the latency problem, which is a big part of why everybody who does off camera monitoring uses purpose built RF hardware for it.
Not your fault… I’m not screaming at you, the owner of this channel but screaming at Canon. *** Why not have the /@#$% cards show up on the desktop like disks!?!? Just like they would if the cards were plugged into a card reader. ***
There… I’m done. I feel better now,
I tried to use the R5C as a webcam and sadly found out over USB c It is limited to under HD. No idea what the point is of advertising webcam capabilities when it's going to look that crap lol😅
To start with, the webcam functions that got added to Canon's cameras are all products of the pandemic. With people working from home and having to use Zoom and what not for meetings, Canon (like all the other camera makers) added webcam capabilities to their cameras.
The feed in the R5 (and by extension the R5C) is a hack, pure and simple. It's the live view feed, that never was intended to be used for that purpose, it's high enough resolution for the EOS Utility's live view window to show you what the camera is seeing. Using that was the fastest way they could get webcam functionality into the camera in a short time in 2020.
That said, regarding quality, you obviously haven't looked many webcams, as there are a lot out there that are absolute trash. Many advertise full HD, but there are a ton of both webcams and USB capture sticks, that at best send a 720p feed (sometimes up-scaled poorly) instead of an actual 1080p feed. And in any event, the R5/R5C will likely have better glass than most webcams anyway. Moreover, for a webcam, resolution really isn't that important, especially if you're just being squished into a grid of other people in a zoom meeting.
As for the marketing... Ultimately, it was marketed, and it continues to be listed in the features list because it's there. When push comes to shove, not all marketing is intended to be a core driver for product sales, sometimes you just have to tell people that something they own (or are looking at) does something. Though I would point out, that on at least Canon USA's R5C page, the webcam function isn't listed in the features or description text.
If you tink the r5 c looks like crap which mirrorless camera is better?
@@SamA-kl6pi I'm not saying it looks like crap I'm saying limiting the resolution and aspect ratio to something akin to a 2003 smartphone is kind of pointless.
@@PointsInFocus yeah I totally understand what you're saying about the glass making the image still look better. I prefer using a capture card and tweaking the settings myself.
That is a interesting history about the camera as a webcam thing. I found it shocking that I could not control my R5C with my phone in video mode.
The Panasonic GH5 I bought 5 years earlier was fully capable and gave me a live view on my cell phone. I understand there is no perfect camera. I of course am not asking for that. However, when canon sells a video camera accessory for over $1,000 to solve the problem I just realize they are different companies with different marketing teams. Canons selling extremely overpriced accessories. 😂
Switch it in to photo mode, and you can remote control the R5C... for pictures at least. The R5/R5 mark 2 can be controlled that way in both photo and video modes. Though at least in the case of the R5, the WiFi performance is awful.
The problem here is that the Cinema EOS OS that the R5C runs wasn't written the market the camera's been adopted by (e.g. you and me). It was written for Canon's Cinema and Pro video cameras and their users. That means is that the standards for reliability and functionality are, arguably, higher.
The short of it is that the WiFi chip and the associated antennas in the R5 (and by extension the R5C) are pretty bad. I got barely 40 Mbps in the best case, and more usually 30 Mbps on 2.4Ghz and only ~3 Mbps on 5GHz. And that was within 10 feet of a good consumer AP (I've since replaced my wifi gear with some SMB/Enterprise grade hardware and the speeds are the same). Go any further away, add any obstacles or any RF noise, and the performance is going to be so low that it's not going to be usable... which is probably a big part of why the R5C requires the WiFi grip for wireless in video mode; better antenna, better chip, dedicated battery (which means less load on the already power constrained camera).
Being able to occasionally get 40 Mbps isn't good enough to reliably stream video to a video village or director's monitor. Yea, it may be fine for you and your smartphone, and you may not care that it drops out or gets pixelated, but that doesn't fly in a production situation.
And that's ignoring the latency problem, which is a big part of why everybody who does off camera monitoring uses purpose built RF hardware for it.