Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

Post by chongli » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 12:23 PM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #88

alibarber wrote: post #20

I also discovered that I couldn't use my Canon SLR to record more than 30 minutes of video continuously. The problem however wasn't Canon, but that I lived in a region (EU) that would have imposed a customs tariff on cameras that could do that, but by keeping it under that, the camera would be classed as a 'stills' camera and so was therefore exempt. Admittedly this is different from the case in the article - but it…

Silly restrictions aside, I feel that most use cases don't have takes longer than 30min anyway (I mean, on cameras that you actually start and stop recording manually) But yeah technology evolves and the taxes remain. (Though don't complain too much or they will just pick the higher taxes for the newer cameras)

Post by rmoriz » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 12:26 PM UTC

jwr wrote: post #250

delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #28

Is there a reason OP can't get themselves a $50 USB capture card and a $20 HDMI cable, and use OBS to capture the feed from the HDMI-out in the camera? Most decent capture cards also expose themselves as cameras to almost all applications. This is my setup, and it works perfectly. Nikon D7500 as a webcam. More professional setups use Atomos monitors with built-in NVMe drives mounted directly to the camera. I generall…

> a $50 USB capture card and a $20 HDMI cable Are there any USB-connectable capture devices that can process 4K? Everything I see tries really hard to hide the fact that while they can input 4K, they can only produce 1920x1080.

Post by School-Cotton » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 12:28 PM UTC

contrast wrote: post #198

School-Cotton wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure how this is different from what I’m saying?

The thread is about bad things because of tax policy, your post is about a good thing because of health policy - but you don’t say it’s a good thing, or that it’s about heath not taxes. The post pointing this out has different content to yours, which reads as if your meaning is “this reminds me of another bad thing caused by tax policies” - even if that’s not what you meant.

Post by brushfoot » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 12:28 PM UTC

palijer wrote: post #264

delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #28

Is there a reason OP can't get themselves a $50 USB capture card and a $20 HDMI cable, and use OBS to capture the feed from the HDMI-out in the camera? Most decent capture cards also expose themselves as cameras to almost all applications. This is my setup, and it works perfectly. Nikon D7500 as a webcam. More professional setups use Atomos monitors with built-in NVMe drives mounted directly to the camera. I generall…

This is exactly what I do. I'm also confused by this article...

Post by tjoff » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 12:29 PM UTC

brushfoot wrote: post #234

tjoff wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right too for the job most certainly is not HDMI. The video feed should (depending on usecase, sure) be compressed on the device and sent over USB. Sending uncompressed video just to be badly compressed in a capture device is most definitely not the right tool for the job.

On these cameras, HDMI is the right tool for the job. USB video quality is often poor where it's supported, and HDMI is there for video output. These cameras are not made to be webcams. OP is using theirs as one, and that's fine; I do too. But device-side compression for USB video out, a webcam app, etc. are webcam features. They come at a cost, and many camera buyers don't need them. For those of us using these came…