This is very dishonest in the video comparison section. The Opal Camera video is using a software background blur filter (just like the one in Zoom or Hangouts) to make it look like it has a DSLR style lens with shallow depth of field. But in reality it has a tiny, crappy lens, just like every other terrible webcam.<p>Also they compare vs a $2k camera but <i>any</i> DSLR will put this thing to shame and there are much cheaper ones out there. Even a point-and-shoot pocket camera would be much better than this thing, if it supports a webcam mode (not sure if any do).<p>Despite the rigged comparison, at full resolution you can still easily tell that the video quality is nowhere near the level of the DSLR: <a href="https://opalcamera.com/compare-opal.mp4" rel="nofollow">https://opalcamera.com/compare-opal.mp4</a> <a href="https://opalcamera.com/compare-sony.mp4" rel="nofollow">https://opalcamera.com/compare-sony.mp4</a>
I like the niche that's being targeted here, and I did sign up. 300 is affordable, and who doesn't like trying new things? However, after giving my email, I scroll down to the comparison between iPhone, this, and Sony, and I'm a bit let down.<p>I'm not trying to be the one with the hot take here, but the depth of field is too shallow, the edges are fuzzy, and the colors are blown out. Perhaps the comparison would have been better between similar devices in a similar cost bracket, like a GoPro or actual higher end webcams.
The blurbs are a little bit incoherent<p>> DSLR technology on a webcam<p>> A Mirrorless Miracle<p>> 7.8mm [diagonal] sensor<p>7.8 mm diagonal is basically the ballpark of a phone camera sensor (which it almost certainly is). It's not all that obvious why you'd spent 300 $ on this instead of using a smartphone as a webcam. 300 $ also gets somewhat close to being able to buy a used low-end mirrorless camera plus lens and adapter (if necessary), which is more flexible and you get a camera for free.<p>Might be for the "can't be bothered, but have money" market, as an all-in-one-solution to get something OK without meddling?
I would rather bump up a few hundred dollars and get a DSLR that can be used as a webcam. I would guess that many of the people who care about the improvements that this $300 camera claims to have either already have a DSLR, or would like to own one.<p><a href="https://www.epiphan.com/blog/best-cameras-for-live-streaming/" rel="nofollow">https://www.epiphan.com/blog/best-cameras-for-live-streaming...</a>
Or just use your much better iPhone camera via Camo (<a href="https://reincubate.com/camo/" rel="nofollow">https://reincubate.com/camo/</a>) w/ great image tuning, etc. since you always have your phone with you and isn't yet another thing to deal with.
The Opal webcam ($300) looks fairly similar in specification to the new(ish) Dell UltraSharp webcam ($200): <a href="https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-webcam/apd/319-bbhp/pc-accessories" rel="nofollow">https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-webcam/apd/3...</a><p>What is Opal offering over the Dell webcam for the extra $100?
Well the website is down, but from the cache, the primary selling point is…<p><i>”An ƒ1.8, six-element, glass lens brings in 2.4x more light than any other webcam…With a 7.8mm, 4K Sony sensor”</i><p>…which granted, is better than other webcams. Except for the one in my pocket, on my iPhone. Which also has advanced noise-filtering technology.<p>I guess there’s a market for a fancy standalone webcam, but it cannot be huge. Most people don’t care, people who moderately care can use their smartphones with a bevy of tethering software, and if you <i>really</i> care you are probably a streamer or YouTube producer who has a real camera, like perhaps this Sony:<p><a href="https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-zv-e10-review" rel="nofollow">https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-zv-e10-review</a>
So... they're saying their product is approximately on par with an 8-year-old camera? Though the A7 video still looks better, as expected.<p>> Macbook Webcam Free <a href="https://opalcamera.com/compare-macbook.mp4" rel="nofollow">https://opalcamera.com/compare-macbook.mp4</a><p>> Opal C1 $300 <a href="https://opalcamera.com/compare-opal.mp4" rel="nofollow">https://opalcamera.com/compare-opal.mp4</a><p>> Sony A7 $2050 <a href="https://opalcamera.com/compare-sony.mp4" rel="nofollow">https://opalcamera.com/compare-sony.mp4</a><p>I don't even know where to buy the A7 now, but the A7II could be had for sub-$1k.
For an alternative you can buy right now: I am using a UC 70 (mokose 4k in the US / osybz 4k on AliExpress) it's around 170$ with surprisingly good image quality. It supports UVC, so you don't have to install drivers or "Ai enhance" bloatware. The included (CS-mount, interchangeable) lens is pretty good as well, although the widest field of view is not as wide as other webcams. No microphone though...
I wonder how this compares to the [Webex Desk Camera](<a href="https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collaboration-endpoints/webex-desk-camera/index.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collaboration-endpoin...</a>) which seems to be in a similar price point.
After much searching around for a decent webcam, I went for a Sony ZV-1. Cheaper and smaller than a DSLR setup, has Clean HDMI and good eye autofocus.<p>There's also the new ZV-E10 which adds interchangeable lenses and USB-C but it looks like they've moved the cable ports round so they obscure the screen when it's flipped out, which would be a pain.
All I see is a textual 404 page: <a href="https://archive.is/defP6" rel="nofollow">https://archive.is/defP6</a><p>[edit, later, page is up again]
They really need to proofread this page...<p>"Microphones Type: MEMs"<p>It is "MEMS" not "MEMs", micro-electromechanical system. "S" is part of the acronym...
I think it's better if I stick with my GoPro hero9, which can be used as a cam. It's the same price, but I can take it with me anywhere, film in 4k60fps and it has some stabilization software which is really good.
Quick suggestion to whoever created the website. Please enable an ability to make the video comparisons full-screen-able. I can't gauge as well how good the quality actually is unless I can scale it up.
As an alternative, I bought one of these (a competitor)<p><a href="https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/lumina-4k-webcam-look-great-on-every-call-with-ai#/" rel="nofollow">https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/lumina-4k-webcam-look-gre...</a><p>I liked in theory that it has a better picture than my current webcam, and has "auto framing", which I found great on my Facebook portal.
Looks great!<p>I have the Logitech BRIO which is quite nice for the quality. Theres this subculture that seems to have emerged where people get these super top notch mics for videoconferences now that everyone is remote, which I don't really get but this definitely seems great if not a bit overkill!
I had my cursor over the 'buy' button until I saw that their client was Mac-only, and it appears to be the only easy way to modify any of the settings. Seems a little silly to buy a webcam that I can only control with <10% of the computers I encounter on a daily basis.
I don't know too much about camera, lens... but the website UI/UX design is pretty successful, it make people the thing is cool, advanced, and willing to make a try.
I appreciate the honest side by side comparison. This seems like a god send for the light sensitive power can user but for the occasional one on one developer like me a waste
I’ll check it out, when it ships.<p>Webcams are a pain to produce. Someone here, posted a story (maybe a year or so ago), about how they wanted to make a webcam, and gave up, because logistics.