That’s true, although because they’re intended to run custom code the idea isn’t really to be plug and play to start with. That said, they do support on-board H264 encoding, so the result shouldn’t be overly difficult to connect to Companion. I have a personal interest in the system because I enjoy working with computer vision, so will likely be making a guide/post on how to set up Companion integration once Companion 1 is more stable, and once I’ve got some more experience with the camera(s)
That’s very possible, and is something that would need to be tested, and considered before deciding to use those cameras. That can perhaps be compensated for somewhat with frame stacking and pixel binning, but those approaches still rely on at least some light being detected, which is where larger pixels really make a difference. Then again, many scenarios already have decent lighting, and/or can use lighting from the vehicle, so low-light performance is not the only important criteria for a camera, and perhaps the other benefits can make up for that limitation in certain use-cases (especially where custom processing is important)
For general imaging I would probably agree - using IP cameras avoids the stream needing to go via the Companion computer (so doesn’t use up ports or require specific setup there), and an Ethernet Switch can be used to connect one or multiple extra cameras to the topside. That does unfortunately mean those cameras aren’t recognised by QGroundControl so need their own viewing/recording interface, but there are tradeoffs with every approach.
Interesting that you’re working on one - no doubt people will get good use out of it