What innovations in smartphone cameras have transferred to DSLR cameras?

Fujifilm camera Remote app alternative

There are absolutely a few features on DSLRs and other u201crealu201d cameras that might be inspired by smartphones.

However, Iu2019m not ready to credit (or blame) smartphones to creeping featurism in DSLRs too much.

In part, because most of the DSLR companies have been pretty slow to adopt or adapt new features u2014 youu2019re going to look at mirrorless cameras for that.

DSLR evolution has been more conservative.

,But aside from hardware innovations, you have to consider than a smartphone isnu2019t just your camera.

Itu2019s your camera and your PC, when it comes to digital photo delivery.

So most of the software features in smartphones didnu2019t originate on the smartphone, but have been adapted from similar functions in desktop photo processing software like Photoshopu2026 including actual mobile Photoshop on a phone if you want it.

When a new feature creeps into a DSLR or, for that matter, any actual camera, can we really credit last yearu2019s smartphone if the same feature was substantially there in last decadeu2019s Photoshop?,The Global Positioning System ChipSo onto hardware! A big one is GPS technology.

The FCC in the USA, in 2010, amended the enhanced 911 (E911) rules to require all phones to be able to report their location to first responders within 50 feet, by 2018.

In Europe, a similar capability called Advanced Mobile Location (AML) started rolling out in 2014, maybe even earlier, and was supported as standard in Android Gingerbread and subsequent releases.

And even before the requirements, the recess pressure by law enforcement on manufacturers to include accurate tracking, and by customers demanding turn by turn SatNav features in their smartphones.

This meant that a billion and a half or so GPS radio receivers were put into smarphones every year, dramatically driving down the price of these chips.

So their inclusion in cameras, pretty common these days, is a direct result of the pricing power of the smartphone industry.

,Though in this case, as shown in the photo, DSLR users got a jump-start on lower priced cameras.

GPS modules were available for most DSLRs as accessory items, long before they were becoming standard as built-ins.

,There are still some arguments to be made against built-in GPS.

These receivers are pulling in very, very weak signals, and they run some complex calculations, so a GPS device takes power away from your photos.

They also require a non-metallic window for the antenna, which has lead to many cameras employing polycarbonate top decks, where they might otherwise have used aluminum or magnesium alloy.

,Wireless Photo AccessThere have been various options in DSLR lines for remote triggering the camera, and some of those have been traditionally wireless.

And certainly a WiFi connection to a camera can do that as a built-in, as well as allowing access to controls, photos, etc.

,But this does seems to be at least in a big part inspired by smartphone photo apps.

And of course, the network immediacy and ubiquity of the smartphone makes it a perfectly reasonable thing to transfer photos from a camera to a phone, for viewing, storage, or uploads.

And this, like the GPS, hasnu2019t simply remained at the DSLR level, but moved into compact point and shoot models as well.

,Motion/Leveling SensorsSmartphones have been using 3D motion sensors for quite some time.

These have been used for things as mundane as detecting screen orientation to as clever as assisting panorama shots (putting less demand on the stitching software) to image stabilization.

,Image stabilization itself is older than smartphone, but one place that might have some smartphone influence are sensors for camera position.

It wasnu2019t that long ago I had these little bubble level things that slipped into a camera shoe.

Nowadays, I just look at the level indicators in my viewfinderu2026.

ok, this is on Olympus mirrorless cameras, but lots of current DSLRs have in-camera level indicators as well.

This is another technology made cheap by billions of smartphones.

,Computational Photography, A Little BitSmartphones have introduced computational photography options some time ago u2014 as mentioned, the smartphone isnu2019t just your camera, itu2019s your computer for a great deal of whatever image processing takes place on cellphone shots.

Thereu2019s a larger CPU on a phone than a DSLR, more DRAM, and more of a need for u201cmagicu201d to improve the image of the tiny smartphone camera modules.

