Poly Studio P5chat_bubble_outlineFrom real comments

Several commenters report significant mic problems, from complete silence to muffled or tapping sounds, with one buyer finding 7 of 10 units defective. Long-term use also brought mic degradation for at least one owner.

@familiesintraumarecovery6126

Wish I had learned of the poor mic quality before purchasing. On my unit, the mic doesn't work at all. You mention the shutter not locking. I didn't see this as a problem - as from my testing, as soon as you turn the iris type shutter, the camera electronically switches off. That's what happens for me. and of course the RED light comes on. I bought this because the camera and microphone were bad on the Lenova T480s laptop. I can't see how organizations are able to sell laptops as a workhorse, when it functions poorly on a video conference. However, this Poly Studio P5 does have an excellent camera for it's price. Thanks for the review.launch

smart_display

December 14, 2023

@petercourt5773

I've had this for about three years. Very flaky software. I've had to reinstall the software many times due to crashes. And now my microphone has the same problem. Lousy product. Avoid.launch

smart_display

September 12, 2023

@technomyke

I had a sample unit and its mic had worked really well. it didn't sound anything like your example. So I ordered 10 of these. However, 7 of the 10 either mic didn't work, either tapping the unit could be hear, or the mic would barely hear us. i reached out to poly for support and it was really painful and still haven't gotten any replacements. badlaunch

smart_display

April 28, 2023

@smilly9

Good review, rather highlights what I suspected about the microphone being awful.launch

smart_display

January 16, 2023

Multiple users describe the lens-cover ring as loose with little friction, meaning it can turn accidentally and cut the video feed. The on-contact is described as narrow, so light touches can disconnect the picture.

@janierickson9577

The lens will only \"open\" when the shutter ring is locked in the open position. That's where the switch/connector sits. Even though the shutter is almost fully open, it will not work until the ring is locked in place.launch

smart_display

October 20, 2022

@Familienlarsen

I will add this to your \"review\", after testing the webcam myself IRL:\n\nThe lens-cover mechanism (the turning ring, blocking the image).\n- it is \"Loose\" (dust will enter, in some time - ruining the image).\n- the \"ON\" setting, during the turn of the ring \"is very short\" - so, if by accident one touches the ring, it can/will turn off the image.\n- \"friction\" is non-existing - the ring can be turned without any force! and shakes will be able to \"turn off\" the image!\n- all making it completely useless for streaming-conferencing-etc.\n\nThe mount:\n- it has NO adjustments up/downwards, and sideways (the angle).\n- one can only \"turn\" the camere around (the market-hyped \"360-degrees\").\n- it has to be angled by loosening/tightning the mount (and this is \"limited\", because of the small front-footprint of the mount).\n\nThe Image - in low-light:\n- it is very noisy. Actually more than a standard chinese webcam costing 30euro!\n- it doesn't at all live up to the reviews. Indicating, that the reviews are false / paid / cheating!\n\nThe Software:\n- are buggy, are bed designed - and looks like a \"beta/test version\", here in march-2022, appr. 1½ years after release!\n- the zooming-etc only works sometimes!\n- the \"basic setting-parameters\" aren't functioning correctly: For instance, contrast adjustment works like a strange combination of brightness-gamma-filter-and-contrast! (and is therefore UNUSABLE).\n\nOverall:\n- this webcam is not worth more than appr. 30-euro. In terms of picture-quality.\n- the extra usb-connection inside, is a plus - but, a usb-3 hub can add usb-ports much better and simpler (without breaking a plastic-piece of a much too expensive webcam!!).launch

