Live data from Hacker News

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

romanzipp.com

381–390 of 665 posts

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

#381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canon's webcam software was until recently free. It was the sole reason I bought a Cabin camera. This is a rug pull.

That's upsetting, but my point is the article itself is rage bait. It's not outrageous for Canon to charge for webcam software when there's HDMI video-out on the camera.

Imagine stanning for nickel-and-diming.

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

#382

That's reminds me when I was in South East Asia a few years back and wanted to do some time lapse or series photography with my Sony Alpha a7ii. A camera that I had paid close to 2k€ for (just body, no glass). It required an app to be installed on the camera that was paid-for. Which in term required the camera to be connected to a WiFi. Imagine discovering this while on a trip in the jungle or the desert or whatever…

That's pretty wild for such a popular brand.

My panasonic G9 just has that stuff built in.

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

#383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How easy and slick this setup will be depends on the camera. For example, my camera can't operate and charge over USB at the same time, so you need a supplemental power supply. And it won't autofocus continuously or keep the exposure and white balance stable unless you're recording a video. And videos can only be so long. So I've got a HDMI-to-USB converter, a special HDMI cable, a special power brick and adaptor, a…

What camera do you have? Why can't it autofocus when its not recording? I believe you, but thats very silly.

I can force my (canon) camera to autofocus while not recording but usually you want to avoid that. It really hits the battery because the lens is permanentely adjusting.

Most mirrorless cameras a hybrids and you usually do not need this feature while takting stills.

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

#384

That's reminds me when I was in South East Asia a few years back and wanted to do some time lapse or series photography with my Sony Alpha a7ii. A camera that I had paid close to 2k€ for (just body, no glass). It required an app to be installed on the camera that was paid-for. Which in term required the camera to be connected to a WiFi. Imagine discovering this while on a trip in the jungle or the desert or whatever…

It required an app to be installed on the camera that was paid-for.

Apple had a similar situation once. I was among the thousands of people who paid Apple something like $10 to get a CD-ROM in the mail containing a single CODEC for something video-related.

Sorry for being vague, it was way back in the early days of OS X, so I can't remember exactly what the situation was. But I do know I still have the file in my archive, as I ran across it a few weeks ago.

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

#385

That's reminds me when I was in South East Asia a few years back and wanted to do some time lapse or series photography with my Sony Alpha a7ii. A camera that I had paid close to 2k€ for (just body, no glass). It required an app to be installed on the camera that was paid-for. Which in term required the camera to be connected to a WiFi. Imagine discovering this while on a trip in the jungle or the desert or whatever…

That does sound completely absurd. How many people buy apps on their high end camera? Doesn’t sound like it was worth developing an App Store for it.

The only app I’ve ever used with a camera was the Panasonic app on my GH5 for a shoot because it gave you full remote control of the settings/focus and monitoring (for free!) I find most apps for cameras are not necessary and often buggy but I get why some folks like them

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

#386
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of when lawyers successfully argued that X-Men are not human, so that their action figures would be classified as "toys" rather than "dolls" and thus charged a lower tariff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Biz%2C_Inc._v._United_Stat...

A bunch of fun articles around these areas in the UK (free to read, think you might need an account though - apologies). Two food and one toy: https://www.ft.com/content/5af5b182-349a-4a25-b4fb-4551908f2... https://www.ft.com/content/a6a54008-6059-4052-99ae-282f148f2... https://www.ft.com/content/a8d6413e-1184-4f89-9bcb-4f6cb8d7a...

FT Alphaville is such an excellent column

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

#387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of thing happens relatively often; Sony also tried (unsuccessfully) to have the PS2 deemed a personal computer (which would have lead to 0 tariffs in the EU): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yabasic#PlayStation_2

I often wonder what the ROI is on this. How much did Sony have to pay engineers to implement this interesting but seemingly pretty useless functionality vs. what it actually saved them in the aforementioned tariffs? I know the knee jerk reaction is to say it obviously saved them some money or they wouldn't have done it, but I've seen far too much corporate stupidity in my life to take that as a given. I'd love to see…

Well, in the end it didn't save them anything, because the EC didn't accept that having a toy basic interpreter made what was obviously a games console a PC. I can't imagine it was terribly expensive in the scheme of things, though.

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

#388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP didn’t claim that’s not the reason. They’re making a joke that if the camera kept recording past 30min, it would overheat. It’s a joke.

It's not a joke, older DSLR cameras would often overheat when recording continuously. My good old Canon 6D would overheat once in a while when used as a webcam with v4l2loopback.

Even as recently as the Canon R5 Mark I mirrorless camera (which you can still buy new), overheats within 15 minutes if you're recording 8K30 or 4K120.

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

#389
As a Nikon guy, I'm using my Z50 as a webcam with little fuss. I've got a fake battery that plugs into AC power -- and my output is through HDMI to an Elgato Cam link 4k.

It doesn't overheat even after hours of use (unlike most full-frame sensors), and I've got it capturing in monochrome because I just really like B&W.

And because its face/eye detect autofocus is reasonably capable -- I can keep a wide aperture/shallow depth of field, which in turn, results in beautiful bokeh... So no Teams filters to blur my background -- I'm using optics instead.

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

#390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So American and Asian consumers can pay the same price for the same device that can do more, but to protect me, the European, my device must do less? It is I the customer who will pay the tariffs (they are always paid by the importer) - the manufacturer gets the same amount per unit.

All countries have tariffs. All tariff systems classify goods in some way. On top of the fact that this is by necessity not ever absolutely accurate even initially, these classifications also lag technological development and consumer behaviour. If there is one thing the EU has absolutely achieved it is to massively reduce and harmonize tariffs and trade rules, and make the rules less susceptible to the whims of poli…

Yeah, once upon a time I lived in the mountains in Canada and bought a lot of stuff from the US because at the time the Canadian dollar was more or less at par and far cheaper down in the US. I randomly came across the fact that mountaineering equipment was tariffed at 0% because back in like 1920 Canada, like many countries, thought being the first to climb whatever mountain would bring us national glory. Anyways, I would drive down Blain, WA to a parcel shop and collect the stuff I bought online and had shipped there, drive back up and claim it was all "mountaineering" equipment. Nope, those ain't ski boots, they're mountaineering boots, and etc.

I'd still have to pay tax on it, though. IIRC there wasn't any personal exemption amount if you'd left Canada for under 24 hours, unlike they have now. Sometimes they'd just wave you through even when trying to declare something, which was always a nice little bonus savings.

Post reply on HN