So we got multi-shot HDR as a standard feature on phones quite awhile back.

Of course, DSLRs go back even further offering automatic exposure bracketing mode, which is an essential behind-the-scenes prerequisite to this sort of multi-shot mode.

Itu2019s actually hard to get a good shot on a smartphone without using HDR in many cases, because of the limited sensor.

The DSLR HDR modes, on the other hand, are rarely worth usingu2026 just stick with the bracked shots.

,So my Olympus cameras have some u201ccomputationalu201d modes, while not necessarily derived from phones, could fall under the general idea of u201conce you think about on-camera computing as phones do it, you wonu2019t unthink that when you go to your job at Olympus, Nikon, Sony, etc.

u201d So my Pen F has color and monochrome film emulations built-inu2026 Fujifilm does similar things.

Again, this was on the desktop first, this specific idea may be more inspired by DxO FlimPack or other film emulations, of course.

,The Camera That Actually is a Child of the SmartphoneItu2019s not a DSLR.

Not really even closeu2026 but its manufactuer would like you to accept it as a replacement for a DSLR.

,This is the Light L16u2026 the u201c16u201d is actually the number of tiny, cellphone-class cameras built into this thing.

Itu2019s got five wide-angle cameras, five short telephoto cameras, and six long telephoto cameras.

,And just as smartphones are increasingly dependent on software tricks for their photo quality, this one is that.

On steroiods.

Itu2019s doing exposure fusion from up to ten photos at once.

Itu2019s doing parallax analysis to build depth maps and create u201cfake bokehu201d, just as HTC and Huawei did a few years back, and now pretty much every flagship camera must do.

Itu2019s using multiple fixed focal length cameras to simulate zoom.

,But fundamentally, thereu2019s no particular reason for a DSLR to do any of these things.

I do multi-shot photos for various reasons all the timeu2026 but Iu2019ve got photoshop.

I can mess with a photo for an hour on a six-core i7 processor with 64GB RAM (Iu2019m typing on this PC right now).

If my camera had tiny portable versions of these functions built-in, Iu2019d never use them.

They just would not do what I can do u201cin post,u201d and I have no compelling reason to attempt these things in the field and lose the use of my camera for a minute of more while the computations run.

,Things Not Directly Smartphone Related: TouchscreensSo ok, touchscreens have been in cellphones since the IBM Simon in 1992.

The Apple Newton, the device that actually coined the term u201cPDAu201d was released in 1993, with a touchscreen.

However, for most PDAs, their use of fine wire resistive technology and, to an extent, a simplified desktop-like UI model, pretty much mandated a stylus.

And several PDA families, such as Palm and Microsoft PocketPC, evolved into some of the first true smartphones, bringing that screen technology forward.

,This resistive technology was invented in 1977.

And even before phones and other small devices, the Computer Aided Design flirted with various sorts of screen-oriented input, with touch, lightpens, stylus, and other ideas.

It really didnu2019t work very well for a desktop device, for one simply reason: holding your whole arm out in front of you is very tiring to do for 6u201312 hours a day.

So they left this idea behind.

,However, plenty of other devices used touchscreen technology.

In the 1980s, custom touchscreens were added to computers to create various point-of-sale systems.

This is where many people initially encountered a touch screen, and quite a few modern POS systems still use touchscreen.

SatNav devices introduced in the early 2000s used finger-capable touchscreens.

,Before there were digital still cameras, there were other electronic cameras: camcorders.

Camcorders started adopting touch screen technology in the early 2000s, possibly earlier.

It was the move to somewhat larger screens, smaller overall cameras, and more functions that started moving manual controls onto menus instead.

,Naturally, smartphones, SatNavs, tablets, cameras, camcorders, home control systems, POS Kiosks, laptops, and many other things have seen the benefit of advances in touchscreen technology.

Theyu2019ve evolved together as the tech improves, but you canu2019t really say that one begat the other.