smart_display

March 26, 2022

@Familienlarsen

Low-Light: At around 6:50-7:00 you indicate/\"show\", how it performs in a \"low-to-no light\" environment.\n\nI did now get the Poly-5 - and STRANGELY the low-light image-\"properties\" (the way the sensor creates noise, and the way the built-in SW-processing works) - is so very different on my sample than what your video of a beta-sample \"indicates\" - that I wonder, if we are using the same camera model!\n[and, I also wonder, why the beta maybe works better than a production-sample does! ... and if your model has got \"Poly-5\" circuitry & sensor inside!, etc...].\n\nWhat I do get - in low-light:\n- I get a sequence of images, that resembles the old Logitech Pro 4000 images - that is: \"a plastic-image\" (that isn't \"clear\"... as if someone did enable a \"plastic-coating colour-filter\"). Both in terms of \"layers and colourizations\"!\n- and, the noise: The Poly-5 produces noticeable more noise, that our much cheaper chinese \"eMeet C970\" (that we did buy on sale, for just 30-euro!). [actually, I have to \"close my eyes or brain\" to not notice the big amount of Poly-5 noise! ... and my comparison unit do show, that I am not wrong or \"are having way to high expectations\" (comparing with a much more expensive super-camera)].\n\nI am so very disappointed - and, my comparison above show me, that this is not because of \"too high expectations\" - it is because that this Webcam doesn't at all live up to Poly's marketing hype and the biased (paid) youtube-reviews.\n\nAnd, included in my conclusion, is:\n- that Poly's software, is extremely difficult to download/find. It turned out, after intense searching, that I needed to look for their \"Poly Lens\" SW. This wasn't possible to find, from their product-page at their web-page (!!!). And, the SW is bad-designed (for instance to use the settings, one needs to maximize the window - and behaviour is also inconsistent/erratic! (now, appr. 1½ years after release!).\n- The lacking screen-\"Mount\" (a simple bend-clip): No regulation up/downwards & sidewards - only rotation. This is THE ONLY webcam out-there, I have EVER experienced such a lack from.\n- The On/Mute/Covered-Mechanism: On my sample, the \"turn-ring\" is quite loose (opposed to \"quality/friction\"), and the \"ON\" contact is very \"narrow\" (meaning, that an accidental touch will turn the webcam-image off!). This all feels embarrasingly low-quality (as in \"worse than chinese quality-standards\").\n- Conclusion: This is by-no-means i webcam worthy of a pricing around 115 euro / 129 usd! All the faults, and the mediocre / unusable low-light performance, makes it worth around ONLY 40 euro!\n\nBest way, to desctibe this webcam: A design-webcam! With focus on being \"smart\". Like a superp looking car, that aren't designed to drive on actual roads - helped along, by superficial design-focused VIP-reviews.launch

smart_display

March 26, 2022

@Familienlarsen

at first glance, this webcam seems to be a good alternative to the many Chinese webcams.\nwith some interesting innovative solutions.\n\nBut - in relation to the built-in \"red plastic lens block\":\n- the way the lens is closed means mechanical approach to the \"air chamber\" from which the lens receives its image.\n- ie. that dust particles-etc, can penetrate into this air-chamber, and can become \"artifacts\" in the image.\n- this can / will typically happen, within xx months or years.\nThis is NOT something you see, during a test, or 1-2 weeks after purchase - it is something that comes, quietly ... among other things. when / if an oil mass (which lubricates and closes tightly and makes the mechanism \"delicious / supple / luxurious\") solidifies, or there are \"slips\" and small gaps (when the plastic wears).\n\nAnd, if you have to be completely honest at the same time, then it is not exactly quality that you look into when you see the way the \"inner lens\" looks .... it actually does not look good.\nBut, maybe it works fine.\nI'm afraid that design and innovation here has come over longetivity.launch

smart_display

March 20, 2022

Multiple reviewers say the P5 produces noticeable noise and a 'plastic' image quality in low light, sometimes worse than much cheaper webcams. One direct comparison rated it below a Logitech C920.

@Familienlarsen

I will add this to your \"review\", after testing the webcam myself IRL:\n\nThe lens-cover mechanism (the turning ring, blocking the image).\n- it is \"Loose\" (dust will enter, in some time - ruining the image).\n- the \"ON\" setting, during the turn of the ring \"is very short\" - so, if by accident one touches the ring, it can/will turn off the image.\n- \"friction\" is non-existing - the ring can be turned without any force! and shakes will be able to \"turn off\" the image!\n- all making it completely useless for streaming-conferencing-etc.\n\nThe mount:\n- it has NO adjustments up/downwards, and sideways (the angle).\n- one can only \"turn\" the camere around (the market-hyped \"360-degrees\").\n- it has to be angled by loosening/tightning the mount (and this is \"limited\", because of the small front-footprint of the mount).\n\nThe Image - in low-light:\n- it is very noisy. Actually more than a standard chinese webcam costing 30euro!\n- it doesn't at all live up to the reviews. Indicating, that the reviews are false / paid / cheating!\n\nThe Software:\n- are buggy, are bed designed - and looks like a \"beta/test version\", here in march-2022, appr. 1½ years after release!\n- the zooming-etc only works sometimes!\n- the \"basic setting-parameters\" aren't functioning correctly: For instance, contrast adjustment works like a strange combination of brightness-gamma-filter-and-contrast! (and is therefore UNUSABLE).\n\nOverall:\n- this webcam is not worth more than appr. 30-euro. In terms of picture-quality.\n- the extra usb-connection inside, is a plus - but, a usb-3 hub can add usb-ports much better and simpler (without breaking a plastic-piece of a much too expensive webcam!!).launch

smart_display

March 26, 2022

@Familienlarsen

Low-Light: At around 6:50-7:00 you indicate/\"show\", how it performs in a \"low-to-no light\" environment.\n\nI did now get the Poly-5 - and STRANGELY the low-light image-\"properties\" (the way the sensor creates noise, and the way the built-in SW-processing works) - is so very different on my sample than what your video of a beta-sample \"indicates\" - that I wonder, if we are using the same camera model!\n[and, I also wonder, why the beta maybe works better than a production-sample does! ... and if your model has got \"Poly-5\" circuitry & sensor inside!, etc...].\n\nWhat I do get - in low-light:\n- I get a sequence of images, that resembles the old Logitech Pro 4000 images - that is: \"a plastic-image\" (that isn't \"clear\"... as if someone did enable a \"plastic-coating colour-filter\"). Both in terms of \"layers and colourizations\"!\n- and, the noise: The Poly-5 produces noticeable more noise, that our much cheaper chinese \"eMeet C970\" (that we did buy on sale, for just 30-euro!). [actually, I have to \"close my eyes or brain\" to not notice the big amount of Poly-5 noise! ... and my comparison unit do show, that I am not wrong or \"are having way to high expectations\" (comparing with a much more expensive super-camera)].\n\nI am so very disappointed - and, my comparison above show me, that this is not because of \"too high expectations\" - it is because that this Webcam doesn't at all live up to Poly's marketing hype and the biased (paid) youtube-reviews.\n\nAnd, included in my conclusion, is:\n- that Poly's software, is extremely difficult to download/find. It turned out, after intense searching, that I needed to look for their \"Poly Lens\" SW. This wasn't possible to find, from their product-page at their web-page (!!!). And, the SW is bad-designed (for instance to use the settings, one needs to maximize the window - and behaviour is also inconsistent/erratic! (now, appr. 1½ years after release!).\n- The lacking screen-\"Mount\" (a simple bend-clip): No regulation up/downwards & sidewards - only rotation. This is THE ONLY webcam out-there, I have EVER experienced such a lack from.\n- The On/Mute/Covered-Mechanism: On my sample, the \"turn-ring\" is quite loose (opposed to \"quality/friction\"), and the \"ON\" contact is very \"narrow\" (meaning, that an accidental touch will turn the webcam-image off!). This all feels embarrasingly low-quality (as in \"worse than chinese quality-standards\").\n- Conclusion: This is by-no-means i webcam worthy of a pricing around 115 euro / 129 usd! All the faults, and the mediocre / unusable low-light performance, makes it worth around ONLY 40 euro!\n\nBest way, to desctibe this webcam: A design-webcam! With focus on being \"smart\". Like a superp looking car, that aren't designed to drive on actual roads - helped along, by superficial design-focused VIP-reviews.launch

smart_display

March 26, 2022

@paul_london

Well the P5 is definitely worse than C920 here. C920 shot just needs small white balance correction in the camera's settings.launch

smart_display

February 14, 2022

Users describe the Poly Lens software as poorly designed, difficult to locate on Poly's website, and prone to crashes requiring reinstallation. One user also reports failed software updates.