,Things Not Directly Smartphone Related: BatteriesIn 1983, the year the AMPS analog cellular system was introduced in the USA, Sony introduced the first portable camcorder, the BMC-100P, which ran from a NiCAD battery pack.

,Battery technology has been pushed hard by any number of industries.

The first regular production of small NiCAD batteries in the USA was 1946, and these were used in a variety of applications over the years, from toys to, eventually, portable computers.

Early work on NiMh batteries was being pushed by Volkswagen and Daimler-Benz, for use in automobiles.

Some of the first applications were in satellites.

And these moved to replace NiCAD batteries in all sorts of portable devices, especially laptops, in the 1990s.

And finally, Lithium-ion cells proved an increased energy density for all sorts of portable devices.

,Naturally, the huge volumes of batteries used in smartphones has helped lower the cost of batteries used in other applications.

But thatu2019s the technology, itu2019s not as if actual phone batteries are used in todayu2019s DSLRs.

,Things Not Directly Smartphone Related: MicrodisplaysFor quite some time, phones were using basic black and white transflexive LCD displays.

These same sort of LCD displays were starting to replace EL and LED displays in the 1980s, mainly due to their lower power and eventually lower cost.

,The big push for color LEDs in the 1980s had been for portable computer displays.

The first laptops, like the Tandy 100, had this same sort of simple LCD display, as did most of the other early 1980s laptops.

,The first BMC-100P actually had an optical viewfinder, and didnu2019t play back.

Very early camcorders usually had mini CRT displays, usually monochrome, rather than LCD.

But LCDs were incorporated internally, then as swing-out alternatives.

,Smartphones have certainly pushed the resolution of microdisplays.

But thatu2019s actually not a huge issue for DSLRs, more of a mirrorless camera thing.

The typical DSLR has about u201c1 milion dotsu201d on the external screen, but a u201cdotu201d in camera speak is a subpixel.

So thatu2019s 1/3 million pixels, aka, about 640x480.

Only a very few mirrorless offer more than 2.

5 million dots in the viewfinder.

Meanwhile, there are UHD smartphone screens.

So the smartphone has certainly pushed this technology forwardu2026.

itu2019s just that cameras, for the most part, have yet to follow.

,Things Not Directly Smartphone Related: Art FiltersEveryone knows the Art Filters in apps like Instagram and Snapchat.

And sure, some DSLRs have had similar things, though primarily consumer-market cameras.

Olympus was putting Art Filters into Four Thirds System cameras years before Instagram when online in 2010.

,And of course, this kind of function was in photo editors long before either DSLRs or smartphones were much of a thing.

I was still shooting on film and scanning when I first used this sort of thing, in a couple of photo editors that preceeded my moving to Photoshop in 1994 or so (Photoshop 3.

0).

,Of course, Photoshop made plug-ins a thing, so you could add new effects.

And theirs were more oriented to real art photography than, say, putting animal faces on people (not that you couldnu2019t).

The idea of some kind of art filter has grown over the years, developing a bit differently on cameras, desktop, and phone, based on their reaonable use-cases.

,Things Not Directly Smartphone Related: Panorama ModeNow, Iu2019m not certain if any DSLR actually has a panorama mode, but certainly consumer-oriented compact cameras do.

While there are certainly DSLRs made for consumers, the trend in DSLR photography is for manufacturers to add in features that actually help capture the image in the field.

Not things that will look dramaticaly better done in PC software than on the phone.

,I was actually thinking that Panorama Mode might well have been pushed hard by smartphone software in the early days.

I thought back to my first serious panoramas or composites, hand-stitched in Photoshop, back when I was scanning film, but even more when I had my second digital camera, the 2.

6 megapixel Canon Pro90IS in 2001.

,And hereu2019s the thing: the Pro90IS had a built-in panorama mode.

I never used it, because it was terrible, but it was there.