@petercourt5773

I've had this for about three years. Very flaky software. I've had to reinstall the software many times due to crashes. And now my microphone has the same problem. Lousy product. Avoid.launch

smart_display

September 12, 2023

@terrimyers3989

When I did the software update it failed. Can you figure out why? Thanks!launch

smart_display

February 23, 2023

@Familienlarsen

Low-Light: At around 6:50-7:00 you indicate/\"show\", how it performs in a \"low-to-no light\" environment.\n\nI did now get the Poly-5 - and STRANGELY the low-light image-\"properties\" (the way the sensor creates noise, and the way the built-in SW-processing works) - is so very different on my sample than what your video of a beta-sample \"indicates\" - that I wonder, if we are using the same camera model!\n[and, I also wonder, why the beta maybe works better than a production-sample does! ... and if your model has got \"Poly-5\" circuitry & sensor inside!, etc...].\n\nWhat I do get - in low-light:\n- I get a sequence of images, that resembles the old Logitech Pro 4000 images - that is: \"a plastic-image\" (that isn't \"clear\"... as if someone did enable a \"plastic-coating colour-filter\"). Both in terms of \"layers and colourizations\"!\n- and, the noise: The Poly-5 produces noticeable more noise, that our much cheaper chinese \"eMeet C970\" (that we did buy on sale, for just 30-euro!). [actually, I have to \"close my eyes or brain\" to not notice the big amount of Poly-5 noise! ... and my comparison unit do show, that I am not wrong or \"are having way to high expectations\" (comparing with a much more expensive super-camera)].\n\nI am so very disappointed - and, my comparison above show me, that this is not because of \"too high expectations\" - it is because that this Webcam doesn't at all live up to Poly's marketing hype and the biased (paid) youtube-reviews.\n\nAnd, included in my conclusion, is:\n- that Poly's software, is extremely difficult to download/find. It turned out, after intense searching, that I needed to look for their \"Poly Lens\" SW. This wasn't possible to find, from their product-page at their web-page (!!!). And, the SW is bad-designed (for instance to use the settings, one needs to maximize the window - and behaviour is also inconsistent/erratic! (now, appr. 1½ years after release!).\n- The lacking screen-\"Mount\" (a simple bend-clip): No regulation up/downwards & sidewards - only rotation. This is THE ONLY webcam out-there, I have EVER experienced such a lack from.\n- The On/Mute/Covered-Mechanism: On my sample, the \"turn-ring\" is quite loose (opposed to \"quality/friction\"), and the \"ON\" contact is very \"narrow\" (meaning, that an accidental touch will turn the webcam-image off!). This all feels embarrasingly low-quality (as in \"worse than chinese quality-standards\").\n- Conclusion: This is by-no-means i webcam worthy of a pricing around 115 euro / 129 usd! All the faults, and the mediocre / unusable low-light performance, makes it worth around ONLY 40 euro!\n\nBest way, to desctibe this webcam: A design-webcam! With focus on being \"smart\". Like a superp looking car, that aren't designed to drive on actual roads - helped along, by superficial design-focused VIP-reviews.launch

smart_display

March 26, 2022

Commenters note the mount only allows rotation with no up/down or sideways tilt adjustment, calling it a uniquely limiting design compared to other webcams they've used.

@Familienlarsen

I will add this to your \"review\", after testing the webcam myself IRL:\n\nThe lens-cover mechanism (the turning ring, blocking the image).\n- it is \"Loose\" (dust will enter, in some time - ruining the image).\n- the \"ON\" setting, during the turn of the ring \"is very short\" - so, if by accident one touches the ring, it can/will turn off the image.\n- \"friction\" is non-existing - the ring can be turned without any force! and shakes will be able to \"turn off\" the image!\n- all making it completely useless for streaming-conferencing-etc.\n\nThe mount:\n- it has NO adjustments up/downwards, and sideways (the angle).\n- one can only \"turn\" the camere around (the market-hyped \"360-degrees\").\n- it has to be angled by loosening/tightning the mount (and this is \"limited\", because of the small front-footprint of the mount).\n\nThe Image - in low-light:\n- it is very noisy. Actually more than a standard chinese webcam costing 30euro!\n- it doesn't at all live up to the reviews. Indicating, that the reviews are false / paid / cheating!\n\nThe Software:\n- are buggy, are bed designed - and looks like a \"beta/test version\", here in march-2022, appr. 1½ years after release!\n- the zooming-etc only works sometimes!\n- the \"basic setting-parameters\" aren't functioning correctly: For instance, contrast adjustment works like a strange combination of brightness-gamma-filter-and-contrast! (and is therefore UNUSABLE).\n\nOverall:\n- this webcam is not worth more than appr. 30-euro. In terms of picture-quality.\n- the extra usb-connection inside, is a plus - but, a usb-3 hub can add usb-ports much better and simpler (without breaking a plastic-piece of a much too expensive webcam!!).launch

smart_display

March 26, 2022

@Familienlarsen

Low-Light: At around 6:50-7:00 you indicate/\"show\", how it performs in a \"low-to-no light\" environment.\n\nI did now get the Poly-5 - and STRANGELY the low-light image-\"properties\" (the way the sensor creates noise, and the way the built-in SW-processing works) - is so very different on my sample than what your video of a beta-sample \"indicates\" - that I wonder, if we are using the same camera model!\n[and, I also wonder, why the beta maybe works better than a production-sample does! ... and if your model has got \"Poly-5\" circuitry & sensor inside!, etc...].\n\nWhat I do get - in low-light:\n- I get a sequence of images, that resembles the old Logitech Pro 4000 images - that is: \"a plastic-image\" (that isn't \"clear\"... as if someone did enable a \"plastic-coating colour-filter\"). Both in terms of \"layers and colourizations\"!\n- and, the noise: The Poly-5 produces noticeable more noise, that our much cheaper chinese \"eMeet C970\" (that we did buy on sale, for just 30-euro!). [actually, I have to \"close my eyes or brain\" to not notice the big amount of Poly-5 noise! ... and my comparison unit do show, that I am not wrong or \"are having way to high expectations\" (comparing with a much more expensive super-camera)].\n\nI am so very disappointed - and, my comparison above show me, that this is not because of \"too high expectations\" - it is because that this Webcam doesn't at all live up to Poly's marketing hype and the biased (paid) youtube-reviews.\n\nAnd, included in my conclusion, is:\n- that Poly's software, is extremely difficult to download/find. It turned out, after intense searching, that I needed to look for their \"Poly Lens\" SW. This wasn't possible to find, from their product-page at their web-page (!!!). And, the SW is bad-designed (for instance to use the settings, one needs to maximize the window - and behaviour is also inconsistent/erratic! (now, appr. 1½ years after release!).\n- The lacking screen-\"Mount\" (a simple bend-clip): No regulation up/downwards & sidewards - only rotation. This is THE ONLY webcam out-there, I have EVER experienced such a lack from.\n- The On/Mute/Covered-Mechanism: On my sample, the \"turn-ring\" is quite loose (opposed to \"quality/friction\"), and the \"ON\" contact is very \"narrow\" (meaning, that an accidental touch will turn the webcam-image off!). This all feels embarrasingly low-quality (as in \"worse than chinese quality-standards\").\n- Conclusion: This is by-no-means i webcam worthy of a pricing around 115 euro / 129 usd! All the faults, and the mediocre / unusable low-light performance, makes it worth around ONLY 40 euro!\n\nBest way, to desctibe this webcam: A design-webcam! With focus on being \"smart\". Like a superp looking car, that aren't designed to drive on actual roads - helped along, by superficial design-focused VIP-reviews.launch

smart_display

March 26, 2022

Commenters argue the camera is not worth its roughly 115-129 EUR/USD price, with one estimating its true value at around 30-40 euros given the flaws found.