Yes, smartphones existed in 2001, but it would be about a decade before smartphone camera sensors and software started getting comparable results to compact digital point and shoot cameras.

I donu2019t know of any phone with panorama mode in 2001.

Photoshop didnu2019t yet, either, but specialty software already did, and it wasnu2019t long before that was a standard function any photo editing function (Lightroom still does it much better than Photoshop).

Fujifilm app failed to connect

Kodak,,Kodak has finally formalised what had been expected for years - its gone bankrupt.

In the past 15 years, digital technology changed photography dramatically, and Kodak, a former heavyweight in the analog film business, got left behind.

n nThats the story of Kodak in the broadest of strokes, though it doesnt capture the full (if youll forgive me) picture.

In fact, Kodak missed the boat on digital not once, but at least three times.

Besides never capitalising on the digital-camera tech it helped create, Kodak also gravely misunderstood the new ways consumers wanted to interact with their photos, the technologies involved, and the market forces surrounding them.

,Its sad because they still have good people there, says Jeffrey Hayzlett, who was Kodaks chief marketing officer from 2006 until 2010.

Overall the company has made a bunch of bets on technologies and business models that needed a longer runway than they had.

,The recent economic downturn was a factor in Kodaks demise, though other companies managed to weather it without going bankrupt.

The truth is that by the time Kodak had both feet fully in the digital game, it had been outclassed by more nimble competitors with better products.

And whenever Kodak took a shot at standing out, it was a swing and a miss.

Now that its completely struck out, it bears reflecting on how deeply Kodak misunderstood consumer photography today, and the digital and social forces transforming it:,Miss 1: digital cameras n nIts no exaggeration to say Kodak invented digital photography.

In 1975 Kodak engineer Steve Sasson created the first digital camera, which took photos with 10,000 pixels, or 0.

01 megapixels - about a hundredth of the resolution that low-end cameraphones have today.

Kodak didnt stop there; it worked extensively on digital, patenting numerous technologies, many of which are built into the digital cameras of today.

(Kodaks primary asset is its intellectual property, which some estimates value at $US2 billion.

) n n If you want to point back to the most pivotal moment that caused this, says Hayzlett, it was back in 1975 when they discovered the digital camera and put it back into a closet.

Some of the same people are still there.

I actually had an executive from Kodak come up to me last week and say, I think films coming back.

n nIn 1995 the company brought its first digital camera to market, the DC40.

This was years before many others would get into the digital game, but Kodak never took advantage of its early start.

Philisophically, the company was steeped in the film business, and to embrace digital meant cannibalising its own business.

Others quickly filled the niche, and Kodak didnt fully rev up its digital business until 2001, when it launched the EasyShare line of point-and-shoot cameras.

n nIts a classic business strategy problem, says Miriam Leuchter, editor of Popular Photography.

Their whole business was tied up in film and in printing.

So while theyre developing this business technology, theres not a big incentive to push it very far.

,While Kodak was slow to get into the digital game, it wasnt the only one.

Perennial rival Fujifilm tiptoed as well, not coming out with the FinePix line of point-and-shoots until 2001, so Kodak still had a chance.

However, despite having created the category, Kodak digital cameras werent anything special.

They didnt have any standout specs or features, and their designs werent as eye-catching other manufacturers models.

n nThey just werent as good, says Leuchter.

And the cameras themselves werent that appealing.

Consumers like products that look cool, and [many] Kodak products just do not look cool.

Theyre bulky, theyre hunky, theyre dorky looking.

They had a couple of good EasyShare cameras a couple of years ago, but they werent as good as a lot of the point-and-shoots from other companies.

,Those rivals - including Fujifilm, Nikon, Sony, Canon and others - kept innovating over the years with features like face detection, smile detection, and in-camera red-eye fixes, and Kodak, while it put out competent products, was always following feature trends, never leading them.

n nThe fact that Kodak invented the digital camera makes what is happening now particularly tragic, says photographer Steve Simon, author of The Passionate Photographer.

For the last few years I would see Kodak at photo trade shows and on the big billboard at Times Square and I would wonder to myself, who exactly are they now and what exactly are they doing? If a photographer has to ask that, you know they have a problem.

, nMiss 2: photo sharing n nKodak actually had one shot at creating a truly novel and useful feature for digital cameras: the company launched the worlds first wi-fi enabled camera in 2005, the EasyShare-One.

The camera came equipped with a special card (separate from the SD card) that, when engaged, could connect to a nearby Wi-Fi network.

The user could then email photos to friends straight from the camera.

n nI reviewed the camera for Sound+Vision magazine, and, while it was bulky and had a cumbersome way of using the wi-fi, it worked as promised.

Emailing photos was a relatively simple task (aside from the initial inputting of addresses), and since few people were securing their wi-fi networks with passwords in 2005, finding an open hotspot was surprisingly easy in urban environments.

n nNonetheless, the camera failed to sell well, and Kodak killed the line.

However, if the company had the foresight to realise sharing was going to become the way people interacted with their photos, it might have thought twice.

The year the EasyShare-One came out was the same year a group of engineers founded Eye-Fi, which has gone on to create a successful business around wi-fi-enabled SD cards for cameras - virtually the exact same concept Kodak abandoned.

n n Photo sharing is the killer app today, says Hayzlett.

Theres nothing that beats it.

The issue is they built a wi-fi camera well before its time, and really the application needs to be on a phone.

n nSharing via the web is by far the biggest way people use their photos, though, and Kodak seemingly got into the game reasonably early with its purchase of the Ofoto service in 2001 (Snapfish, now owned by HP, was founded in 2000).

It took Kodak four years to relaunch the service as Kodak EasyShare Gallery, though, a huge amount of time that saw the emergence of Flickr, Picasa, Photobucket and others.

Although EasyShare got good reviews for a while, the buzz surrounding its competitors was too loud for it to make any noise.

n nAnd lets not forget mobile phones, which not only helped murder Kodaks digital camera business (along with everyone elses - right, Flip?), but also made photos social.

While it would be expecting too much of Kodak to have created novel apps like Instagram or PicPlz, it was a virtual non-presence in mobile apps (no, SmileMaker doesnt count), which cemented the companys irrelevance in the way people experience photos today.

There are no Kodak moments in mobile.

,Miss 3: photo viewing n n Kodak bet big on digital photo frames and photo printers, though it didnt anticipate the market forces at work in each field.

When Kodak began pushing hard into frames - with differentiating features like wi-fi and batteries (most frames only work when plugged in) - prices were in free-fall, and digital frames were rapidly becoming a commodity market, with thin margins.

n nThats a very tough business to make money in, if you can make it at all, says Hayzlett.

Everybody wants the best quality for free, basically.

n nAt the same time, Kodak frames were still hampered by the necessity to tie into the companys photo services, and the setup was much more technically cumbersome than the average person was willing to endure (if youve ever set up a wi-fi frame, youve probably wished Apple would enter the market so it would just work).

Competing against value brands and other heavy hitters such as HP and Sony, Kodak frames only marginally stood out, and the company couldnt make any substantial money on them.

n nThe field of photo printing, which Kodak is expected to emphasise if it emerges from bankruptcy, experienced a total transformation over the last decade.

Everyone outside of professional photographers used to get prints of all their pictures out of necessity, but today few print photos in any quantity.

Ever fewer want the hassle of owning a photo printer, instead choosing to get prints mailed to them from online services like Snapfish.

n nThey made a big bet on consumer imaging technology - point-and-shoots and photo printers and picture frames - at a time when people increasingly using their phones, says Leuchter.

And theyre not printing as much.

Home printers are nice, but nobodys printing.

Theyre only printing the photos they care most about.

n nA significant number of consumers do print photos, however, and the cheap-printer-as-means-to-sell-ink model is a proven model for companies to make money.