@Familienlarsen

I will add this to your \"review\", after testing the webcam myself IRL:\n\nThe lens-cover mechanism (the turning ring, blocking the image).\n- it is \"Loose\" (dust will enter, in some time - ruining the image).\n- the \"ON\" setting, during the turn of the ring \"is very short\" - so, if by accident one touches the ring, it can/will turn off the image.\n- \"friction\" is non-existing - the ring can be turned without any force! and shakes will be able to \"turn off\" the image!\n- all making it completely useless for streaming-conferencing-etc.\n\nThe mount:\n- it has NO adjustments up/downwards, and sideways (the angle).\n- one can only \"turn\" the camere around (the market-hyped \"360-degrees\").\n- it has to be angled by loosening/tightning the mount (and this is \"limited\", because of the small front-footprint of the mount).\n\nThe Image - in low-light:\n- it is very noisy. Actually more than a standard chinese webcam costing 30euro!\n- it doesn't at all live up to the reviews. Indicating, that the reviews are false / paid / cheating!\n\nThe Software:\n- are buggy, are bed designed - and looks like a \"beta/test version\", here in march-2022, appr. 1½ years after release!\n- the zooming-etc only works sometimes!\n- the \"basic setting-parameters\" aren't functioning correctly: For instance, contrast adjustment works like a strange combination of brightness-gamma-filter-and-contrast! (and is therefore UNUSABLE).\n\nOverall:\n- this webcam is not worth more than appr. 30-euro. In terms of picture-quality.\n- the extra usb-connection inside, is a plus - but, a usb-3 hub can add usb-ports much better and simpler (without breaking a plastic-piece of a much too expensive webcam!!).launch

smart_display

March 26, 2022

@Familienlarsen

Low-Light: At around 6:50-7:00 you indicate/\"show\", how it performs in a \"low-to-no light\" environment.\n\nI did now get the Poly-5 - and STRANGELY the low-light image-\"properties\" (the way the sensor creates noise, and the way the built-in SW-processing works) - is so very different on my sample than what your video of a beta-sample \"indicates\" - that I wonder, if we are using the same camera model!\n[and, I also wonder, why the beta maybe works better than a production-sample does! ... and if your model has got \"Poly-5\" circuitry & sensor inside!, etc...].\n\nWhat I do get - in low-light:\n- I get a sequence of images, that resembles the old Logitech Pro 4000 images - that is: \"a plastic-image\" (that isn't \"clear\"... as if someone did enable a \"plastic-coating colour-filter\"). Both in terms of \"layers and colourizations\"!\n- and, the noise: The Poly-5 produces noticeable more noise, that our much cheaper chinese \"eMeet C970\" (that we did buy on sale, for just 30-euro!). [actually, I have to \"close my eyes or brain\" to not notice the big amount of Poly-5 noise! ... and my comparison unit do show, that I am not wrong or \"are having way to high expectations\" (comparing with a much more expensive super-camera)].\n\nI am so very disappointed - and, my comparison above show me, that this is not because of \"too high expectations\" - it is because that this Webcam doesn't at all live up to Poly's marketing hype and the biased (paid) youtube-reviews.\n\nAnd, included in my conclusion, is:\n- that Poly's software, is extremely difficult to download/find. It turned out, after intense searching, that I needed to look for their \"Poly Lens\" SW. This wasn't possible to find, from their product-page at their web-page (!!!). And, the SW is bad-designed (for instance to use the settings, one needs to maximize the window - and behaviour is also inconsistent/erratic! (now, appr. 1½ years after release!).\n- The lacking screen-\"Mount\" (a simple bend-clip): No regulation up/downwards & sidewards - only rotation. This is THE ONLY webcam out-there, I have EVER experienced such a lack from.\n- The On/Mute/Covered-Mechanism: On my sample, the \"turn-ring\" is quite loose (opposed to \"quality/friction\"), and the \"ON\" contact is very \"narrow\" (meaning, that an accidental touch will turn the webcam-image off!). This all feels embarrasingly low-quality (as in \"worse than chinese quality-standards\").\n- Conclusion: This is by-no-means i webcam worthy of a pricing around 115 euro / 129 usd! All the faults, and the mediocre / unusable low-light performance, makes it worth around ONLY 40 euro!\n\nBest way, to desctibe this webcam: A design-webcam! With focus on being \"smart\". Like a superp looking car, that aren't designed to drive on actual roads - helped along, by superficial design-focused VIP-reviews.launch

smart_display

March 26, 2022

One user reports the video pulsates annoyingly and that neither settings changes nor a factory reset resolved the problem.

@networth9151

Video pulsates and is really annoying. Nothing in the settings or resetting to factory seems to help. Any ideas?launch

smart_display

September 30, 2023

One user criticizes the red cable as a poor design choice that visibly distracts from the presenter during use.

@bradbeckett

The red cable was a horrible design decision as it significantly distracts from the presenter.launch

smart_display

January 20, 2022