If indeed Kodak survives, it makes financial sense for it to try and continue to be a force in the business, though since prints have been demoted to an ancillary way people experience photos, the company will never become the influencer it once was by focusing on it.

,Lessons learned ,The most immediate takeaway from the fall of Kodak is clear: dont be afraid to cannibalise your own business in the name of progress.

This is seen time and again in the digital revolution: Sonys reluctance to develop a competent digital Walkman left an opening for the iPod.

Blockbuster laughed off Netflix in the early days, then went bankrupt when it couldnt compete with its web-based competitor.

And iPads may be eating up some Mac sales, but Apples bottom line is stronger than ever.

,But Kodaks inability to make any of its products stand out over the last decade is demonstrative of an overall reluctance to innovate.

Certainly, if you asked Kodak executives in the early 2000s if they were committed to innovation, they would have answered yes, but real innovation requires risk and vision.

You dont kill all wi-fi cameras just because the first model got a lukewarm response from the market - that is, if you really believe in the core idea.

n nThe story of Kodaks downfall is an affirmation that true innovative spirit is much more often found in smaller companies and startups rather than old-school behemoths of yesteryear.

After all, if you dont have much to lose, you tend to make many more all-in bets.

But, as Kodak has shown, if you do nothing but play it safe, the cost just to stay in the game will whittle you down until youve got nothing left.

,n n-via http://www.

stuff.

co.

nz/technology/6305255/How-Kodak-squandered-every-single-digital-opportunity-it-had

FUJIFILM app for Android

There are several ways to digitize your photos.

The simplest way would be to take a photo of your photo with a cellphone (there are apps made just for that purpose, like Heirloom for Android or Pic Scanner for iOs).

You can also digitize them with digital camera under a good, diffused light.

If you want better quality, you can scan them in a flatbed scanner or get them to a photo lab to do the scanning for you.

How to transfer photos from FUJIFILM camera to phone

What on earth makes you think Canon u201cforbadeu201d their users from using their cameras as webcams? Have you actually ever used a professional still camera as a web camera? Do you know anyone who has?,I have five Olympus MILCs, one Olympus P&S, one Panasonic P&S, one Fujifilm MILC, one Nikon MILC, and two Panasonic camcorders that can shoot at least 1080p video.

I have never once considering using one as a webcam.

Back before the COVID-19 pandemic made everyone need to go onto Zoom several times a day, you could buy a pretty dandy webcam for about $50.

Thatu2019s what I paid for my Logitech C920, one of the better webcams out there, designed specifically to hook into your PCu2019s video subsystem and deliver good enough video.

Itu2019s also got built-in microphones that are better than what youu2019ll find in just about any stills camera.

,And of course, most of us have selfie cameras in our phones and tablets, video conferencing (a.

k.

a.

, webcams) in our laptops.

So basically, thereu2019s been no large-scale demand for turning multi-thousand-dollar cameras into webcams.

,If I did want to put any of my video-capable cameras online, I could get easily hook them into my PC video something like the Elgato Camlink series of adapters.

This takes the HDMI output from your camera u2014 all serious video-capable cameras output clean HDMI u2014 encodes into MPEG AVC, and includes standard video capture drivers for popular operating systems.

,Now, while itu2019s true that virtually no one was thinking about using their expensive camera as a $50 webcam u2014 sure, maybe $200+ in 2020 money u2014 six months ago, most professional stills cameras can shoot tethered.

This is for in-studio use, and it means that simply, rather than record to an internal memory card, the camera can interact with an application on your PC, possibly Adobe Lightroom or Phase One Capture One, pretty much always a manufacturer-supplied application like Olympus Capture / Workspace, Canon EOS Utility, Nikon Camera Control Pro 2, Fujifilm X Acquire, Sony Imaging Edge, Pentax Tethered Capture, etc.

These tools were originally designed for still photo capture, but a few of them have evolved to support video tethering as well.

Not every camera from any manufacturer supports tethered shooting u2014 itu2019s primarily of interest to professionals, and thus, pretty much on any pro-level camera, but not necessarily on lower-end models.

Only two of my Olympus cameras support photo tethering.

,Why? Itu2019s an additional cost, building a system that can deliver photos and live video over USB in real-time u2014 itu2019s useless if slows down the professional workflow.

Even moreso if itu2019s video streaming over USB, which is dicey at best.

Professional camcorders traditionally have used Firewire rather than USB for any kind of video transfer.

USB streaming is not difficult in the USB 3.

1 era, but it wasnu2019t much of thing in the past, and largely because a manufacturer would rather not implement a feature at all than implement one poorly.

,This is how Canon was able to deliver their EOS Webcam Utility.

And now about a month later, I donu2019t even need the dongle any longer, because, like Canon, Olympus recently released a free Webcam utility, as have Fujifilm and Panasonic.

These do exactly the same thing as the Canon utility u2014 they use a camerau2019s USB tethered shooting facility and wrap a standard Windows webcam driver interface around it.

The Olympus version is called the OM-D Webcam Beta, because only OM-D series cameras support tethering.

,So yes, Canon has just announced a beta of their EOS Webcam Utility.

What you might have missed is that Canon just developed this utility in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the increased need for webcams.

As I stated, the question was not all that seriously asked in the past.

So Canon, like the other camera makers, didnu2019t really address such a fringe use of their gear.

,In unprecedented times, itu2019s imperative for Canon to provide our customers with useful, simple and accessible solutions to assist them in whatever imaging needs they have.

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.

,Tatsuro u201cTonyu201d Kano, executive vice president of the Canon U.

S.

A.

, Inc.

Imaging Technologies & Communications Group.

,Theyu2019re giving your old camera a new feature u2014 yes, a simple matter of software u2014 that most companies donu2019t offer at the moment.

Is that really a reason to attack Canon on Quora? Did you even understand what you were asking?,The software makes use of the latest version of Canonu2019s long-available tethering capability, limited I belive to models that support a proper level of video tethering and can use for a long time without causing problems.

Canon has seventeen models of DSLR, five models of mirrorless, and three compact digital/point-and-shoot models that support video tethering.

What this application basically does is interface that custom video tethering port to the standard video driver for Windows 10.

,Itu2019s not as if Canon was blocking this use, it just never came up en masse.

They published the tethering protocols to allow 3rd party companies, like Adobe, to support tethered operation.

Thereu2019s a company called SparkoSoft that makes an app called SparkoCam that does this same thing, and theyu2019ve been around some years.

Yeah, you have to buy the application, but it does seem to offer support for more Canon and, as well, Nikon cameras than the EOS Webcam utility.

,Keep in mind, too, that an ordinary digital camera may not be an ideal webcam anyway.

Yes, the video will probably be exceptional computer to even a nice webcamu2026 but will you see any difference in Google Hangouts or Zoom? Video tethering from pro cameras doesnu2019t alway include audio, either, so you still may need a mic.

Some cameras have 30 minute limits.

Older ones may actually mean it, and might overheat after 30 minutes (or less.

.

Iu2019m looking at you, Sony A7II), even when the 30 minute limit doesnu2019t apply to tethered video.

Iu2019m thinking that the short list of only 25 out of the hundreds Canon cameras is based on Canonu2019s opinion of which cameras will do this without complication.

,I guess my Canon IVsb is right out!,Read MoreCanon LivestreamCanon now lets you use its cameras as a webcam with amazing video qualityHow To Shoot Tethered Video With Your Canon DSLR And Android Tablet | Marc Schultz,FUJIFILM X WebcamLUMIX Tether for Streaming (Beta) - PanasonicOlympus OM-D Webcam Beta